dyno numbers
Thread Starter
|
Cruiser
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
From: Olmsted Falls, Ohio
dyno numbers
got my 09 rk dynoed after i did a stage 1(pcv, v&h turn down exh and true dual heads, fuel moto air intake, screaming eagle plugs and wires) i dont know what my bike was stock and just making sure these numbers sound good and right after everything is all said and done.
max hp-75
max torque-86
afr looks like its around 13.0-13.5< is this too rich?
afr seems pretty rich from what im reading, these numbers ok?
max hp-75
max torque-86
afr looks like its around 13.0-13.5< is this too rich?
afr seems pretty rich from what im reading, these numbers ok?
Tourer
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 313
Likes: 84
From: Central KY
Wow. Changed exhaust, heads and intake to get 75 hp and 86 ft/lb of torque? I'm new to HD but this is quite surprising.
I have a 103. I haven't dyno'd it yet and probably won't. With the exception of mixture, I prefer my butt dyno to performance measurements (HP and torque). What matters to me is how well the engine runs and how well it pulls my wife and I up to speed and maintains that speed as I go up hills (which we have quite a few in Kentucky).
Based upon literature, I'm expecting that my 103 is making 75 hp or so and 100 ft/lb or so of torque at the crank. I suspect that I might be disappointed if I actually dyno'd it though. My butt dyno tells me that I'm probably not getting 100 ft/lb of torque. I find that the engine bogs in 5th (forget 6th) on moderate hills and that I have to shift down to keep the bike in the 2,500 RPM (or better) range. My air-cooled 1987 800 cc BMW actually pulls hills two-up better than my 103 (over 1600cc) HD. I haven't spent thousands of dollars on the BMW for new pipes, heads, cylinders, intakes, etc. It's box stock.
I'm not trashing the HD as I love the bike, but can't help but wonder why more torque and horsepower isn't produced by these engines.
I have a 103. I haven't dyno'd it yet and probably won't. With the exception of mixture, I prefer my butt dyno to performance measurements (HP and torque). What matters to me is how well the engine runs and how well it pulls my wife and I up to speed and maintains that speed as I go up hills (which we have quite a few in Kentucky).
Based upon literature, I'm expecting that my 103 is making 75 hp or so and 100 ft/lb or so of torque at the crank. I suspect that I might be disappointed if I actually dyno'd it though. My butt dyno tells me that I'm probably not getting 100 ft/lb of torque. I find that the engine bogs in 5th (forget 6th) on moderate hills and that I have to shift down to keep the bike in the 2,500 RPM (or better) range. My air-cooled 1987 800 cc BMW actually pulls hills two-up better than my 103 (over 1600cc) HD. I haven't spent thousands of dollars on the BMW for new pipes, heads, cylinders, intakes, etc. It's box stock.
I'm not trashing the HD as I love the bike, but can't help but wonder why more torque and horsepower isn't produced by these engines.
Tourer
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 313
Likes: 84
From: Central KY
I've owned 175 hp bikes (1300cc) so 75 sure doesn't seem 'adequate' for a bike with almost 1700cc. More importantly, I would expect a $25K motorcycle with over 1600cc to produce enough torque to pull my wife and I up a moderate hill without shifting down. Again, very satisfied with the bike, just surprised that it doesn't pull any better than it does.
Last edited by SteveMKentucky; Apr 19, 2013 at 08:39 PM.
Thread Starter
|
Cruiser
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
From: Olmsted Falls, Ohio
Now to change the subject a bit, now that it's dynoed and has a base map to work off of, is the dynojet autotuner worth the money?
Trending Topics
Yup, just re-read it. By 'heads' he meant head pipes.
I've owned 175 hp bikes (1300cc) so 75 sure doesn't seem 'adequate' for a bike with almost 1700cc. More importantly, I would expect a $25K motorcycle with over 1600cc to produce enough torque to pull my wife and I up a moderate hill without shifting down. Again, very satisfied with the bike, just surprised that it doesn't pull any better than it does.
I've owned 175 hp bikes (1300cc) so 75 sure doesn't seem 'adequate' for a bike with almost 1700cc. More importantly, I would expect a $25K motorcycle with over 1600cc to produce enough torque to pull my wife and I up a moderate hill without shifting down. Again, very satisfied with the bike, just surprised that it doesn't pull any better than it does.
Now to change the subject a bit, now that it's dynoed and has a base map to work off of, is the dynojet autotuner worth the money?
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
Club Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 45,429
Likes: 2,898
From: Bedford UK
An autotuner works by monitoring the exhaust and optimising air/fuel ratio. That is not the same as a dyno tune, which does check that, but also measures power and torque at the rear wheel. Adjustments to air/fuel ratio can improve performance where the autotuner may not give the best results.
IMHO you did the right thing getting your bike dynoed. While an autotuner may give great results, I would expect a dyno tune to definitely give better results.
IMHO you did the right thing getting your bike dynoed. While an autotuner may give great results, I would expect a dyno tune to definitely give better results.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JimGnitecki
Engine Mechanical Topics
172
Feb 5, 2015 02:31 PM