Improving low end torque on 2012 Fat Boy Lo
Thread Starter
|
Intermediate
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Improving low end torque on 2012 Fat Boy Lo
I've recently upgraded to V&H Big Radius 2:2 with their stock baffles, V&H Fuelpak and an Arlen Ness Big Sucker Stage 1 cleaner on my 2012 Fat Boy Lo. I've started started paying closer attention to the bike's response and it seems that the low end torque is, well, low.
The bike's performance overall isn't poor, but it feels like it's expending more fuel getting going in first than what it's putting out in torque; as if the bike is trying to get out of it's own way to *really* get going. Second, third an even fourth feel far more responsive than first does off the line.
As a comparison, I rode a friends stock 2011 Fat Bob and it simply flies out of first (though I admit my Fat Boy looks and sounds way better
)
Any suggestions on what I should look at? I suspect (and fear) this can quickly degrade into a "get that Fuelpak off of there and go with X," but I'm hoping that some technical merits as to why the low end torque feels the way it does could be offered up. I'm not familiar enough with what can actually be tuned on the bike for given results, so input and insight into the hows and whys is greatly appreciated.
The bike's performance overall isn't poor, but it feels like it's expending more fuel getting going in first than what it's putting out in torque; as if the bike is trying to get out of it's own way to *really* get going. Second, third an even fourth feel far more responsive than first does off the line.
As a comparison, I rode a friends stock 2011 Fat Bob and it simply flies out of first (though I admit my Fat Boy looks and sounds way better
)Any suggestions on what I should look at? I suspect (and fear) this can quickly degrade into a "get that Fuelpak off of there and go with X," but I'm hoping that some technical merits as to why the low end torque feels the way it does could be offered up. I'm not familiar enough with what can actually be tuned on the bike for given results, so input and insight into the hows and whys is greatly appreciated.
Club Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 145,895
Likes: 821
From: 40 miles Northeast of Indy..
Put in some Low-Mid tq cams in her.. That will put a smile on Ur face and Ur motor will thank You...
Fuel pac for sure ain't the best it only changes Ur A/F. Doesn't tune the motor at all.
.
Fuel pac for sure ain't the best it only changes Ur A/F. Doesn't tune the motor at all.
.
Extreme HDF Member
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,359
Likes: 74
From: WI
So save your money and give it your buddy so he can do some upgrades.
I've recently upgraded to V&H Big Radius 2:2 with their stock baffles, V&H Fuelpak and an Arlen Ness Big Sucker Stage 1 cleaner on my 2012 Fat Boy Lo. I've started started paying closer attention to the bike's response and it seems that the low end torque is, well, low.
The bike's performance overall isn't poor, but it feels like it's expending more fuel getting going in first than what it's putting out in torque; as if the bike is trying to get out of it's own way to *really* get going. Second, third an even fourth feel far more responsive than first does off the line.
As a comparison, I rode a friends stock 2011 Fat Bob and it simply flies out of first (though I admit my Fat Boy looks and sounds way better)
Any suggestions on what I should look at? I suspect (and fear) this can quickly degrade into a "get that Fuelpak off of there and go with X," but I'm hoping that some technical merits as to why the low end torque feels the way it does could be offered up. I'm not familiar enough with what can actually be tuned on the bike for given results, so input and insight into the hows and whys is greatly appreciated.
The bike's performance overall isn't poor, but it feels like it's expending more fuel getting going in first than what it's putting out in torque; as if the bike is trying to get out of it's own way to *really* get going. Second, third an even fourth feel far more responsive than first does off the line.
As a comparison, I rode a friends stock 2011 Fat Bob and it simply flies out of first (though I admit my Fat Boy looks and sounds way better
)Any suggestions on what I should look at? I suspect (and fear) this can quickly degrade into a "get that Fuelpak off of there and go with X," but I'm hoping that some technical merits as to why the low end torque feels the way it does could be offered up. I'm not familiar enough with what can actually be tuned on the bike for given results, so input and insight into the hows and whys is greatly appreciated.
The stock exhaust while restrictive has a good amount of back pressure (a good thing) and more importantly a crossover system (a pipe that connects both exhaust pipes together). The V&H Big Radius 2 into 2 is NOT a crossover system and definitely lowers torque. Vance and Hines does make exhaust with crossover technology (i.e. Big Shots and what I have on my bike, Side Shots)which are designed similar to the factory exhaust which maintains torque. A 2 into 2 system while reducing torque actually increases horse power which is probably what you are feeling at higher speeds.
(torque=pickup/acceleration hp=top end speed)
Did you have the bike dyno tuned or just have a generic map loaded in the tuner.A dyno will definitively improve performance over the generic map.
I have just recently switched out my factory head pipes (with crossover) and Rush slip on mufflers for a V&H Side Shots with "Power Chamber" design (V&H's name for a crossover pipe) and I lost some bottom end too.
Lastly the V&H Fuelpak, while a good unit is somewhat limited. I bought a Power Vision http://www.dynojet.com/powervision/ that can actually tune your bike based on YOUR driving conditions. I don't believe that the Fuelpak can do this.
If you don't plan on gettting cam's etc. I would just get it dyno tuned and you will get the best performance out of the bike possible with the setup (pipes,a/c etc.) possible.
I have no experience with dyno tuning so someone more familiar with it might give better advice as to how much an improvement over your Fuelpaks map it will be.
Last edited by bulldog82098; Aug 16, 2012 at 03:27 PM.
Road Captain
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 564
Likes: 48
Had the same issue with my 2012 Fat Boy & V&H Mufflers a little diffrent set up but I think the problem was caused by the same thing. What I did to solve the problem cost me about $60.00
I just took out the factory 2" V&H baflles & installed the V&H quiet baffles there about 2 decimals quieter and have a more mid throaty sound still pretty loud. The problem was solved way better low & mid torque now & the bike still sounds great.
I have the V&H twin slash mufflers but the baffles work just like the kind you have in your pipes. I also have the stage 1 A/C unit & the HD stage 1 download & my bike runs great plus has good milage averages 42mpg.
I did have the V&H fuel pack but it shorted out so I sent it back but the bike ran so good I did not put it back on. V&H does have a map for the fuel pack & the quiet baffles and your application no problems there.
The quiet baffles may be a cost effective way to solve your issue while still making your pipes sound nice and give you that low & mid torque back. That's what the quiet baffles did for my set up and I bet money they will do the same for your set up.
Best Of Luck & Ride Safe,
Bill G
I just took out the factory 2" V&H baflles & installed the V&H quiet baffles there about 2 decimals quieter and have a more mid throaty sound still pretty loud. The problem was solved way better low & mid torque now & the bike still sounds great.
I have the V&H twin slash mufflers but the baffles work just like the kind you have in your pipes. I also have the stage 1 A/C unit & the HD stage 1 download & my bike runs great plus has good milage averages 42mpg.
I did have the V&H fuel pack but it shorted out so I sent it back but the bike ran so good I did not put it back on. V&H does have a map for the fuel pack & the quiet baffles and your application no problems there.
The quiet baffles may be a cost effective way to solve your issue while still making your pipes sound nice and give you that low & mid torque back. That's what the quiet baffles did for my set up and I bet money they will do the same for your set up.
Best Of Luck & Ride Safe,
Bill G
Last edited by Bill G; Aug 16, 2012 at 04:57 PM. Reason: spelling
I agree that the quiet baffles will add some back pressure but you can't get a 2 into 2 system to perform as well as a crossover system.
Trending Topics
Road Captain
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 564
Likes: 48
You have a good point, but the quiet baffles if available for his system may help him out a little...My system has a crossover between the two headpipes so the quiet baffles worked well.
Ride Safe,
Bill G
Last edited by Bill G; Aug 16, 2012 at 07:49 PM.
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Verdad Gallardo
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Harley-Davidson Needs to Fix in 2026
Verdad Gallardo
Thread Starter
|
Intermediate
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Is that tiny connecting tube between the pipes on the stock exhaust what's contributing to the crossover? I thought it was there purely for support and spacing.
Lastly the V&H Fuelpak, while a good unit is somewhat limited. I bought a Power Vision http://www.dynojet.com/powervision/ that can actually tune your bike based on YOUR driving conditions. I don't believe that the Fuelpak can do this.
The cam option intrigues me. Thanks for the discussion and insight, bulldog
Thread Starter
|
Intermediate
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Thanks for the insight, Bill. I'll do a little more research and see if I can get some additional feedback on the performance of the quite baffles without any crossover. I have to admit, I enjoy the way the bike sounds right now, and there's a notable difference in things like reduction of decel popping with the Fuelpak. And while I know that the low end torque isn't there, it's not so bad as to force my hand for a solution. Then again, I don't know what I'm missing!