Fair point, and I didn't mean to disparage the PCV. For the vast majority of people, I would recommend a PCV from Jamie, as most people (as you mention) aren't crippled with the level of tuning OCD that we are.

 

Indeed, but we're happy in our emotional disorderness .

 

I have an '05 FLHTCSE2. I want to know what the difference is between the Revtech vs. Commander fuel management system. Which do you perfer and why??

Also are there any other '05 FLHTCSE2 HD owners who have blown motors between 20,000 and 25,000 miles?

Any help???

 

[quote=iclick;8844081]Wow, I really don't know where to begin with this thread.















T'Max: Replaces the stock ECM and is a true auto-tuning device for AFRs, but not spark-advance. If this is a candidate, someone with more experience with T'Max will need to comment further on it. It is expensive at $700-800 (IIRC).

Timing is adjustable with T Max. It may be expensive to install a T Max but the savings down the line when you make changes to your bike must be considered. Its simple to use and will self tune to just about anything you do to your ride. My bike has never run better. It was money well spent. I'm sure a PCV would work well also. I just like the idea of tuning the ECM and not changing the output of the ECM with a piggy back device.

 

Timing is adjustable, but it doesn't auto-tune. Additionally, you're replacing the robust stock ECM with a product that isn't constructed as well, and you're losing the ion knock sensor.

 

You say you can have it all in one map or tune but then contradict yourself by saying there is a downside to a mileage tune; so you really can't have both.

Plus another $300 for dyno time, each and every time performance modifications are made.

None of my posts have attempted to compare the Dobeck unit to "flash" tuners. IIRC, all the "fueler" tuners that are direct competitors to the Dobeck unit are throttle based. IMHO, with a fueler tuner, adding or taking away fuel based on load makes more sense than on throttle position.

There are several simple answers, which I have made reference to several times in this thread.

1. Buying the $300 tuner, pre-mapped for a particular combination of performance upgrades, most of the time, will require a $300 dyno tune to get it right. So, the $300 tuner actually cost $600, plus the time and inconvenience some must go through to find a competent tuner.

2. There are not any other fuel management systems that can be purchased for $300. The TTS, SERT, TMax, Rev Performance, etc. can cost as much as $800+. Add the installation (if you are not a DIY guy) and a tune and you have spent at least $1000.

3. There are those that are quite content with a Stage I upgrade and a system like the Dobeck DFO/TFI is cheap, easy to intall, great customer service and the end user can tune to his/her hearts content.

Guys like you and Train that are **** about tuning sometimes see things from a completely different perspective than a guy that is not interested in optimiizing performance and just wants a basically stock bike that gets decent mileage, starts easy, has an authoritative exhaust note that doesn't burp, fart or pop. Those guys can do that with the Dobeck unit and if the shop Ebay, they can find one for $175-$200 from guys that have "graduated" to a more sophisticated system. If they want to spend a little more and upgrade to the Gen 4, they can even check AFR. Who knows, once they start that, they might develop the same OCD that posseses you.

I mean no disrespect to you or Train and I whole heartedly agree, in principle, with everything you guys have posted. However, not everyone has the same perspective that you guys do. As a matter of fact, I am envious because I have not acquired the tuning skills that you guys have. I am a gear head, for sure but tuning is not a skill I have attempted to master. I run a SERT on my 95" Deuce but my 107" FLHT is carbed. I have plans to upgrade my SERT to the TTS before I instlall the 120R kit in the Deuce. I have the manual and an experienced tuner has offered to help me learn, so maybe some day Iwill acquire tuning skills. However, that will not change my mind that there is a place for a unit like the DFO with a certain segment of the Harley population. I think it is important for those that are interested to know that there is a viable DIY alternative to the more sophisticated and more expensive fuel management systems for those that don't want or need them.

BTW, anyone that does use the Dobeck system can find beaucoup information on the systems and what settings others are using on the HDTalking forum.

 

I disagree with #1.
I bought my pre-mapped PC-V from F/M , and it was good to go right outta the box. Run fantastic!! I don't feel that I was the exception either.
Never once did I think about a tuner...to establish a map...it run that good.

Now though since I have changed cams and added an autotuner, I am messing with it, but still do not want to take it to a tuner as of yet..

 

There's no contradiction at all in the intent of my reply. If you'll go back and read the statement to which I was responding, I was saying that you don't have to sacrifice mileage for performance, and it is true that you can have both in one tune or map. The compromise lies with heat generated, but with my bike the difference between 13.5:1 and 14.6:1 in the cruise range amounts to very little heat increase measured at the front head and none in oil temperature.

To be more specific, the idea is to lean the cruise range and leave the heavy-throttle calibration as is. Leaning WOT wouldn't make much sense, IMO, as who is riding in the range enough to make a difference in mileage with an AFR calibration that doesn't optimize performance? It also wouldn't make sense because you need maximum performance at WOT, not a compromise in safety for a miniscule amount of mileage improvement.

You can get map upgrades from Fuel Moto for many configurations, so unless you have an odd combination of hardware in your upgrade you will likely not need a dyno tune.

In theory it may be the preferred method, but in practice I'm not sure it makes much difference. I ran a PCIII, PCV, PCV-AT, and now PV--and I can't say that in terms of general performance that there is any difference that can be sensed. I changed to the flash-based tuner to get the display unit and the ability to make adjustments in ECM parameters I couldn't alter before. I'll wager that most riders aren't interested in adjusting IAC steps, warm-up AFR, etc. and just want a good-running bike.


In 16 years of riding Harleys I've never had a dyno tune on any one of them. Could I have squeezed another few HP or ft-lbs. by doing so? Possibly, but I'm not sure I would've noticed the difference in my butt dyno. If maximizing HP and TQ is the goal I'll agree that a dyno tune may be needed, but most aren't interested enough to spend a few $C more for that luxury. I certainly wouldn't denigrate anyone for aspiring for peak performance at a high price, but it isn't my goal.

All true, and you can add the PCV-AT to that elite group. T'Max and PCV-AT likely will not need a dyno tune, as they will both auto-tune AFRs throughout the RPM range. Spark advance is another matter, but it can be tweaked by ear contrary to popular belief given a close calibration, and the PV will tune spark advance using its proprietary software. It is the only tuner that I know of that will do this, and with the AT-100 auto-tune kit you can tune AFRs and spark advance without a dyno tune. Cost? About $800, which certainly puts it in the realm of the elite tuners in terms of cost, but IMO you can do it all with the Power Vision. Rev Performance appears to be a good device but I understand the user is out of the picture as regards tuning.

I can't comment on the Dobeck since I have no experience with it, but I understand its functionality is shallow.

I don't know about Train, but I'm not interested in optimizing performance to the very last 1/10 of a HP. My feeling is that if I get it within a HP/TQ or two I won't be able to discern any difference. For example, about a year ago I moved from the Jackpot standard to the quiet baffle, which by Fuel Moto's tests results in a small TQ and HP reduction, but I didn't feel any difference. At the time I was using the PCV-AT.

Woe be he who falls into that trap.

Well, not to be defensive, but if you'll read every post I've made about tuners I make it quite clear that there is no "best" tuner for every rider, and I've never touted any tuner as such. I do think the PCV from FM is the best option for many riders simply because it works and FM's maps are accurate with a database that covers a plentiful array of applications both stock and modified. I think this variable is very important in the equation.

Well, thanks for the compliment--but my tuning skills, at whatever level they may currently fall on, are a product in the making. I'm getting there but there's much to learn. I was using the PCV-AT and was getting to know that tuner quite well, I think, and so I just naturally had to move on. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" certainly applies here, but I'm still fixing what was never broken and getting some good mental exercise in the process. Now with the PV it is another world delving into ECM functions and parameters.

BTW, I didn't intend to denigrate the Dobeck, as I know little about it, but simply say that for another $55 you could have a PCV from FM. IMO that's a better bargain by any objective measure. Indeed, even the simple IED (and its variants) may have a niche in this market, although they certainly aren't even tuners. I'll admit that they have a place, but at $150 I don't see these as a bargain for most riders, as most will likely outgrow their capabilities.

Thanks for all your thoughts. Good discussion!

 

Not sure. Its "cooler" than it was from the factory but the weather is also changing here too so its tough to estimate. Is there a method to test it or is it all a guess?

 

An oil temp gauge generally works fairly well.