Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[captdave221]

OK here is the deal. I have a 103" motor in a 2011 Ultra. Exhaust is a FulSac  B header with the street legal muffs (the duals that look like supertrapps). I get 109 HP and 113 Torque with them. I tried a set of 3 1/2" Rinehart slip-on muff and lost 3 hp and 4 Torque and the fuel curve at wot was so bad I didn't even try to tune it as the numbers were lower where the a/f was at 13-1 on the graph. I am happy with the numbers with the HD muffs but thought there might be a better flowing set out there and the Rineharts don't seem to be the ones. I don't want to spend $$$$ trying different slip-ons trying to find more hp and/or torque. No I don't want to got to a 2-1 system either.

I am using Powervision for tuning and a dyno is at my disposal but a bunch of different slip-ons are not available for me to experiment with.

Thanks for any and all comments.

[mjb765]

You're getting 109hp and 113Tq out of a 103"........very nice. You must have some work into it.....

[captdave221]

Yes I have and didn't want to get into that. My main reason for asking about the muffs is I am finishing a 120" build for a friend and he has the Fuel Moto headpipe and these are his muffs. He was asking about the need for different muffs and I tried his on my bike while I had it on the dyno doing other tests and thought I would see how the 3.5" Rinehart's compared to my muffs. I was not impressed with them. The a/f went waaay lean between 3 and 3.5 thousand and waaay rich over 5200 rpm. At 5000 it was at 13 to 1 and the power and torque were less than I had with the HD muffs.

[mjb765]

Yes I have and sisn't want to get into that. My mainreason for asking about the muffs is I am finishing a 120" build for a friend and he has the Fuel Moto headpipe and these are his muffs. He was asking about the need for different muffs and I tried his on my bike while I had it on the dyno doing other tests and thought I would see how the 3.5" Rinehart's compared to my muffs. I was not impressed with them. The a/f went waaay lean between 3 and 3.5 thousand and waaay rich over 5200 rpm. At 5000 it was at 13 to 1 and the power and torque were less than I had with the HD muffs.

Didn't want to hijack the post....just noticed those very nice numbers.....

[captdave221]

Just MVA heads and Wood's TW 408-6 cams with SE forged pistons, FulSac B header, higher flow injectors in stk TB, tuned with Power Vision. The main dyno operator here at Doc's Harley-Davidson in Kirkwood, Mo. and I went to DynaJet back in December for training on Power Vision.

[glens]

I tried a set of 3 1/2" Rinehart slip-on muff and lost 3 hp and 4 Torque and the fuel curve at wot was so bad I didn't even try to tune it as the numbers were lower where the a/f was at 13-1 on the graph. ...

I am using Powervision for tuning and a dyno is at my disposal but a bunch of different slip-ons are not available for me to experiment with.

It sounds like you're not really bothering to experiment with even the limited possibilities you already have at your disposal.

You don't think if you'd corrected the fueling that the output might have improved?  What kind of "experiment" is that?  If you alter the breathing you're going to need to alter the fueling at a minimum in every case, so to truly make a comparison you're going to need to try every combination in at least a largely "tuned" state.  Otherwise it's not only unfair, but invalid and a waste of time IMO.

How do you feel the Powervision, SEPST, and TTS differ from each other in what they can do and what advantages and disadvantages do you find for each of them?

[captdave221]

It sounds like you're not really bothering to experiment with even the limited possibilities you already have at your disposal.

You don't think if you'd corrected the fueling that the output might have improved?  What kind of "experiment" is that?  If you alter the breathing you're going to need to alter the fueling at a minimum in every case, so to truly make a comparison you're going to need to try every combination in at least a largely "tuned" state.  Otherwise it's not only unfair, but invalid and a waste of time IMO.

How do you feel the Powervision, SEPST, and TTS differ from each other in what they can do and what advantages and disadvantages do you find for each of them?

I didn't try to tune because where the a/f ratios were spot on the results were worse than with what I already had. Torque was peaking at 5000 rpm's for both and the a/f for both sets of muffs was at 13-1 at 5000 rpms. IF it looked like the Rinehart's were going to be stronger at any rpm we would have put some more time into refining the a/f curve. Why beat a dead horse? For more noise I want an improvement in performance not less. So the answer is a NO I don't think they would have performed better with more tuning. Like you said why waste time?

Haven't done any TTS experience but PV is MUCH easier to tune than SEPST outside the closed loop area and has the ability to change more things and by buying the Tuning license we can tune more than 1 bike with the shop's PV w/ auto tune wide band o2 sensors. The bike can also be re-tuned if the owner changes something in the future.

[glens]

Torque was peaking at 5000 rpm's for both and the a/f for both sets of muffs was at 13-1 at 5000 rpms.

Sorry, I didn't gather anything like that from your first description.

Haven't done any TTS experience but PV is MUCH easier to tune than SEPST outside the closed loop area and has the ability to change more things and by buying the Tuning license we can tune more than 1 bike with the shop's PV w/ auto tune wide band o2 sensors. The bike can also be re-tuned if the owner changes something in the future.

I looked up the "tuning license" and see they're offering a system like TechnoResearch does, where a person can buy just a key that someone who'd bought the hardware can use to tune the ECM.  So I could show up at your shop, give you ~$200 for permission to have you (or anyone else with a PowerVision?) modify my single ECM programming any number of times, thereby saving myself a bit better than $300, but I wouldn't have the hardware with which I could do my own work.  Does that sum it up pretty good?

If you've ever used a SERT (the actual product prior to the SEPST) then you could easily use a TTS since they're the same thing, but the TTS now has more things you can adjust than even the PV has.  In particular there are two tools to adjust the ECM to better zero in on arbitrary cam timing events and to give another axis (in effect) to the VE tables which allows you to smooth them in the part-throttle areas.  That last item really helps throttle response and power in the most-every-day-used area.

A couple of things I really like about the TTS over the others are that the logging actually works well, along with the software, to generate viable VE tables on the road, and the EITMS scheme has been altered to not just cut fuel to the rear cylinder, but rather to skip-fire both cylinders.  It's a lot less funky-feeling if/when it happens.  Oh, and it's still the least expensive of them all (that is if/when a person actually buys the hardware and not just a "license").