They just got done with the PC yesterday.

Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.

Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)

New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)

Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.

Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
trying it out.

I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
rating very conservatively.
--
Bob Mann

It may be that your sole purpose in life
is to serve as a warning to others.

Bob Mann wrote:
> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
>
> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>
> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>
> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>
> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>
> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
> trying it out.
>
> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
> rating very conservatively.

Are both of those hp numbers from the same dyno? If so you are going
to love the difference. Any chance you could post graphs of the
results?

With such a great improvement in power without doing any mechanical work,
I would imagine the old mapping was really delivering a pretty poor
mixture. Did you have air/fuel ratio information on either run?

--
'01 SV650SK1 '99 EX250-F13 '98 ZG1000-A13
OMF #7

"Bob Mann" <Bobo@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:i5ukt3p9v71q2179fnjeqqpufrksjd30ue@4ax.com...
> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
>
> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>
> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>
> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>
> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>
> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
> trying it out.
>
> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
> rating very conservatively.
> --
> Bob Mann
>
> It may be that your sole purpose in life
> is to serve as a warning to others.

My RK was dynoed (?) at 105.95 HP, max torque 101.35. With much of the same
work you've done. I had 510 S&S gear driven cams installed though. I would
say your dyno is either very conservative or LVHD is fucked up.

http://www.thumpers-roadhouse.ws/harley/rkdyno.jpg



--
Rev. Thumper Rabbitt

Minister and Prophet,
Church of Rec.Motorcycles®.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:42:46 -0700, "Thumper"
<roadapple@unclewebster.com> wrote:

>
>"Bob Mann" <Bobo@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:i5ukt3p9v71q2179fnjeqqpufrksjd30ue@4ax.com.. .
>> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
>>
>> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>>
>> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
>> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>>
>> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>>
>> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>>
>> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
>> trying it out.
>>
>> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
>> rating very conservatively.
>> --
>> Bob Mann
>>
>> It may be that your sole purpose in life
>> is to serve as a warning to others.
>
>My RK was dynoed (?) at 105.95 HP, max torque 101.35. With much of the same
>work you've done. I had 510 S&S gear driven cams installed though. I would
>say your dyno is either very conservative or LVHD is fucked up.
>
>http://www.thumpers-roadhouse.ws/harley/rkdyno.jpg


If you are looking for performance upgrade ideas with the predicted
results this guy has a pretty cool page.
http://www.nightrider.com/biketech/


--
See Ya On The Road

2000 Yamaha Venture Millennium
2004 HD Road King

On Mar 14, 6:09*am, Bob Mann <B...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
>
> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>
> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>
> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>
> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>
> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
> trying it out.
>
> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
> rating very conservatively.
> --
> Bob Mann
>
> It may be that your sole purpose in life
> is to serve as a warning to others.

I'd get a second opinion. Something is wrong.
Here's my graph from my bone-stock 88 inch carbed bike, then with the
new airbox/pipes/carb re-jet.

http://www.pbase.com/rayvan/image/42289899
--
Rayvan

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:20:29 -0500, Mark Olson <olsonm@tiny.invalid>
wrote:

>Bob Mann wrote:
>> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
>>
>> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>>
>> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
>> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>>
>> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>>
>> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>>
>> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
>> trying it out.
>>
>> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
>> rating very conservatively.
>
>Are both of those hp numbers from the same dyno? If so you are going
>to love the difference. Any chance you could post graphs of the
>results?

I'll see about scanning them when I get a bit more time.
Yes, both from the same dyno.
>
>With such a great improvement in power without doing any mechanical work,
>I would imagine the old mapping was really delivering a pretty poor
>mixture. Did you have air/fuel ratio information on either run?

I have it for the new run and I imagine it's on the computer for the
old run.
I know it was running way rich.
--
Bob Mann

It may be that your sole purpose in life
is to serve as a warning to others.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:53:16 -0700 (PDT), Rayvan
<rvannuland@cachevision.com> wrote:

>On Mar 14, 6:09*am, Bob Mann <B...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
>>
>> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>>
>> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
>> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>>
>> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>>
>> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>>
>> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
>> trying it out.
>>
>> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
>> rating very conservatively.
>> --
>> Bob Mann
>>
>> It may be that your sole purpose in life
>> is to serve as a warning to others.
>
>I'd get a second opinion. Something is wrong.
>Here's my graph from my bone-stock 88 inch carbed bike, then with the
>new airbox/pipes/carb re-jet.
>
>http://www.pbase.com/rayvan/image/42289899

Carb bikes make more power in general.
The FI bikes "can" make more power but it is far more expensive to get
there. (Injectors, intakes etc.)
--
Bob Mann

It may be that your sole purpose in life
is to serve as a warning to others.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:42:46 -0700, "Thumper"
<roadapple@unclewebster.com> wrote:

>
>"Bob Mann" <Bobo@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:i5ukt3p9v71q2179fnjeqqpufrksjd30ue@4ax.com.. .
>> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
>>
>> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>>
>> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
>> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>>
>> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>>
>> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>>
>> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
>> trying it out.
>>
>> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
>> rating very conservatively.
>> --
>> Bob Mann
>>
>> It may be that your sole purpose in life
>> is to serve as a warning to others.
>
>My RK was dynoed (?) at 105.95 HP, max torque 101.35. With much of the same
>work you've done. I had 510 S&S gear driven cams installed though. I would
>say your dyno is either very conservative or LVHD is fucked up.
>
>http://www.thumpers-roadhouse.ws/harley/rkdyno.jpg

I've been told that dynos are pretty much all different so results are
mostly only valid on runs on the same dyno.
Your curve looks very similar to mine, just higher.
--
Bob Mann

It may be that your sole purpose in life
is to serve as a warning to others.

"Bob Mann" <Bobo@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:i5ukt3p9v71q2179fnjeqqpufrksjd30ue@4ax.com...
> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
>
> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>
> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>
> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>
> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>
> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
> trying it out.
>
> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
> rating very conservatively.
> --
> Bob Mann
>
> It may be that your sole purpose in life
> is to serve as a warning to others.

Interesting. How does Buell get 100hp out of the 1200 Sportster engine? Is
it really that highly tuned?

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:44:42 -0600, "BryanUT" <nestle12@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Bob Mann" <Bobo@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:i5ukt3p9v71q2179fnjeqqpufrksjd30ue@4ax.com.. .
>> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
>>
>> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>>
>> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
>> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>>
>> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>>
>> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>>
>> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
>> trying it out.
>>
>> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
>> rating very conservatively.
>> --
>> Bob Mann
>>
>> It may be that your sole purpose in life
>> is to serve as a warning to others.
>
>Interesting. How does Buell get 100hp out of the 1200 Sportster engine? Is
>it really that highly tuned?
>
Good question although that is stated rather than dyno'd.
--
Bob Mann

It may be that your sole purpose in life
is to serve as a warning to others.

"Bob Mann" <Bobo@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:25pot31noc2jt63rbargkr95sugm3vn9ji@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:44:42 -0600, "BryanUT" <nestle12@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bob Mann" <Bobo@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:i5ukt3p9v71q2179fnjeqqpufrksjd30ue@4ax.com. ..
>>> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
>>>
>>> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>>>
>>> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
>>> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>>>
>>> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>>>
>>> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>>>
>>> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
>>> trying it out.
>>>
>>> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
>>> rating very conservatively.
>>> --
>>> Bob Mann
>>>
>>> It may be that your sole purpose in life
>>> is to serve as a warning to others.
>>
>>Interesting. How does Buell get 100hp out of the 1200 Sportster engine?
>>Is
>>it really that highly tuned?
>>
> Good question although that is stated rather than dyno'd.
> --
> Bob Mann
>

Ya know it we aren't careful we could turn this into a flame war, hehe.

I rode 2 Buells, an Aprilia, and a Ducati last year. All of them a claimed
~100 hp.

I didn't dislike any of them. But none of them came close to the "eyes in
the back of your head" thrill of my F4i (~100 hp).

And I can't wait to rent an 883 and cruise around the SF Bay area in May.