07 Ultra exhaust Question
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 1
From: Indy area
RE: 07 Ultra exhaust Question
Congratulations. 1979 was a good year, I remember it well, been out of HS for a year and got first real full-time job (white collar).
The base value for the AFV is 1.00 with range limits of 0.85 and 1.15. It can be reset either by making everything stock and riding in closed loop or via the Digital Technician. I'd suppose the latter method would be the surest way to achieve unity.
If the resultant closed-loop AFR is out of range of the O2 sensor (but it otherwise could be within range, i.e. there are no major component/system faults causing the error), it can be reeled back into range and once there fine-tuned, so the O2 sensor operational range (±3%) is not the limiting factor here.
If the (VE)×(AFV) results in, say, 4% excess fuel, it will be corrected and the AFV will be updated to a value 4% less (within range limits, of course). The next calculation will then be correct. Once the system leaves closed-loop the AFV, thus AFR, will be correct there too, assuming the VE tables are as correct there as they were in the closed-loop condition where the error was accommodated (that is, the error from programmed VE is linear).
A freer-breathing filter element within the stock airbox should be a quite linear deviation from the stock VE values. It will work well so long as other conditions (fuel oxygenation, barometric pressure, etc) do not factor in to cause adaptive fuel range limitations. But using a completely different airbox design would not result in linear deviations from the stock VE values, thus should not be done all by itself, as the establishment of any new AFV would only be correct for the operational area which caused its being updated.
In similar fashion, simply modifying the exhaust piping is discouraged. But mufflers which maintain similar characteristics but otherwise flow somewhat better than stock will work well.
One should be careful not to use up the range limits of the AFV, though. There needs to be headroom available.
Obviously, a suitable full-range closed-loop system, all things being equal, would be the best choice.
Second would be the system our Delphi is currently using.
Last would be a piggy-back setup like the PC (which is arguably the most capable of them all).
The only downsides to the PC are that it foregoes closed-loop operation with the environmental/equipment variance accommodations being lost, and that it adds to overall system latency. If you opt not to get one dyno-tuned and just stay with a map resulting from that being done on another similarly-equipped bike, and both the AFV on that bike at the time and on yours at the time are very close, it works extremely well and is the best bang for the buck.
One can get by with the SERT with no dyno time to establish correct VE values everywhere so long as their equipment has a map provided. If, say, just the mufflers are different from the supplied map, the end result will be mostly the same as just putting different mufflers on a stock bike with its unmolested ECU. Sure, you can adjust timing, decel enleanment, and stuff like that, but the open-loop AFR is just as much of a crapshoot. So long as one doesn't live in open-loop operation it'll be okay, just like with the stock ECU with reasonable replacement mufflers.
The base value for the AFV is 1.00 with range limits of 0.85 and 1.15. It can be reset either by making everything stock and riding in closed loop or via the Digital Technician. I'd suppose the latter method would be the surest way to achieve unity.
If the resultant closed-loop AFR is out of range of the O2 sensor (but it otherwise could be within range, i.e. there are no major component/system faults causing the error), it can be reeled back into range and once there fine-tuned, so the O2 sensor operational range (±3%) is not the limiting factor here.
If the (VE)×(AFV) results in, say, 4% excess fuel, it will be corrected and the AFV will be updated to a value 4% less (within range limits, of course). The next calculation will then be correct. Once the system leaves closed-loop the AFV, thus AFR, will be correct there too, assuming the VE tables are as correct there as they were in the closed-loop condition where the error was accommodated (that is, the error from programmed VE is linear).
A freer-breathing filter element within the stock airbox should be a quite linear deviation from the stock VE values. It will work well so long as other conditions (fuel oxygenation, barometric pressure, etc) do not factor in to cause adaptive fuel range limitations. But using a completely different airbox design would not result in linear deviations from the stock VE values, thus should not be done all by itself, as the establishment of any new AFV would only be correct for the operational area which caused its being updated.
In similar fashion, simply modifying the exhaust piping is discouraged. But mufflers which maintain similar characteristics but otherwise flow somewhat better than stock will work well.
One should be careful not to use up the range limits of the AFV, though. There needs to be headroom available.
Obviously, a suitable full-range closed-loop system, all things being equal, would be the best choice.
Second would be the system our Delphi is currently using.
Last would be a piggy-back setup like the PC (which is arguably the most capable of them all).
The only downsides to the PC are that it foregoes closed-loop operation with the environmental/equipment variance accommodations being lost, and that it adds to overall system latency. If you opt not to get one dyno-tuned and just stay with a map resulting from that being done on another similarly-equipped bike, and both the AFV on that bike at the time and on yours at the time are very close, it works extremely well and is the best bang for the buck.
One can get by with the SERT with no dyno time to establish correct VE values everywhere so long as their equipment has a map provided. If, say, just the mufflers are different from the supplied map, the end result will be mostly the same as just putting different mufflers on a stock bike with its unmolested ECU. Sure, you can adjust timing, decel enleanment, and stuff like that, but the open-loop AFR is just as much of a crapshoot. So long as one doesn't live in open-loop operation it'll be okay, just like with the stock ECU with reasonable replacement mufflers.
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,977
Likes: 85
From: Nevada
RE: 07 Ultra exhaust Question
Earlier this year in HD's "Enthusiast" they explicitly said that SE slipons with no other changes (a/c) do not require a download.
Also, I'm also pretty surethe slipons off an 07/08 SE bikes have catalysts.
Also, I'm also pretty surethe slipons off an 07/08 SE bikes have catalysts.
Tourer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 447
Likes: 1
From: Dallas
RE: 07 Ultra exhaust Question
Hey Glens, Im not 100% sure what you said but sounds like youve done your homework. Ive got an 07 FLHT and do not/not want to change my ECM or air cleaner but do want to change my mufflers to slip-onsfor better sound. Do you have any recommendations that fit into that 15% window you mentioned?
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 1
From: Indy area
RE: 07 Ultra exhaust Question
Thank you. I have and really like the Rush 2" baffled mufflers. They have excellent fit and finish and the sound is quite to my liking. They're perhaps a little raspy running the way you want to do it. With the addition of the PC-III and the K&N airbox assembly they are a fair bit mellower sounding.
I picked them up from the dealer at my 1k service. I'd wanted something a little more robust-sounding. I'd looked at the SE mufflers on HD's website and asked for a pair of them. First the parts guy said they didn't make them anymore (evidently had the older series in mind), then at my prompting looked them up and said they weren't going to carry those and that I wouldn't be happy with them. He recommended the Rushes which he had in stock. We looked throughout the dealership for a bike with them on in order to give a listen but they didn't have one anywhere. My salesman suggested they'd sound very similar to his older-series SE mufflers and he fired up his bike for me. On his word I bought them.
After I'd installed them and hit the road, I was afraid they were too loud. I accosted most everyone I could for the first few days and asked their opinion. Everyone said they were fine.
Since, I've hooked up with a group that rides on Wednesday nights and although I love the sound of my bike when I'm traveling solo, I can't hardly pick it out of the crowd when we're all riding together. Suffice it to say I'm very pleased.
I've not heard the 1¾" baffles but have heard them described as being perhaps just a bit more neighborhood-friendly than the 2", which, admittedly, could be pushing things a little in that regard.
The V&H ovals sound good to me, too, and I rode for a while with an '08 SG the other day that had nothing more than Hookers slipped-on and it sounded and sounded like it ran great, too.
So, to specifically answer your question, I believe just about any of the "reasonable" major-brand products would be just fine to use, so what it boils down to is "what do you like the looks/sound of?"
Sorry.
I picked them up from the dealer at my 1k service. I'd wanted something a little more robust-sounding. I'd looked at the SE mufflers on HD's website and asked for a pair of them. First the parts guy said they didn't make them anymore (evidently had the older series in mind), then at my prompting looked them up and said they weren't going to carry those and that I wouldn't be happy with them. He recommended the Rushes which he had in stock. We looked throughout the dealership for a bike with them on in order to give a listen but they didn't have one anywhere. My salesman suggested they'd sound very similar to his older-series SE mufflers and he fired up his bike for me. On his word I bought them.
After I'd installed them and hit the road, I was afraid they were too loud. I accosted most everyone I could for the first few days and asked their opinion. Everyone said they were fine.
Since, I've hooked up with a group that rides on Wednesday nights and although I love the sound of my bike when I'm traveling solo, I can't hardly pick it out of the crowd when we're all riding together. Suffice it to say I'm very pleased.
I've not heard the 1¾" baffles but have heard them described as being perhaps just a bit more neighborhood-friendly than the 2", which, admittedly, could be pushing things a little in that regard.
The V&H ovals sound good to me, too, and I rode for a while with an '08 SG the other day that had nothing more than Hookers slipped-on and it sounded and sounded like it ran great, too.
So, to specifically answer your question, I believe just about any of the "reasonable" major-brand products would be just fine to use, so what it boils down to is "what do you like the looks/sound of?"
Sorry.
Cruiser
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 159
Likes: 2
From:
RE: 07 Ultra exhaust Question
I put a set of '07 SE ultra mufflers on my '06 Ultra and they hurt the performance. They are catalyst mufflers and didn't dyno out as well as stock '07 non-SE Ultra mufflers which are not catalytic. They are very quiet however.
Elite HDF Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,020
Likes: 69
From: Twin Cities, MN
RE: 07 Ultra exhaust Question
The cat's are pretty easy to remove (I have a system) and I am running a pair of '06 SEUC mufflers on my '99 carbed RK. They are alittlelouder and lower than my original stock pipes, and they offer the same performance gains I experienced when using the one-piece SE mufflers I used to have on the bike.Nice growl when I hit it, and nice and quiet while cruising. I like them.
Road Captain
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
From:
RE: 07 Ultra exhaust Question
ORIGINAL: glens
Congratulations. 1979 was a good year, I remember it well, been out of HS for a year and got first real full-time job (white collar).
The base value for the AFV is 1.00 with range limits of 0.85 and 1.15. It can be reset either by making everything stock and riding in closed loop or via the Digital Technician. I'd suppose the latter method would be the surest way to achieve unity.
If the resultant closed-loop AFR is out of range of the O2 sensor (but it otherwise could be within range, i.e. there are no major component/system faults causing the error), it can be reeled back into range and once there fine-tuned, so the O2 sensor operational range (±3%) is not the limiting factor here.
If the (VE)×(AFV) results in, say, 4% excess fuel, it will be corrected and the AFV will be updated to a value 4% less (within range limits, of course). The next calculation will then be correct. Once the system leaves closed-loop the AFV, thus AFR, will be correct there too, assuming the VE tables are as correct there as they were in the closed-loop condition where the error was accommodated (that is, the error from programmed VE is linear).
A freer-breathing filter element within the stock airbox should be a quite linear deviation from the stock VE values. It will work well so long as other conditions (fuel oxygenation, barometric pressure, etc) do not factor in to cause adaptive fuel range limitations. But using a completely different airbox design would not result in linear deviations from the stock VE values, thus should not be done all by itself, as the establishment of any new AFV would only be correct for the operational area which caused its being updated.
In similar fashion, simply modifying the exhaust piping is discouraged. But mufflers which maintain similar characteristics but otherwise flow somewhat better than stock will work well.
One should be careful not to use up the range limits of the AFV, though. There needs to be headroom available.
Obviously, a suitable full-range closed-loop system, all things being equal, would be the best choice.
Second would be the system our Delphi is currently using.
Last would be a piggy-back setup like the PC (which is arguably the most capable of them all).
The only downsides to the PC are that it foregoes closed-loop operation with the environmental/equipment variance accommodations being lost, and that it adds to overall system latency. If you opt not to get one dyno-tuned and just stay with a map resulting from that being done on another similarly-equipped bike, and both the AFV on that bike at the time and on yours at the time are very close, it works extremely well and is the best bang for the buck.
One can get by with the SERT with no dyno time to establish correct VE values everywhere so long as their equipment has a map provided. If, say, just the mufflers are different from the supplied map, the end result will be mostly the same as just putting different mufflers on a stock bike with its unmolested ECU. Sure, you can adjust timing, decel enleanment, and stuff like that, but the open-loop AFR is just as much of a crapshoot. So long as one doesn't live in open-loop operation it'll be okay, just like with the stock ECU with reasonable replacement mufflers.
Congratulations. 1979 was a good year, I remember it well, been out of HS for a year and got first real full-time job (white collar).
The base value for the AFV is 1.00 with range limits of 0.85 and 1.15. It can be reset either by making everything stock and riding in closed loop or via the Digital Technician. I'd suppose the latter method would be the surest way to achieve unity.
If the resultant closed-loop AFR is out of range of the O2 sensor (but it otherwise could be within range, i.e. there are no major component/system faults causing the error), it can be reeled back into range and once there fine-tuned, so the O2 sensor operational range (±3%) is not the limiting factor here.
If the (VE)×(AFV) results in, say, 4% excess fuel, it will be corrected and the AFV will be updated to a value 4% less (within range limits, of course). The next calculation will then be correct. Once the system leaves closed-loop the AFV, thus AFR, will be correct there too, assuming the VE tables are as correct there as they were in the closed-loop condition where the error was accommodated (that is, the error from programmed VE is linear).
A freer-breathing filter element within the stock airbox should be a quite linear deviation from the stock VE values. It will work well so long as other conditions (fuel oxygenation, barometric pressure, etc) do not factor in to cause adaptive fuel range limitations. But using a completely different airbox design would not result in linear deviations from the stock VE values, thus should not be done all by itself, as the establishment of any new AFV would only be correct for the operational area which caused its being updated.
In similar fashion, simply modifying the exhaust piping is discouraged. But mufflers which maintain similar characteristics but otherwise flow somewhat better than stock will work well.
One should be careful not to use up the range limits of the AFV, though. There needs to be headroom available.
Obviously, a suitable full-range closed-loop system, all things being equal, would be the best choice.
Second would be the system our Delphi is currently using.
Last would be a piggy-back setup like the PC (which is arguably the most capable of them all).
The only downsides to the PC are that it foregoes closed-loop operation with the environmental/equipment variance accommodations being lost, and that it adds to overall system latency. If you opt not to get one dyno-tuned and just stay with a map resulting from that being done on another similarly-equipped bike, and both the AFV on that bike at the time and on yours at the time are very close, it works extremely well and is the best bang for the buck.
One can get by with the SERT with no dyno time to establish correct VE values everywhere so long as their equipment has a map provided. If, say, just the mufflers are different from the supplied map, the end result will be mostly the same as just putting different mufflers on a stock bike with its unmolested ECU. Sure, you can adjust timing, decel enleanment, and stuff like that, but the open-loop AFR is just as much of a crapshoot. So long as one doesn't live in open-loop operation it'll be okay, just like with the stock ECU with reasonable replacement mufflers.
Like I said before, while it`s true that just changing mufflers should not cause problems...Your basing this on previous experience, but the 07 are new to the equation. Stoichiometric is 14.7:1 and v
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 1
From: Indy area
RE: 07 Ultra exhaust Question
I agree with everything you just said. I never said the VE tables were auto-tuning. They are effectively auto-tuned, as an entire table at once, by the AFV.
My previous experience is with the '07 ECM. What's new in '07 is the "adaptive fuel" capabilities which were by some accounts brought over from the Buell camp.
I agree that it's somewhat of a dice-throw with simply adding mufflers. But, it's almost a sure bet 'cause the dice are weighted. Yes, 14.7 is lean and it would not be good to go higher. Let me ask you this. Where in any of the open-loop areas of the fuel maps is it set for that high a ratio? Asking from the other direction, what would you say the average AFR is in the maps, outside the areas specified as "14.6"?
My previous experience is with the '07 ECM. What's new in '07 is the "adaptive fuel" capabilities which were by some accounts brought over from the Buell camp.
I agree that it's somewhat of a dice-throw with simply adding mufflers. But, it's almost a sure bet 'cause the dice are weighted. Yes, 14.7 is lean and it would not be good to go higher. Let me ask you this. Where in any of the open-loop areas of the fuel maps is it set for that high a ratio? Asking from the other direction, what would you say the average AFR is in the maps, outside the areas specified as "14.6"?
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Times Harley-Davidson Chucked Tradition Out the Window
Verdad Gallardo
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
Road Captain
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
From:
RE: 07 Ultra exhaust Question
ORIGINAL: glens
I agree with everything you just said. I never said the VE tables were auto-tuning. They are effectively auto-tuned, as an entire table at once, by the AFV.
My previous experience is with the '07 ECM. What's new in '07 is the "adaptive fuel" capabilities which were by some accounts brought over from the Buell camp.
I agree that it's somewhat of a dice-throw with simply adding mufflers. But, it's almost a sure bet 'cause the dice are weighted. Yes, 14.7 is lean and it would not be good to go higher. Let me ask you this. Where in any of the open-loop areas of the fuel maps is it set for that high a ratio? Asking from the other direction, what would you say the average AFR is in the maps, outside the areas specified as "14.6"?
I agree with everything you just said. I never said the VE tables were auto-tuning. They are effectively auto-tuned, as an entire table at once, by the AFV.
My previous experience is with the '07 ECM. What's new in '07 is the "adaptive fuel" capabilities which were by some accounts brought over from the Buell camp.
I agree that it's somewhat of a dice-throw with simply adding mufflers. But, it's almost a sure bet 'cause the dice are weighted. Yes, 14.7 is lean and it would not be good to go higher. Let me ask you this. Where in any of the open-loop areas of the fuel maps is it set for that high a ratio? Asking from the other direction, what would you say the average AFR is in the maps, outside the areas specified as "14.6"?
The 3rd table is the front cylinder V/E table.
[IMG]local://upfiles/38214/583F7AACACF14A8E89F13EADE3209DE5.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/38214/996C60FF03B1446CA811BFD8463E6FA2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/38214/0B92DD424FA84AD6AF2249F0A4A6C83A.jpg[/IMG]
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 1
From: Indy area
RE: 07 Ultra exhaust Question
Man, that's a lot of close-loop operation. From the looks of it a person could just about never venture out of it if they didn't want to. So you've got your CLBs maxed out, I assume?
I notice you've got only 5% more fuel than stoich in almost every cell adjacent to the closed-loop areas. 15% more at WOT. (<2% extra and 12% extra if CLBs are topped out).
What's your VE NEW look like on any given day?
At any rate, I think those tables/charts pretty much make my case that just slip-on mufflers are good to go.
I notice you've got only 5% more fuel than stoich in almost every cell adjacent to the closed-loop areas. 15% more at WOT. (<2% extra and 12% extra if CLBs are topped out).
What's your VE NEW look like on any given day?
At any rate, I think those tables/charts pretty much make my case that just slip-on mufflers are good to go.