Steve,
Any chance you have a comparison of the C X-pipe vs D X-pipe same bike, same dyno, same day. Looking to see if it is worth doing on my build.
JW
Hi JW
All of the early DX testing was done on my shop 103 with Wood 777 cams. The peak TQ numbers were awesome. I'm really hesitant to post any 777 dyno
charts because it's not a cam I support with fuel mapping or would recommend for a heavily loaded Bagger. Yes, it makes big midrange TQ, but the parking lot
manners are less than desirable when compared to a smaller Andrews 54 or something similar with less overlap. The majority of my customers, like myself run two up and top heavy. The last thing I need is my bike chuggin and buckin at 1200 RPM and I'm having to slip the clutch trying to pull a U turn in a Hotel parking lot. I know what you want to see and what your trying figure out. Is the DX worth changing to if you already have the CX? Tough question to answer because results will vary. My most recent dyno testing has shown best numbers with the larger 2.25 cores in combo with the DX on the Stage I CVOs. The TQ came in a littler earlier with the 2.0s but peaked slightly less. I did a pair of 2013 Stage CVO's last week with the DX and 2.25 cores. Highest TQ numbers to date with both bikes peaking at 118 TQ and 115TQ at 3000 RPM. Big TQ early is the DX trait. Good thing to have in a heavy Touring bike. The only game changer left out there is a new combination of parts that we haven't tested. Compatability of parts is still the key ingredient. I hope this info helps.
The chart below is before and after from one of the 2013s CVO RGs that I did last week. DX Pipe, 2.25 cores and perf sleeves in the mufflers were the only parts installed.
Stage I simplicity at its best with a 16 FT pound gain at 3K rpm.
You could haul Rosey O'donnell up hill at a hundred on this one. Not that owner Kevin Ireland ever would.
Steve George
Fullsac Performance
Author
Topic: 2012 CVO Fullsac Stage I DX Pipe dyno results! (Read 14433 times)