Gen 2 on the Dyno!

Lentech

Lentech

Well-Known Member
Visit site
We finally had a chance to get Pilot Bob's 06 on the dyno and with just a pipe and a power comander it cranked out 152HP!.....Thats 9 more than my Gen 1 bee!....Torque numbers were almost identical between both bikes. This Saturday we'll see if we can tweak a couple more ponies out of it .....if we gain anything at all it won't be much as the AFR was pretty much bang on at 13:1 . We'll have video on this on our facebook page tomorrow @

Lentech Motorsports - Automotive - Ottawa, ON | Facebook
 
Lentech said:
We finally had a chance to get Pilot Bob's 06 on the dyno and with just a pipe and a power comander it cranked out 152HP!.....Thats 9 more than my Gen 1 bee!....Torque numbers were almost identical between both bikes. This Saturday we'll see if we can tweak a couple more ponies out of it .....if we gain anything at all it won't be much as the AFR was pretty much bang on at 13:1 . We'll have video on this on our facebook page tomorrow @

Lentech Motorsports - Automotive - Ottawa, ON | Facebook
Click to expand...

Sounds good, what mods does his bike have?
 
ballmead said:
I saw that but 152 HP for just a slip-on?
Click to expand...

mies said:
Don't forget the powercommander he also mentioned
Click to expand...

Guys it depends a lot on the dyno that the run is made. Remember Len has a Mustang dyno, not a Dynojet so his numbers are going to be different from what you have possibly seen before.

However, you can compare bike to bike HP runs on the same dyno and I'll be curious to see if they gain any more power after their "tweaks".

If the airbox hasn't been opened up that mod (along with a hi-flow) filter should gain a few more HP as well.
 
id be interested to see if thats at wheel or crank....


I did the full decat, beowulf end can (sans db killer), lars airbox mod, K&N filter, o2 elimanator, pcIII with a Lars map and saw 146.9 rwhp. on 2 different dynos, one a fuchs the other a dynojet there was very little difference, about 0.2.
 
Last edited:
Utah06FZ1 said:
Question, Wouldn't all Dynos be measuring HP at the wheel?
Click to expand...

not necessarily, a dyno can measure at crank, box or wheel and show a reading for either on the display

to take things a little further, The Uk spec runs 150bhp at the crank standard so to achieve 150+ at the rear wheel means roughly 170+bhp at the crank , 20bhp+ is a hell of an increase for a pipe and pcIII

not demeaning the op in anyway, just curious to know
 
Last edited:
Utah06FZ1 said:
Question, Wouldn't all Dynos be measuring HP at the wheel?
Click to expand...

Bagzter said:
not necessarily, a dyno can measure at crank, box or wheel and show a reading for either on the display

to take things a little further, The Uk spec runs 150bhp at the crank standard so to achieve 150+ at the rear wheel means roughly 170+bhp at the crank , 20bhp+ is a hell of an increase for a pipe and pcIII

not demeaning the op in anyway, just curious to know
Click to expand...

Typically HP figures advertized by manufacturers are at the crank.

When a dyno is used for tuning, especially on a motorcycle, you typically measure HP at the rear wheel. There may be a way to estimate HP at the crank by taking into account power loss though the transmission, chain, etc, but it's not an exact number and not really practical.

The main thing when tuning is to use the same dyno for consistent results.
 
Nice comparison! Illustrates exactly why people often say that the Gen II is gutless below 8k RPM. The Gen I has a great mid-range advantage over it...
 
Could this comparison also explain, in a very indirect way, why the Gen. I bikes get slightly better fuel economy than the Gen. II bikes? Generally the RPMs for most riding will be well below 9,000 figure and perhaps the Gen. I engines are a little more efficient?

I have always wondered exactly why the difference in fuel economy. When you compare camshaft timing, compression ratio, gear ratios, etc., the differences seem very subtle. I would think that fuel injection should be able to yield better economy than carburetion, but apparently not necessarily so.
 
NJFZ1 said:
Nice comparison! Illustrates exactly why people often say that the Gen II is gutless below 8k RPM. The Gen I has a great mid-range advantage over it...
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a similar situation with Suzuki's GSXR 750's in the late 80's.

At that time I was working as a tech at a Honda and Suzuki dealer and Suzuki in having great sucess with the GSXR 750 from its introduction in 85, went looking for more power and stretched the bore from 70mm to 74mm in 89. They of course shortened the stroke and lengthend the rod to fit it all in and stay at 750cc.....Yes they got thier peak power up all right but it was at such an expense of torque so much so that race teams complained that they were gutless comming out of the corners.....Suzuki went back to the 70mm bore a couple years later and what engines they had left got dumped into Katana's

Yamaha and thier 5 valve genesis never really proved to be any sugnificant advantage over a well designed 4 valve and finally packed that in .......I wonder how long it'll be before the crossplane crank layout ends up shelved when traction and throttle control can acomplish much of this "smoother power delivery"......Maybe when the Gimick sells its self out?....
 
Last edited:
NJFZ1 said:
Typically HP figures advertized by manufacturers are at the crank.

When a dyno is used for tuning, especially on a motorcycle, you typically measure HP at the rear wheel. There may be a way to estimate HP at the crank by taking into account power loss though the transmission, chain, etc, but it's not an exact number and not really practical.

The main thing when tuning is to use the same dyno for consistent results.
Click to expand...

i agree with the need to use the same machine for consistant result, Im not a dyno expert but i do know that if similar results are achieved on 2 different machines then it can be taken that the claimed output is pretty much as stated lol.

to go back to the topic, the question i originally posed was... is the figure quoted by the OP an at wheel figure or an at crank figure?

Looking at the video it says engine engine power on the screen so Im guessing that means at crank, in which case the figures quoted are as would be expected for a pipe and pcIII/V mod, if its an at wheel figure, a 20+ increase for pipe and pcIII is bloody amazing seeing as most people gain about 15-20 increase after a decat, o2 eliminator, air box mod, end can, flies etc etc. I think some clarifiaction is required by the OP as to where the figure quoted relates to... crank or wheel
 
Any time the vehicle itself is used your readings will be at the wheel.. If just the engine is used(removed from the vehicle) the reading would be from the last point of power delivery.
 
guys the point im trying to clarify is this: where does the figure quoted relate to?

does it relate to a machine conversion to crank figure or at the rear wheel figure?

I know some of you may think im being a pain and possibly tryin to cause an argument, but Im not.

if you look at one of my last dyno run printout youll see why Im looking for clarification.

The dyno is a Fuchs and the guy that runs it regularly sets up both his and his wifes drag bikes on it so he knows his trade.
 
With out knowing how the dyno is programed it would impossible to say for sure but I would guess that it is using the RWHP figure then performing some sort of correction to give crankshaft and transmission HP figures.
 
johnnyontherocks said:
Any time the vehicle itself is used your readings will be at the wheel.. If just the engine is used(removed from the vehicle) the reading would be from the last point of power delivery.
Click to expand...

Readings are at the wheel not the crank. But there is a means of getting a closer estimate to crank HP on the Dyno. We could perform a drive line efficency test.....We have rarely done this but esentially it is a measurement of a "coast down time" that the dyno uses to equate an efficency number ....So what we do is bring it up to a steady 50mph then pull in the clutch and then we trigger the decell/coast test and the dyno then looks at how quickly the roller is slowing down and spits out a number that allows us the mathimaticly estimate power at the crank......The faster the decell the more driveline loss the dyno equates it to.... Remember " Uncorrected HP" is the real deal and "Corrected HP" is the dyno's own estimate of what it should be at Sea level air pressure and 60 degree's air temp.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top