Fuelpak Setting Breakdown
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 1
From: Indy area
I hope you don't hear from their lawyers instead.
Apart from the time involved it should be relatively simple to datalog engine-running sessions while stepping through the settings to see what's going on. But they don't want us to know in the first place, for whatever reason. If the ability to know what the settings do is so precious to them, I say let them have it. All. The whole kit and kaboodle. There's stuff out there already that can do several times what the FP can do and it doesn't cost hardly twice what the FP does. I'm sure that if there's any value whatsoever placed on the individual(s)'s time to do the comprehensive datalogging (not to mention the price of all the other used resources) then for at least the first one to find out, the FP will have cost way more than, say, a TTS tuning system, which is inarguably the best setup available for tuning the H-D Delphi EFI anyway.
It might be interesting to see what the AFR does in various places/conditions on a closed-loop EFI bike with the FP. Wherever (if) it's "better" than ~14.6 while closed-loop they have to be modifying the signal from the O2 sensors. If it is and they aren't, the EFI's brain will get into a weird state of mind.
The current Delphi that H-D is using has an intriguing capability called "adaptive fueling" which is used to follow changes such as wearing/clogging injectors, degrading sparkplugs, etc. If the closed-loop AFR gets modified for whatever reason, the ECU will learn what it needs to do to get it back in line again. There are limits to its range, of course. So if you modify the way the engine breathes, so long as it's pretty much only in what would usually be closed-loop areas of operation, and it's not too extreme, the system can accommodate it. What seemingly many folks do is simply put a freer-breathing airbox and slipons on the bike and let the system do what it can with them. I feel that's ill-advised. Likewise, if a fueling add-on changes the closed-loop fueling to a different AFR, the system will (attempt to) reel it back in. I believe what VH does is modify the fueling to make it so the native EFI thinks it's fueling for stock-flowing breathing parts and that it's correct.
Like I'd said earlier, it would be interesting to see what they're doing with the AFR, if anything, in the closed-loop areas. It has been suggested that they want to keep it "clean" there so they can maintain good graces with the EPA (and/or CARB). I don't think that'd be right, since it's already "Federal" to even change out a muffler for one which doesn't have a proper EPA stamp, much less monkey with any part of an approved "entire system as-is". There's no way the EPA is going to say:
1: You can't do this.
2: While doing this you must maintain that.
If you've logged AFR versus engine-speed/throttle-position(/and-or MAP) would you care to share the data? Are you aware that you can borrow a TwinScanII+/SERT/SEST/TTS to datalog? Very likely the last would be the best, most comprehensive, aside from measured AFR like you could get with the TS.
In the end, I feel it's best to leave the FP to those who're interested in following VH's guidelines for other parts and who also have no interest whatsoever in putzing with things to "improve" the tune further. For those who want to fine-tune things there are other way more capable setups available.
Apart from the time involved it should be relatively simple to datalog engine-running sessions while stepping through the settings to see what's going on. But they don't want us to know in the first place, for whatever reason. If the ability to know what the settings do is so precious to them, I say let them have it. All. The whole kit and kaboodle. There's stuff out there already that can do several times what the FP can do and it doesn't cost hardly twice what the FP does. I'm sure that if there's any value whatsoever placed on the individual(s)'s time to do the comprehensive datalogging (not to mention the price of all the other used resources) then for at least the first one to find out, the FP will have cost way more than, say, a TTS tuning system, which is inarguably the best setup available for tuning the H-D Delphi EFI anyway.
It might be interesting to see what the AFR does in various places/conditions on a closed-loop EFI bike with the FP. Wherever (if) it's "better" than ~14.6 while closed-loop they have to be modifying the signal from the O2 sensors. If it is and they aren't, the EFI's brain will get into a weird state of mind.
The current Delphi that H-D is using has an intriguing capability called "adaptive fueling" which is used to follow changes such as wearing/clogging injectors, degrading sparkplugs, etc. If the closed-loop AFR gets modified for whatever reason, the ECU will learn what it needs to do to get it back in line again. There are limits to its range, of course. So if you modify the way the engine breathes, so long as it's pretty much only in what would usually be closed-loop areas of operation, and it's not too extreme, the system can accommodate it. What seemingly many folks do is simply put a freer-breathing airbox and slipons on the bike and let the system do what it can with them. I feel that's ill-advised. Likewise, if a fueling add-on changes the closed-loop fueling to a different AFR, the system will (attempt to) reel it back in. I believe what VH does is modify the fueling to make it so the native EFI thinks it's fueling for stock-flowing breathing parts and that it's correct.
Like I'd said earlier, it would be interesting to see what they're doing with the AFR, if anything, in the closed-loop areas. It has been suggested that they want to keep it "clean" there so they can maintain good graces with the EPA (and/or CARB). I don't think that'd be right, since it's already "Federal" to even change out a muffler for one which doesn't have a proper EPA stamp, much less monkey with any part of an approved "entire system as-is". There's no way the EPA is going to say:
1: You can't do this.
2: While doing this you must maintain that.
If you've logged AFR versus engine-speed/throttle-position(/and-or MAP) would you care to share the data? Are you aware that you can borrow a TwinScanII+/SERT/SEST/TTS to datalog? Very likely the last would be the best, most comprehensive, aside from measured AFR like you could get with the TS.
In the end, I feel it's best to leave the FP to those who're interested in following VH's guidelines for other parts and who also have no interest whatsoever in putzing with things to "improve" the tune further. For those who want to fine-tune things there are other way more capable setups available.
Road Captain
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
From: Florida Gulf Coast
I am currently working with a couple of members as we try to figure out some of the modes for the Fuelpak. I think some of the Modes can be reasonably defined with a wideband O2 and some experimenting. I installed mine this weekend along with an Arlen Ness Stage 2 air cleaner (open element without a cover). The V&H website suggested FP-2422. I entered the vales into each Mode. When I started my bike I found that the idle would stay between 1300-1500rpm even after a 20 minute ride. The quick ride also indicated that it was alittle rich. I changed Mode 1 from "10" to "5" on a hunch. The results was an idle reduction down to 900-1000rpm. That got me thinking.
Today, I averaged the values for the Modes from two different maps. The bike seemed to perform very well during a 1.5 hr ride. These new settings are very different that the ones for FP-2422. I have sent my new settings, wideband O2 data and thoughts to V&H for their input. I hope to hear from them soon.
Today, I averaged the values for the Modes from two different maps. The bike seemed to perform very well during a 1.5 hr ride. These new settings are very different that the ones for FP-2422. I have sent my new settings, wideband O2 data and thoughts to V&H for their input. I hope to hear from them soon.
5th Gear
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: South Carolina
To deep for me
As quoted in another thread. Just purchased 08 uc. Installed v@h true duals and f/p. dealer suggestion to rid problem of high heat @ rear jug. Took him on his word, f/p fried @ 6800 miles. Is this a common problem. My last rides where 58-60-62 Pans. some what differant then the new EFI. da ha! Would like to know if these things work well in higher elevation. Southeastern rider, looking @ retirement and a bigger mountain some where west. In over my head with EFI. TO old to learn. THE BIRD.
Road Captain
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Had a fuel pak on my 03. it ran great. Mileage was around 38. The only problem I had was I was not sure if I had the stage 1 download and did not want to go to the dealer to find out. it ran fine on the stage 1 settings. Then 1 day I thought you know I am going to try the map without the stage 1. I had screamin eagles when I bought the bike. I put the duals and ovals on when i bought the fuel pak. You talk about a change in a bike there was a big difference in power when I changed the settings. I put 37 cams in while the fuel pak was still on and it seemed to be a little doggy from what I thought it was going to be. I have since put the PC III on from Jamie and this thing came alive. So much so that I am going to wait for the 95" build until I have a few more miles on her. The fuel pak done a fine job for me while I had it,but man you talk about some power now. Bring it on. It is a whole new ride now.
Cruiser
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
I had a brief conversation with V&H today. They are only recommending that I use their one and only map for the 2009 Touring models (FP-2422). When asked about other areas (high idle speed with this map) and if they would care to comment on my data, they declined.
As far as hearing from their lawyers, that won't happen. I am not attempting to steal their intellectual property. There is no law against figuring out their technology. Further, the Fuelpak is not a patented item. Does it consume time? Sure. But this is my background, education and vocation. It is a challenge I enjoy. Perhaps others should try to help instead of criticizing the product. I seriously doubt the detracters know much about Fuelpaks, and their obvious partiality to other products only emphasizes their ignorance of it as many have reported excellent results with Fuelpaks.
Everyone should know that modifying the ECM with non-EPA approved software or hardware violates the law. Hence the "off-road use only" caveat. That does not absolve the vendors completely. Both the user and vendor can face fines and even jail time. Casper Electronics is a very good example. They, and many others, sold O2 simulators for cars and trucks. Not any more...
We all want these, but we all should realize the responsibility we are undertaking by installing one. Do you want Harley to void your warranty? What happens if you fail an e-check?
Something to think about, but I digress from the point of this thread. I will share what I learn from my own efforts and from others. Take care.
As far as hearing from their lawyers, that won't happen. I am not attempting to steal their intellectual property. There is no law against figuring out their technology. Further, the Fuelpak is not a patented item. Does it consume time? Sure. But this is my background, education and vocation. It is a challenge I enjoy. Perhaps others should try to help instead of criticizing the product. I seriously doubt the detracters know much about Fuelpaks, and their obvious partiality to other products only emphasizes their ignorance of it as many have reported excellent results with Fuelpaks.
Everyone should know that modifying the ECM with non-EPA approved software or hardware violates the law. Hence the "off-road use only" caveat. That does not absolve the vendors completely. Both the user and vendor can face fines and even jail time. Casper Electronics is a very good example. They, and many others, sold O2 simulators for cars and trucks. Not any more...
We all want these, but we all should realize the responsibility we are undertaking by installing one. Do you want Harley to void your warranty? What happens if you fail an e-check?
Something to think about, but I digress from the point of this thread. I will share what I learn from my own efforts and from others. Take care.
Road Warrior
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 1
From: Atlanta, GA
Dr. Combustion,
Other than the fast idle, has the Fuelpak worked well for you? With your set-up, you could probably get decent results from a PC V. I have the same bike as you and have gone back and forth beween these two products. I don't have the Rush pipes though, as mine are Jackpot, which is making me lean towards getting the PC V. What I really want is the easiest and most effective means to run better and cooler with pipes and a high flow breather installed.
Other than the fast idle, has the Fuelpak worked well for you? With your set-up, you could probably get decent results from a PC V. I have the same bike as you and have gone back and forth beween these two products. I don't have the Rush pipes though, as mine are Jackpot, which is making me lean towards getting the PC V. What I really want is the easiest and most effective means to run better and cooler with pipes and a high flow breather installed.
Elite HDF Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,741
Likes: 45
From: Indian Land, SC
I had a brief conversation with V&H today. They are only recommending that I use their one and only map for the 2009 Touring models (FP-2422). When asked about other areas (high idle speed with this map) and if they would care to comment on my data, they declined.
As far as hearing from their lawyers, that won't happen. I am not attempting to steal their intellectual property. There is no law against figuring out their technology. Further, the Fuelpak is not a patented item. Does it consume time? Sure. But this is my background, education and vocation. It is a challenge I enjoy. Perhaps others should try to help instead of criticizing the product. I seriously doubt the detracters know much about Fuelpaks, and their obvious partiality to other products only emphasizes their ignorance of it as many have reported excellent results with Fuelpaks.
Everyone should know that modifying the ECM with non-EPA approved software or hardware violates the law. Hence the "off-road use only" caveat. That does not absolve the vendors completely. Both the user and vendor can face fines and even jail time. Casper Electronics is a very good example. They, and many others, sold O2 simulators for cars and trucks. Not any more...
We all want these, but we all should realize the responsibility we are undertaking by installing one. Do you want Harley to void your warranty? What happens if you fail an e-check?
Something to think about, but I digress from the point of this thread. I will share what I learn from my own efforts and from others. Take care.
As far as hearing from their lawyers, that won't happen. I am not attempting to steal their intellectual property. There is no law against figuring out their technology. Further, the Fuelpak is not a patented item. Does it consume time? Sure. But this is my background, education and vocation. It is a challenge I enjoy. Perhaps others should try to help instead of criticizing the product. I seriously doubt the detracters know much about Fuelpaks, and their obvious partiality to other products only emphasizes their ignorance of it as many have reported excellent results with Fuelpaks.
Everyone should know that modifying the ECM with non-EPA approved software or hardware violates the law. Hence the "off-road use only" caveat. That does not absolve the vendors completely. Both the user and vendor can face fines and even jail time. Casper Electronics is a very good example. They, and many others, sold O2 simulators for cars and trucks. Not any more...
We all want these, but we all should realize the responsibility we are undertaking by installing one. Do you want Harley to void your warranty? What happens if you fail an e-check?
Something to think about, but I digress from the point of this thread. I will share what I learn from my own efforts and from others. Take care.
I believe that FP number changes depending on your pipes and a/f set-up. I typed in the info for my '09 SG with Monster Ovals and High Flow filter and it lists FP-2395. The base unit I received was a FP-1720 (stated on box for '08-'09 Touring).
Cruiser
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
ga4boats: Yes, the Fuelpak seems to be working very well so far. However, I need to qualify the statement by saying that my experience is limited to about three hours of riding in 35-40 degree weather. Whether or not it is the best choice depends upon many things, but I think it is a very low cost and effective option if you only are adding slip-ons and an air cleaner. I purchased my Fuelpak new on ebay for $205 shipped. I'm sure the PC V will also work for you, but you have choices with it as well, such as auto-tune. The installation of the Fuelpak will take less than 30 minutes, including entering all of the Mode settings, and it is easily removed if you need to visit the dealer for service.
I plan to finish my data logging with my current Mode settings, then go back to FP-2422 with a reduced Mode 1 setting to control the idle speed. I also have another fuel management system that I will be evaluating as well. Oh what fun...
I plan to finish my data logging with my current Mode settings, then go back to FP-2422 with a reduced Mode 1 setting to control the idle speed. I also have another fuel management system that I will be evaluating as well. Oh what fun...