Print

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

[FLSTFI Dave]

Dave, the only place 4HP is a big deal is a lawn mower, a old 8N Ford tractor or a NASCAR restrictor track motor, Never know it on a bike by seat of the pants.
Sorry I just, once again, disagree with you.

Naw, your not sorry, you enjoy disagreeing with me.   On a drag strip or a track you would know it, it can be the difference between winning and loosing.  Also, if say your building a 117 in motor with the works. why leave 4HP on the table?  Most who build a motor want the most HP and torque they can get, and through out the power band.  The heavy breather helps over a wide range of the power band.  People spend a lot more for pips that may or may not bring anything to the table power wise.

Many people also talk about the huge baffle pipes that are all noise and loose torque like the CFR or Vance and Hines High output, both leave have poor torque down low compared to say a pipe with a 2 inch baffle.   I can feel the difference between a High Output Vs a Fullsac 2.0  Its only 4 or 5 foot pounds of torque but its at 2000~2500 rpm where you ride the most.

4% power increase is pretty good.  Any racer would love to find 4% more power

[Kclarke]

I'll take 4 or 5 any day.

[yobtaf103]

But stuck behind a leg fairing, will you see any benefit as not out in the airflow anyway?

[skratch]

the heavy breather is not a 'ram' air breather.  there is virtually no difference whether it is behind lower fairings or not.

[Fullsac Performance]

In regards to fuel mapping. The 8 valve motors are very rich at full throttle, about 11.8-12.0 AFR. The stock ventilator has always shown a 3-4 HP loss when compared to an open TB. The Heavy Breather was always zero loss and usually showed a 1-2 Point TQ increase due to the added plenum effect. The elbow on the new HB shows zero loss, but add the shorty filter and you loose 1 HP. Back to fuel mapping. Adding the HB and new baffles to the stock mufflers will lean the overly rich full throttle AFR slightly but not much else because the power gain is slight. I don't see any issues riding the bike like this. I made made many dyno pulls like this before the tuning software was available. Now if you remove the cat, that's another story. Time to remap!

Steve@fullsac.com

[FLSTFI Dave]

Thanks Steve, great information.

Head pipe still in testing different versions for M8?

[Fullsac Performance]

Thanks Steve, great information.

Head pipe still in testing different versions for M8?

Hey Dave!
Lots of dyno hours last week. Things are getting narrowed down. Had a few surprises.
Here's a 2 into 1 that tested well. Same old story, one muffler = more noise.

Steve@fullsac.com

[Kclarke]

So Steve.  Your saying with the 114 M8 motor.  If I already have the Fullsac 2.0 and add a Harley Heavy Breather I do not have to remap or put a tuner on the bike?  Or did I misunderstand.  I was hoping to add these now.  Then when y'all come out with a header pipe for this bike I could just add the header and TTS then. 

[FLSTFI Dave]

Hey Dave!
Lots of dyno hours last week. Things are getting narrowed down. Had a few surprises.
Here's a 2 into 1 that tested well. Same old story, one muffler = more noise.

Steve@fullsac.com

Interesting on the 2-1.  Would not look good on a CVO with the stretched bags, but an ultra or non CVO would be fine.  Do you plan to market the 2-1 or just the 2-1-2 that you have been doing in the past.

[Fullsac Performance]

So Steve.  Your saying with the 114 M8 motor.  If I already have the Fullsac 2.0 and add a Harley Heavy Breather I do not have to remap or put a tuner on the bike?  Or did I misunderstand.  I was hoping to add these now.  Then when y'all come out with a header pipe for this bike I could just add the header and TTS then.

No problem riding it with the stock map and, AC and 2.0 baffles only.   

SG

[Fullsac Performance]

Interesting on the 2-1.  Would not look good on a CVO with the stretched bags, but an ultra or non CVO would be fine.  Do you plan to market the 2-1 or just the 2-1-2 that you have been doing in the past.

The 2 into1 may not make it to production. Right now it makes the same power and more noise. Not my preference but who knows what others want? I had to test it to make sure I wasn't leaving anything on the table. I have the X pipe narrowed down to one of two. Started out with five variations! The 2.5" right muffler has been a pain in the ass. No matter what you do the right side is going to be dominant. Over 200 dyno pulls, we are getting close to wrapping it up.

Steve@fullsac.com

[FLSTFI Dave]

The 2 into1 may not make it to production. Right now it makes the same power and more noise. Not my preference but who knows what others want? I had to test it to make sure I wasn't leaving anything on the table. I have the X pipe narrowed down to one of two. Started out with five variations! The 2.5" right muffler has been a pain in the ass. No matter what you do the right side is going to be dominant. Over 200 dyno pulls, we are getting close to wrapping it up.

Steve@fullsac.com

Well That is great to know that the 2-1 is not making more power than 2-1-2.  Good to know nothing is left on the table.  I have always preferred to have two pipes at the back on baggers.  I really do not want or need more noise then the 2.25 baffles and often think I might go down to the 2.0.

[Fullsac Performance]

Well That is great to know that the 2-1 is not making more power than 2-1-2.  Good to know nothing is left on the table.  I have always preferred to have two pipes at the back on baggers.  I really do not want or need more noise then the 2.25 baffles and often think I might go down to the 2.0.

With identical exhaust the 8 valve bike will always have a lower DB level. You don't realize how much noise the TC motor contributes to the total DB level until you take it away. I really notice the difference when I jump back on TC bike.

SG