Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3  All

Author Topic: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system  (Read 5842 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bigmanken

  • Junior CVO Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • They think I have lost my mind.
Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« on: January 23, 2006, 06:08:28 PM »

When I took delivery on the Haze in October, it was immediately obvious that the engine was indeed asthmatic and constipated (not to mention the exhaust sounded awful). I could only stand about 300 miles or so. Upon advice from my local tech shop (not the dealer) I have installed a Terry Components Terminal Velocity Fuel injection Management System along with Bassani slash cut slip on pipes.Also a K&N high flow air filter. I must say I am very happy with the results from the adjustments. I had an immediate increase in HP and Torque. The Bassani pipes sound great.

Now, my concern is that I have not seen any comments on closed loop fuel management. I realize that for most, the dyno mapping is probably a must for peak performance. For guys like me who just like to ride a responsive bike, it is not as critical. Can anyone share info about the fuel mamagement system pro's or con's. Have I bit off something I may regret later? Like I said I am super pleased at the moment (bottom line,I guess that is what it is all about).
Logged

Ironhorse

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4338
    • CA


    • CVO1: 2006 SE Ultra
    • CVO2: 2018 GoldWing DCT Airbag
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2006, 01:04:32 AM »

I have one on my bike too. It's not the Terry brand, but it's made by the guy that makes 'em for Terry. You are right on the money with your assessment. It's not a substitute for a spot on dyno tune, but it does what it's supposed to do, adjust the afr as needed under load and conditions. It adapts well to minor changes like pipes, and aircleaner, but my personal experience is that wholesale changes like heads, and cams, and displacement require a dyno tune. If you require further mapping changes, get an RT or PC.
Logged
"But men are men, the best sometimes forget" Shakespeare, Othello Act 2, Scene 3

grc

  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14216
  • AKA Grouchy Old Fart
    • IN


    • CVO1: 2005 SEEG2
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2006, 09:50:02 AM »

The closed loop systems still rely on a base map for fuel and ignition settings, and it is recommended that a new base map be built for modified engines.  The A/F correction factor from the O2 sensor is applied to the base map settings to achieve a target A/F, but the system works best when the corrections are relatively small.

IMHO, closed loop is the only way to fly.  

Jerry
Logged
Jerry - 2005 Cherry SEEG  -  Member # 1155

H-D and me  -  a classic love / hate relationship.  Current score:  love 40, hate 50, bewildered 10.

grc

  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14216
  • AKA Grouchy Old Fart
    • IN


    • CVO1: 2005 SEEG2
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2006, 10:33:57 AM »

One thing I don't understand about the Terry system is the dyno chart on their web site (see attachment).  Look at the A/F portion of the chart.  Looks like they are all over the place on A/F, which is just the opposite of what you would expect with a closed loop system.  I noticed this once in the past, and thought about asking them to explain, but it slipped my mind.

Jerry
Logged
Jerry - 2005 Cherry SEEG  -  Member # 1155

H-D and me  -  a classic love / hate relationship.  Current score:  love 40, hate 50, bewildered 10.

Ironhorse

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4338
    • CA


    • CVO1: 2006 SE Ultra
    • CVO2: 2018 GoldWing DCT Airbag
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2006, 07:18:48 PM »

Grc,

Looking at that dyno chart, I'm guessing that the red is pre Fuel Processor, and the blue is post. It actually looks a little like mine did after I did heads and cam.

If you look at my dyno sheet you will see the Fuel Processors limitations. I brought my bike back to the dyno shop to have the tune checked after heads and cam. The blue is before the dyno tune, and red is after. As you can tell, even with the Fuel Processor, my AFR was way off prior to the tune. However, when the Fuel Processor works with a good tune, the bike runs great!

Logged
"But men are men, the best sometimes forget" Shakespeare, Othello Act 2, Scene 3

bigmanken

  • Junior CVO Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • They think I have lost my mind.
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2006, 03:55:24 PM »

Quote
One thing I don't understand about the Terry system is the dyno chart on their web site (see attachment).
Logged

CVOinLV

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2006, 11:21:12 AM »

bigmanken

I have a close loop system from the Daytona Twin tech and I think that I will be pretty happy with it, just that I cannot get it tuned so that it starts and idles correctly.  My problem is that it did not come with a map for the 103 and the company said to use the 95 map and adjust HP up until it starts and idles OK and then work an the alpha table.  After several weeks of playing with it I still feel that it is all over the place for starting, idling, and AFR.   Would you be willing to look and compare my map with yours or could you send me your map?  
I would really appreciate either.  
Thanks
CVOinLV  
Logged

skidlyman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
  • FLHRSEI.ORG
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2006, 06:00:55 PM »

Quote
One thing I don't understand about the Terry system is the dyno chart on their web site (see attachment).
Logged

grc

  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14216
  • AKA Grouchy Old Fart
    • IN


    • CVO1: 2005 SEEG2
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2006, 09:08:18 PM »

Quote
Jerry,
 
Logged
Jerry - 2005 Cherry SEEG  -  Member # 1155

H-D and me  -  a classic love / hate relationship.  Current score:  love 40, hate 50, bewildered 10.

skidlyman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
  • FLHRSEI.ORG
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2006, 11:31:35 PM »

i'm ready to change my stock system - exhaust, AC and EFI control and can't make up my mind which way to go. I've narrowed it down to about three differant setups, and need a little help deciding which one.

1) Rinehart true duals - SE AC or Big Sucker AC - Thundermax
 ( Zippers Zip Kit)

2) Rinehart true duals - SE AC or Big Sucker AC - Terrys Hyper Velocity II

3) Rinehart true duals - SE AC or Big Sucker AC - Power Commander
 
Logged

rrawtry

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • FLHRSEI.ORG
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2006, 12:58:34 AM »

I own a 2005 FLHTCSE and have made some interesting mods that I am happy with.

1. Rinehart True Duals
2. Kuryakyn Hi 5 A/C Good for up to 130Hp it is really snug to the heads because it utilizes the  top as well as sides of the filter(K&N).
3. Terry Components Terminal Velocity Closed Loop ( Constantly retunes).
4. Stage 2 Flash

Dynojet model 250 with real time gas analyzer
I get 104.2 tq and 100.00 hp @ 5th gear
I get 99.9 tq and 98.4 hp in 4th
My air fuel is almost constant and leans out between 5000 and 5500 RPM to about 13.8

I am so thrilled I could s**t. small second gear wheelies on a bagger are cool!! [smiley=jalapeno.gif]

rrawtry

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • FLHRSEI.ORG
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2006, 01:03:10 AM »

As for the Terry dyno chart, My opinion is it was doing the best it could without any other mods or the other mods were not done correctly(lack of forethought). Bub Rinehart tech guys actually recommend the Terry Components and they install a bung in the pipe for it.

rrawtry

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • FLHRSEI.ORG
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2006, 01:15:45 AM »

Sorry abou my three back to back posts, Just getting used to this new computer. Wanted to make sure I posted this dyno run scan to insure I wasn't blowing smoke.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2006, 02:53:06 AM by twolanerider »
Logged

grc

  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14216
  • AKA Grouchy Old Fart
    • IN


    • CVO1: 2005 SEEG2
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2006, 08:18:39 AM »

Now that is a good looking A/F chart.  The point of my previous post was that you have to start out with a halfway decent map, and then the Terry unit can smooth and adjust it.  It can't work miracles with a lousy base map.

Jerry
Logged
Jerry - 2005 Cherry SEEG  -  Member # 1155

H-D and me  -  a classic love / hate relationship.  Current score:  love 40, hate 50, bewildered 10.

rrawtry

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • FLHRSEI.ORG
Re: Mapping vs. fuel injection management system
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2006, 09:50:19 AM »

I concur with your opinion in your previous post as well. It takes a good base map, designed around a good breathing engine to produce optimum results. The 103 Harley engine is so confined due to E.P.A. regs that it cannot breathe. Set up correctly it is a monster. You should checkout www.kuryakyn.com and type "wild things" in the search engine. They have some interesting dyno stuff near the bottom of the page. they have some great engineering in a couple of set-ups they offer. [smiley=huepfenjump3.gif]
Pages: [1] 2 3  All
 

Page created in 0.175 seconds with 24 queries.