Print

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

[FlaHeatWave]

To 05Train,
Nice Build, it seems that it provides you exactly what you are looking for   Please excuse me for bit of a hi-jack, but since this topic came up here, 'just gotta' ask...

To Steve Cole,
"There's been a lot of talk about proper O2 sensor placement on various head pipes.  Certain people have mentioned that the Jackpot has issues with placement and therefore presents tuning problems.  I'm happy to report that those people are wrong.  We checked the A/Fs with widebands in the 18mm bungs and with sniffers in the pipes, and the readings were identical.  Another myth busted."

"Right is right and wrong is still wrong and the O2 position used by FuelMoto is still just as wrong today as it has been all along."

I have seen the same "tests" with the same results. When on the Dyno, the O2 sensors are reading exactly the same as the Sniffers that the Tuner is using to tune the bike.

Where is the discrepancy that you speak of?

In your world, where would you prefer the placement of the O2s? and why?

[Steve Cole]

Assuming there is a question in what you've posted I think your asking the following.

"Where is the discrepancy that you speak of?
In your world, where would you prefer the placement of the O2s? and why?"

In this case as reported to me by Dave (the tuner)the bike was running lean as tested by external O2 sensors on a sniffer and the tune was a PV based calibration that the PV had tuned in. This is common and has been reported before to us and I have personally seen the same thing with this pipe installed. So the pipe O2 position is causing the O2 signal that is sent to the ECM to be false or misleading. The ECM is just following what the O2 sensor is telling it to do.

What I would want/expect is a O2 placement that allows for an accurate reading of what the engine is doing, not something it's not doing.

Here are test results I just did last week comparing the accuracy of what the ECM is capable of doing with the stock sensors in a properly setup exhaust system to a Lab quality measuring system.

Target fuel Ratio of 0.983 Lambda by the ECM

Measure Front Cylinder exhaust (RPM vs Load)

         30     40     50     60     70     75     80
1000    0.979   0.985   0.984   0.986   0.992   0.993   0.992
1500    0.98   0.985   0.985   0.984   0.987   0.989   0.991
2000    0.98   0.981   0.982   0.984   0.986   0.986   0.989
2500    0.987   0.978   0.981   0.983   0.985   0.986   0.981
3000    0.991   0.977   0.979   0.98   0.981   0.982   0.978
3500   0.984   0.978   0.979   0.98   0.98   0.981   0.98
4000   0.979   0.981   0.987   0.986   0.983   0.982   0.981

Measured Rear Cylinder exhaust  (RPM vs Load)

         30     40     50     60     70     75     80
1000   0.977   0.982   0.985   0.986   0.987   0.986   0.986
1500   0.979   0.985   0.985   0.986   0.987   0.988   0.991
2000   0.98   0.985   0.985   0.985   0.985   0.983   0.985
2500   0.985   0.983   0.983   0.983   0.983   0.98   0.977
3000   0.99   0.981   0.98   0.981   0.982   0.98   0.976
3500   0.982   0.981   0.982   0.981   0.978   0.979   0.981
4000   0.976   0.981   0.98   0.982   0.982   0.983   0.98

If you run the numbers you will see that the ECM and stock sensors will and do control to within +/-1% of commanded during this test. I've run this very same test many times on various pipes and seen them change the results so badly that in some cases the ECM control just flat stops working! So the idea of blaming the issue on the ECM or the stock sensors is pure BS. 

[05Train]

To 05Train,
Nice Build, it seems that it provides you exactly what you are looking for  

Thank you.  We'll be back at the tuning this weekend and see what the open end caps do for the mufflers.  We're also going to give the DJ AT-110 wideband kit a whirl.  It should make the process go much quicker.

I am very pleased with the components and the results (so far, they'll get even better). 

Steve, that is not at all what Dave said or what we witnessed.  I would appreciate it if you'd bow out of this thread.  It has nothing to do with your product and I'd rather not deal with your issues with Fuel Moto, Jackpot, or Jamie Long.

[FlaHeatWave]

Thank you.  We'll be back at the tuning this weekend and see what the open end caps do for the mufflers.  We're also going to give the DJ AT-110 wideband kit a whirl.  It should make the process go much quicker.

I am very pleased with the components and the results (so far, they'll get even better). 

The AT100 should streamline the tuning process.

Taking the time to really fine tune the discs to the dyno would probably be all it would require, take into consideration your sound preferences, and compromise from there if you want.

I'm considering going from the PC-V / Auto to the PV / AT100 on the 113 / 117 Build that we are working on (not in any hurry to dyno this one) Any thoughts???
 

[Steve Cole]

I am only dealing with your false and misleading comment, nothing more and nothing less. I've reported what Dave told me, and people can draw there own conclusions. As I stated before, your trying to twist this into something it's not for some reason. For the record it has nothing at all to do with issues with FuelMoto, Jackpot or Jamie Long. Only with the pipe and the poor O2 placement of the pipe. If and when they get around to fixing it I will be more than happy to report they've fixed the issues but until then I will warn people of the issues it causes.

For the record I hope that you get it to run how you want it and that your happy with it, as that is what really counts on a build.

[05Train]

The AT100 should streamline the tuning process.

Taking the time to really fine tune the discs to the dyno would probably be all it would require, take into consideration your sound preferences, and compromise from there if you want.

I'm considering going from the PC-V / Auto to the PV / AT100 on the 113 / 117 Build that we are working on (not in any hurry to dyno this one) Any thoughts???
 

The main reason I want to try the open caps was due to the "dips" we saw in the VE tables at around 3000rpm and at WOT.  If that's due to the gasses backing up at the caps and throwing off the O2 readings, then the open caps should solve that problem and produce more power.  The wildcard is going to be the sound level.  The exhaust is so much quieter with 20 discs now than it was with 10 and the 255, that I think it'll be fine with 12 discs (or so) and the open caps.  Time will tell, as will the dyno.

I haven't used a PCV, but my gut says that with the combination you're building you'll be better off with the PV.  You've got so much more feedback and control that I think you'll have an easier time dialing in the tune, and you'll end up with better results.

With the AT module you can run it in Autotune Pro and run the thing at your target Lambda without retarding the timing.  It'll not only correct your VEs, but it'll pull timing where knock is detected.  So you can go through and work your VEs, then do a bunch of timing runs to get that dialed in, then re-check your VEs and call it a day.  And Lordy is it easy to get good data when you can see what cells you've hit.

[FlaHeatWave]

Assuming there is a question in what you've posted I think your asking the following.

I thought that's what question marks were for?

"Where is the discrepancy that you speak of?
In your world, where would you prefer the placement of the O2s? and why?"

In this case as reported to me by Dave (the tuner)the bike was running lean as tested by external O2 sensors on a sniffer and the tune was a PV based calibration that the PV had tuned in. This is common and has been reported before to us and I have personally seen the same thing with this pipe installed. So the pipe O2 position is causing the O2 signal that is sent to the ECM to be false or misleading.
 I would think that when you were in the room with Delphi and The MoCo, the topic of 02 sensor placement would have been addressed...
Like I asked before, what do you think is the optimal placement for the 02s??? Upstream or downstream from their current location(s) 

The ECM is just following what the O2 sensor is telling it to do.

I'll ask this one again, but will try to clarify my question; If the screen on the PV (02s through the ECM) and the screen on the Dyno (sniffers) are showing identical AFR numbers, what is the discrepancy that you keep bringing up???

What I would want/expect is a O2 placement that allows for an accurate reading of what the engine is doing, not something it's not doing.

Do the 02s need to be placed a sniffer's length from the end of the exhaust??? Because that's what the Dyno guys are tuning with!!!

[05Train]

Simply put, any pipe with O2 sensors where the factory sensors are is non-optimal.  They're too far away from the exhaust ports and too close to the muffler outlet(s) to get good, consistent data. 

[FlaHeatWave]

Simply put, any pipe with O2 sensors where the factory sensors are is non-optimal.  They're too far away from the exhaust ports and too close to the muffler outlet(s) to get good, consistent data.

'Going to let this dawg rest

Thanks for the input on the PV.

[Steve Cole]

FlaHeatWave

"I would think that when you were in the room with Delphi and The MoCo, the topic of 02 sensor placement would have been addressed...
Like I asked before, what do you think is the optimal placement for the 02s??? Upstream or downstream from their current location(s)"

I have posted several times links to Bosch's information that explains very clearly the way to properly mount and test O2 position. Optimal placement is purely a design based on how the pipe is manufactured and is the responsibility of the pipe manufacture.There is no set copy this and it will work for you, it needs to be checked and tested just like any other design.


"I'll ask this one again, but will try to clarify my question; If the screen on the PV (02s through the ECM) and the screen on the Dyno (sniffers) are showing identical AFR numbers, what is the discrepancy that you keep bringing up???"

If this was the case then we would not be having this discussion again. We also would not have to have dyno tuners turning the O2 sensors off or turning AFV's off, but they still do. Ever wonder why? This isn't a Dynojet, TTS or HD issue, it's a pipe manufacture issue.

"Do the 02s need to be placed a sniffer's length from the end of the exhaust???"

Again, read my first response and follow the directions by the manufacture of the sensor. There is no one fits all answer for each and every pipe design. It is up to the manufacture of the pipe to do his job.

[05Train]

'Going to let this dawg rest

Thank you, it's been beat to death.

[05Train]

And we're done.  I'll have to scan in the sheets, but I'm pleased with it.   It's not a "beat your chest" build, but it's a solid touring combination (if the 250 miles I rode today are any indication).  I'm not thrilled with the noise through the air cleaner, but otherwise I'm great with it.

[05Train]

OK, I couldn't wait.  109/113.  No, it's not a balls-out build.  With a Fatcat I think I would have seen the torque around 120....But then I wouldn't be able to ride it for more than 20 minutes.

We ended up with 12 discs and open caps.  That makes for a deeper sound that's a bit louder than the closed caps, but not obnoxiously so.  It's still quieter than the 255 with 15 discs and the closed caps.

It doesn't feel fast.  It's not an arm-stretcher.  The lower cylinder pressure makes for less immediacy when I jump on the throttle.  There's more power, but it spools up a bit slower.  There's also a TON less engine braking for the same reason.

Other than the intake noise (which I really hope I get used to) it's a great touring build. And it highlights the importance of having a builder who asks the right questions and listens to the answer(s).  I did not want a beast of a motor.  If I did, I would have gone with a 10.5:1 113 with a different cam (T-Man 625 probably) and headwork.  I would have been well over 120/120 with a different pair of mufflers.  But that's not what this build was about.

With a CCP around 192, I've got a build that won't beat the hell out of the crank (I was 215 stock), and isn't loud.  I've got plenty of passing power, and great roll-on response.

BTW, the initial peak torque number was higher (with the closed caps) but the curve looks a ton better now, doesn't it?  Bragging rights don't mean squat when you're going down the road.

Dave did it again.....He built the motor I wanted, not the one that makes for the dyno chart that'll sell a ton of builds.

[SBB]

Interesting results.

In comparison,
Jim at Metal Dragon did the work on my 2011.5 SEUC.
Woods TW7H cams.
Stock head gaskets.
Stock throttle body.
Gutted stock pipe. (a bargin)
Fullsac 2.0 baffles.
Fueling lifters.
SE pushrods.
TTS MasterTune (thanks Steve, Jim & Bob)

103/117
On these big heavy bikes torque is what gets them rolling.
With a real pipe, thinner head gasket and a throttle body I'm sure it would be a lot more but it gets over 50 mpg as is and Jim treated me well so all I do is ride it.

Glad your happy with yours!

 

SBB

[05Train]

Very interesting.

I know I'm leaving a lot on the table with my cam and exhaust choice, but my priorities were silence and reliability.  When the MotherShip comes out with a fully water-cooled Road Glide and this sucker's paid for, I can see going with a more aggressive cam and exhaust to pump the numbers higher.


Sent from my iPad, probably while I'm pooping.