Considering Xied - nightrider
Ultimate HDF Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,486
Likes: 4
From: Hico, TX (once home to Billy the Kid)
RE: Considering Xied - nightrider
I put them on my 08 and love them. Xied's that is.
Runs cooler for sure. No tmade for performance gains.
Here is a good read with information, not "I thinks" :
http://www.nightrider.com/biketech/hd2007HD_heat_00.htm
 \\;
Runs cooler for sure. No tmade for performance gains.
Here is a good read with information, not "I thinks" :
http://www.nightrider.com/biketech/hd2007HD_heat_00.htm
 \\;
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 1
From: Indy area
RE: Considering Xied - nightrider
ORIGINAL: clayguy
... the O2 and XIED perform as advertised, cooler, smoother. What more do you need?
... the O2 and XIED perform as advertised, cooler, smoother. What more do you need?
Also, I am not saying I think this stuff works this way. I am saying why I think they are not necessarily the best money to spend for everyone in every situation.
You spend 20 grand on a motorcycle and do not want to spend one more to make it just about the best it can possibly be. Instead you want to spend only $100 more and not only leave a great deal on the table, but degrade performance in other ways. That is okay with me so long as you know the whole story and make a truly informed decision. Do not merely become defensive because you have already done something and do not like what you are hearing after the fact.
I was going to apologize for not being here sooner to bring timely, informative discussion to the main thread about these. But then I considered how I have already discussed this all here in great detail during the second half of last year so I have decided against apology.
If you run an otherwise totally stock configuration and do not mind excessive fuel in the open-loop areas this has got to be the best bang for the buck (the standard dividers).
The reasons O2 error codes get thrown are because either the sensor circuit has opened, closed, or the Adaptive Fuel mechanism has run out of headroom for whatever reason. All indications are that in terms of this overall discussion it is the last of those possibilities. With maybe one other outside chance that the choice of resistance values is loading the circuit less-than-optimally...
The Adaptive Fuel mechanism is an important part of how our current speed/density management system operates. Try this google search and see how many times anything close is mentioned at nightrider.com. Zip, zero, nada. The IED Product Line page, like the rest of the other three results, does not contain any mention of adaptive fuel either but it does mention that tuning parameters are available for the PC-III (note 15) among others. I almost called him yesterday to ask just what those parameters might be. I already know the answer, though, based upon direct experience. Simply modifying fuel in any closed-loop areas with a PC-III while having the O2 sensors operable creates nasty problems.
Best use of the combination of PC-III and O2 voltage dividers would be either to only use the PC-III to remove AFV-induced excess fuel from the open-loop areas, or to add none in the open-loop areas while precisely adding what the O2 voltage dividers account for in the closed-loop areas. All on an otherwise completely stock setup. Similar manipulation to keep the AFVs stable could be performed with aftermarket plumbing stuff with enough dyno time. Man, any of that would be a lot of time and money for the returns!
Proper use of the current PC-III does not include exhaust feedback and it works quite well for the level of investment.
But that is getting off-track.
Just carefully read what I have said here and elsewhere and weigh it for yourself. If you want to actually discuss the merits of the information, I look forward to that. If you merely want to tell me how satisfied you are with your results, do not bother, that is assumed from the get-go.
In summary, if you rarely use high engine loading and/or large throttle openings and if you have completely stock airbox and exhaust then the standard IEDs are just the ticket for cooling your engine some and smoothing small-throttle-opening response. If you want better exhaust sound with reasonable slip-on mufflers and are willing to leave your stock airbox alone and are also willing to venture even less into high engine loading / large throttle openings, then the standard IEDs have got to be the best bang for the buck available.
With this scheme, however, you should know that you are trading some undesirable characteristics for others. That is your prerogative. And mine is to not buy used motorcycles...
Tourer
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 370
Likes: 1
From:
RE: Considering Xied - nightrider
Glens, in layman's language, what are the possible downsides to these IEDS.
 \\;
I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw, but I'm not getting it.
 \\;
No disrespect intended.
 \\;
I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw, but I'm not getting it.
 \\;
No disrespect intended.
Tourer
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 313
Likes: 2
From: Ontario,Canada
RE: Considering Xied - nightrider
ORIGINAL: glens
What more? How about discloser/discussion of possible negative side-effects? They do work as advertised, and then some! It is this other some that I have not heard anybody else saying anything about.
Also, I am not saying I think this stuff works this way. I am saying why I think they are not necessarily the best money to spend for everyone in every situation.
You spend 20 grand on a motorcycle and do not want to spend one more to make it just about the best it can possibly be. Instead you want to spend only $100 more and not only leave a great deal on the table, but degrade performance in other ways. That is okay with me so long as you know the whole story and make a truly informed decision. Do not merely become defensive because you have already done something and do not like what you are hearing after the fact.
I was going to apologize for not being here sooner to bring timely, informative discussion to the main thread about these. But then I considered how I have already discussed this all here in great detail during the second half of last year so I have decided against apology.
If you run an otherwise totally stock configuration and do not mind excessive fuel in the open-loop areas this has got to be the best bang for the buck (the standard dividers).
The reasons O2 error codes get thrown are because either the sensor circuit has opened, closed, or the Adaptive Fuel mechanism has run out of headroom for whatever reason. All indications are that in terms of this overall discussion it is the last of those possibilities. With maybe one other outside chance that the choice of resistance values is loading the circuit less-than-optimally...
The Adaptive Fuel mechanism is an important part of how our current speed/density management system operates. Try this google search and see how many times anything close is mentioned at nightrider.com. Zip, zero, nada. The IED Product Line page, like the rest of the other three results, does not contain any mention of adaptive fuel either but it does mention that tuning parameters are available for the PC-III (note 15) among others. I almost called him yesterday to ask just what those parameters might be. I already know the answer, though, based upon direct experience. Simply modifying fuel in any closed-loop areas with a PC-III while having the O2 sensors operable creates nasty problems.
Best use of the combination of PC-III and O2 voltage dividers would be either to only use the PC-III to remove AFV-induced excess fuel from the open-loop areas, or to add none in the open-loop areas while precisely adding what the O2 voltage dividers account for in the closed-loop areas. All on an otherwise completely stock setup. Similar manipulation to keep the AFVs stable could be performed with aftermarket plumbing stuff with enough dyno time. Man, any of that would be a lot of time and money for the returns!
Proper use of the current PC-III does not include exhaust feedback and it works quite well for the level of investment.
But that is getting off-track.
Just carefully read what I have said here and elsewhere and weigh it for yourself. If you want to actually discuss the merits of the information, I look forward to that. If you merely want to tell me how satisfied you are with your results, do not bother, that is assumed from the get-go.
In summary, if you rarely use high engine loading and/or large throttle openings and if you have completely stock airbox and exhaust then the standard IEDs are just the ticket for cooling your engine some and smoothing small-throttle-opening response. If you want better exhaust sound with reasonable slip-on mufflers and are willing to leave your stock airbox alone and are also willing to venture even less into high engine loading / large throttle openings, then the standard IEDs have got to be the best bang for the buck available.
With this scheme, however, you should know that you are trading some undesirable characteristics for others. That is your prerogative. And mine is to not buy used motorcycles...
ORIGINAL: clayguy
... the O2 and XIED perform as advertised, cooler, smoother. What more do you need?
... the O2 and XIED perform as advertised, cooler, smoother. What more do you need?
Also, I am not saying I think this stuff works this way. I am saying why I think they are not necessarily the best money to spend for everyone in every situation.
You spend 20 grand on a motorcycle and do not want to spend one more to make it just about the best it can possibly be. Instead you want to spend only $100 more and not only leave a great deal on the table, but degrade performance in other ways. That is okay with me so long as you know the whole story and make a truly informed decision. Do not merely become defensive because you have already done something and do not like what you are hearing after the fact.
I was going to apologize for not being here sooner to bring timely, informative discussion to the main thread about these. But then I considered how I have already discussed this all here in great detail during the second half of last year so I have decided against apology.
If you run an otherwise totally stock configuration and do not mind excessive fuel in the open-loop areas this has got to be the best bang for the buck (the standard dividers).
The reasons O2 error codes get thrown are because either the sensor circuit has opened, closed, or the Adaptive Fuel mechanism has run out of headroom for whatever reason. All indications are that in terms of this overall discussion it is the last of those possibilities. With maybe one other outside chance that the choice of resistance values is loading the circuit less-than-optimally...
The Adaptive Fuel mechanism is an important part of how our current speed/density management system operates. Try this google search and see how many times anything close is mentioned at nightrider.com. Zip, zero, nada. The IED Product Line page, like the rest of the other three results, does not contain any mention of adaptive fuel either but it does mention that tuning parameters are available for the PC-III (note 15) among others. I almost called him yesterday to ask just what those parameters might be. I already know the answer, though, based upon direct experience. Simply modifying fuel in any closed-loop areas with a PC-III while having the O2 sensors operable creates nasty problems.
Best use of the combination of PC-III and O2 voltage dividers would be either to only use the PC-III to remove AFV-induced excess fuel from the open-loop areas, or to add none in the open-loop areas while precisely adding what the O2 voltage dividers account for in the closed-loop areas. All on an otherwise completely stock setup. Similar manipulation to keep the AFVs stable could be performed with aftermarket plumbing stuff with enough dyno time. Man, any of that would be a lot of time and money for the returns!
Proper use of the current PC-III does not include exhaust feedback and it works quite well for the level of investment.
But that is getting off-track.
Just carefully read what I have said here and elsewhere and weigh it for yourself. If you want to actually discuss the merits of the information, I look forward to that. If you merely want to tell me how satisfied you are with your results, do not bother, that is assumed from the get-go.
In summary, if you rarely use high engine loading and/or large throttle openings and if you have completely stock airbox and exhaust then the standard IEDs are just the ticket for cooling your engine some and smoothing small-throttle-opening response. If you want better exhaust sound with reasonable slip-on mufflers and are willing to leave your stock airbox alone and are also willing to venture even less into high engine loading / large throttle openings, then the standard IEDs have got to be the best bang for the buck available.
With this scheme, however, you should know that you are trading some undesirable characteristics for others. That is your prerogative. And mine is to not buy used motorcycles...
i
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 1
From: Indy area
RE: Considering Xied - nightrider
Thanks, CDN. RG.
None taken. And I apologize for the stilted language. I am currently avoiding contractions because I dislike the stuttering apostrophes. Am overusing italics to avoid quote marks for same reason.
I guess I do not know how to layman up the language any more than I have but will try.
Whenever the ECU has to add or subtract fuel to reach its target O2 voltage while in closed loop, it stores that difference, from the amount of fuel it thought it should have sent, as a factor for figuring future fuel amounts. It will use that factor everywhere, even in open-loop modes, because normally that would be the correct thing to do. (If you are consistently rich because your air filter is dirty, or if you are consistently lean because you bought a tank of oxygenated fuel, the condition as measured during closed loop would certainly be present by the same amount even when the ECU cannot sample the combustion.) This factor is referred to as the AFV.
In another recent thread where a guy asked about trying some older Screaming Eagle mufflers I covered a lot of this stuff in very simple language. It was a couple of days ago. Here.
With these devices in place, the ECU will have to factor in more fuel because its target O2 voltage is now the result of the devices and not that of the O2 sensors. This more fuel is what makes for better driveability and cooler running for the bulk of the time you are cruising around. Whenever you are using the engine in modes where the ECU programming was already rich-enough (and those areas certainly do exist, even on a completely stock bike) it will there/then become too rich. Possibly acceptably too rich, though still ideally too much, when using the standard devices. Likely way too rich when using the extreme ones.
And like I have said many times already, the extreme IEDs do not leave enough wiggle room within the sensor operational range. Look at a graph of a sensor output. So long as it is operating anywhere in the steeper middle range, where a moderate change in air/fuel ratio results in a moderate voltage change, it will be fine. Once it gets to the flatter part of the curve at either end, a very small difference in output voltage covers a wider and wider range of air-to-fuel ratios. At the edge of the curve, a tiny difference in voltage can cover a range from mildly rich to stupidly rich.
The standard IEDs still leave reasonable wiggle room within the sensor output curve. The extremes flat out flirt too heavily with the edges.
Once the limits of the AFV correction (extra fuel) have been reached, the computer throws an your cylinder is running too lean warning code. Remember what I just said about the sensor operating in and out of its linear range. A couple percent difference in fuel might show as a couple millivolts in the middle, but at the edges of the sensor range a couple millivolts might easily represent/require double digits of percentage change in fuel.
ORIGINAL: blueride
Glens, in layman's language, what are the possible downsides to these IEDS.
I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw, but I'm not getting it.
No disrespect intended.
Glens, in layman's language, what are the possible downsides to these IEDS.
I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw, but I'm not getting it.
No disrespect intended.
I guess I do not know how to layman up the language any more than I have but will try.
Whenever the ECU has to add or subtract fuel to reach its target O2 voltage while in closed loop, it stores that difference, from the amount of fuel it thought it should have sent, as a factor for figuring future fuel amounts. It will use that factor everywhere, even in open-loop modes, because normally that would be the correct thing to do. (If you are consistently rich because your air filter is dirty, or if you are consistently lean because you bought a tank of oxygenated fuel, the condition as measured during closed loop would certainly be present by the same amount even when the ECU cannot sample the combustion.) This factor is referred to as the AFV.
In another recent thread where a guy asked about trying some older Screaming Eagle mufflers I covered a lot of this stuff in very simple language. It was a couple of days ago. Here.
With these devices in place, the ECU will have to factor in more fuel because its target O2 voltage is now the result of the devices and not that of the O2 sensors. This more fuel is what makes for better driveability and cooler running for the bulk of the time you are cruising around. Whenever you are using the engine in modes where the ECU programming was already rich-enough (and those areas certainly do exist, even on a completely stock bike) it will there/then become too rich. Possibly acceptably too rich, though still ideally too much, when using the standard devices. Likely way too rich when using the extreme ones.
And like I have said many times already, the extreme IEDs do not leave enough wiggle room within the sensor operational range. Look at a graph of a sensor output. So long as it is operating anywhere in the steeper middle range, where a moderate change in air/fuel ratio results in a moderate voltage change, it will be fine. Once it gets to the flatter part of the curve at either end, a very small difference in output voltage covers a wider and wider range of air-to-fuel ratios. At the edge of the curve, a tiny difference in voltage can cover a range from mildly rich to stupidly rich.
The standard IEDs still leave reasonable wiggle room within the sensor output curve. The extremes flat out flirt too heavily with the edges.
Once the limits of the AFV correction (extra fuel) have been reached, the computer throws an your cylinder is running too lean warning code. Remember what I just said about the sensor operating in and out of its linear range. A couple percent difference in fuel might show as a couple millivolts in the middle, but at the edges of the sensor range a couple millivolts might easily represent/require double digits of percentage change in fuel.
Road Warrior
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
From: NH
RE: Considering Xied - nightrider
ORIGINAL: CDN. RG
Glens I know what you are saying about the open loop areas being messed up when using xieds,me and some buds went to Laconia this year and my one bud wanted to get his bike tuned so we went to see DR. DYNO ,I was shooting the breeze with DR.DYNO and mentioned that I had xieds on my bike and how much cooler the bike ran with these devices,this immediately perked his intrest and he asked if I had dynoe'd the bike with the xieds on because he had heard a lot about them but had not dynoe'd a bike with them on yet to see if they work,I told him I had not and really didn't want to because the bike ran fine and I didn't want to schell out the money for a dyno,He immediately said he would dyno it for nothing,I don't have a scanner or I would \\;\\\\\\; post the results ,the bottom line is \\;\\\\\\; they do work \\;\\\\\\; but \\;\\\\\\; my front cylinder goes way rich \\;\\\\\\; in open loop ,we tryed \\;\\\\\\; switching the xieds \\;\\\\\\; front to back with the same results,what \\;\\\\\\; seemed to make \\;\\\\\\; the \\;\\\\\\; afr \\;\\\\\\; not go rich in open \\;\\\\\\; loop was to run a \\;\\\\\\; o2 sensor eliminator on the \\;\\\\\\; front \\;\\\\\\; cylinder and an xied on \\;\\\\\\; the back cylinder,he also \\;\\\\\\; ran the bike \\;\\\\\\; with stock ecm \\;\\\\\\; and no xieds \\;\\\\\\; to make sure every thing was \\;\\\\\\; performing correctly and it was,my bike has a stage one \\;\\\\\\; with no down load \\;\\\\\\; from harley,so anyway that was my free dyno \\;\\\\\\; experience,the bike made 82.95 torque \\;\\\\\\; and \\;\\\\\\; 68.29 \\;\\\\\\; hp \\;\\\\\\; with \\;\\\\\\; xieds \\;\\\\\\; installed .
i
ORIGINAL: glens
What more? How about discloser/discussion of possible negative side-effects? They do work as advertised, and then some! It is this other some that I have not heard anybody else saying anything about.
Also, I am not saying I think this stuff works this way. I am saying why I think they are not necessarily the best money to spend for everyone in every situation.
You spend 20 grand on a motorcycle and do not want to spend one more to make it just about the best it can possibly be. Instead you want to spend only $100 more and not only leave a great deal on the table, but degrade performance in other ways. That is okay with me so long as you know the whole story and make a truly informed decision. Do not merely become defensive because you have already done something and do not like what you are hearing after the fact.
I was going to apologize for not being here sooner to bring timely, informative discussion to the main thread about these. But then I considered how I have already discussed this all here in great detail during the second half of last year so I have decided against apology.
If you run an otherwise totally stock configuration and do not mind excessive fuel in the open-loop areas this has got to be the best bang for the buck (the standard dividers).
The reasons O2 error codes get thrown are because either the sensor circuit has opened, closed, or the Adaptive Fuel mechanism has run out of headroom for whatever reason. All indications are that in terms of this overall discussion it is the last of those possibilities. With maybe one other outside chance that the choice of resistance values is loading the circuit less-than-optimally...
The Adaptive Fuel mechanism is an important part of how our current speed/density management system operates. Try this google search and see how many times anything close is mentioned at nightrider.com. Zip, zero, nada. The IED Product Line page, like the rest of the other three results, does not contain any mention of adaptive fuel either but it does mention that tuning parameters are available for the PC-III (note 15) among others. I almost called him yesterday to ask just what those parameters might be. I already know the answer, though, based upon direct experience. Simply modifying fuel in any closed-loop areas with a PC-III while having the O2 sensors operable creates nasty problems.
Best use of the combination of PC-III and O2 voltage dividers would be either to only use the PC-III to remove AFV-induced excess fuel from the open-loop areas, or to add none in the open-loop areas while precisely adding what the O2 voltage dividers account for in the closed-loop areas. All on an otherwise completely stock setup. Similar manipulation to keep the AFVs stable could be performed with aftermarket plumbing stuff with enough dyno time. Man, any of that would be a lot of time and money for the returns!
Proper use of the current PC-III does not include exhaust feedback and it works quite well for the level of investment.
But that is getting off-track.
Just carefully read what I have said here and elsewhere and weigh it for yourself. If you want to actually discuss the merits of the information, I look forward to that. If you merely want to tell me how satisfied you are with your results, do not bother, that is assumed from the get-go.
In summary, if you rarely use high engine loading and/or large throttle openings and if you have completely stock airbox and exhaust then the standard IEDs are just the ticket for cooling your engine some and smoothing small-throttle-opening response. If you want better exhaust sound with reasonable slip-on mufflers and are willing to leave your stock airbox alone and are also willing to venture even less into high engine loading / large throttle openings, then the standard IEDs have got to be the best bang for the buck available.
With this scheme, however, you should know that you are trading some undesirable characteristics for others. That is your prerogative. And mine is to not buy used motorcycles...
ORIGINAL: clayguy
... the O2 and XIED perform as advertised, cooler, smoother. What more do you need?
... the O2 and XIED perform as advertised, cooler, smoother. What more do you need?
Also, I am not saying I think this stuff works this way. I am saying why I think they are not necessarily the best money to spend for everyone in every situation.
You spend 20 grand on a motorcycle and do not want to spend one more to make it just about the best it can possibly be. Instead you want to spend only $100 more and not only leave a great deal on the table, but degrade performance in other ways. That is okay with me so long as you know the whole story and make a truly informed decision. Do not merely become defensive because you have already done something and do not like what you are hearing after the fact.
I was going to apologize for not being here sooner to bring timely, informative discussion to the main thread about these. But then I considered how I have already discussed this all here in great detail during the second half of last year so I have decided against apology.
If you run an otherwise totally stock configuration and do not mind excessive fuel in the open-loop areas this has got to be the best bang for the buck (the standard dividers).
The reasons O2 error codes get thrown are because either the sensor circuit has opened, closed, or the Adaptive Fuel mechanism has run out of headroom for whatever reason. All indications are that in terms of this overall discussion it is the last of those possibilities. With maybe one other outside chance that the choice of resistance values is loading the circuit less-than-optimally...
The Adaptive Fuel mechanism is an important part of how our current speed/density management system operates. Try this google search and see how many times anything close is mentioned at nightrider.com. Zip, zero, nada. The IED Product Line page, like the rest of the other three results, does not contain any mention of adaptive fuel either but it does mention that tuning parameters are available for the PC-III (note 15) among others. I almost called him yesterday to ask just what those parameters might be. I already know the answer, though, based upon direct experience. Simply modifying fuel in any closed-loop areas with a PC-III while having the O2 sensors operable creates nasty problems.
Best use of the combination of PC-III and O2 voltage dividers would be either to only use the PC-III to remove AFV-induced excess fuel from the open-loop areas, or to add none in the open-loop areas while precisely adding what the O2 voltage dividers account for in the closed-loop areas. All on an otherwise completely stock setup. Similar manipulation to keep the AFVs stable could be performed with aftermarket plumbing stuff with enough dyno time. Man, any of that would be a lot of time and money for the returns!
Proper use of the current PC-III does not include exhaust feedback and it works quite well for the level of investment.
But that is getting off-track.
Just carefully read what I have said here and elsewhere and weigh it for yourself. If you want to actually discuss the merits of the information, I look forward to that. If you merely want to tell me how satisfied you are with your results, do not bother, that is assumed from the get-go.
In summary, if you rarely use high engine loading and/or large throttle openings and if you have completely stock airbox and exhaust then the standard IEDs are just the ticket for cooling your engine some and smoothing small-throttle-opening response. If you want better exhaust sound with reasonable slip-on mufflers and are willing to leave your stock airbox alone and are also willing to venture even less into high engine loading / large throttle openings, then the standard IEDs have got to be the best bang for the buck available.
With this scheme, however, you should know that you are trading some undesirable characteristics for others. That is your prerogative. And mine is to not buy used motorcycles...
i
Road Captain
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
From: Willis, Texas
RE: Considering Xied - nightrider
So Glens, inyour opinion what is the best value for improving performance on the 08's? T.
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
Tourer
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 313
Likes: 2
From: Ontario,Canada
RE: Considering Xied - nightrider
CNC Wheel Guy ,I can't recall what the numbers were without the xieds becuse he must of did about 20 pulls with the bike using different configurations and part throttle runs,I do remember the afr was about 15to 1 without them in closed loop.
Road Warrior
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
From: NH
RE: Considering Xied - nightrider
ORIGINAL: CDN. RG
CNC Wheel Guy ,I can't recall what the numbers were without the xieds becuse he must of did about 20 pulls with the bike using different configurations and part throttle runs,I do remember the afr was about 15to 1 without them in closed loop.
CNC Wheel Guy ,I can't recall what the numbers were without the xieds becuse he must of did about 20 pulls with the bike using different configurations and part throttle runs,I do remember the afr was about 15to 1 without them in closed loop.