Post Dyno Charts Here.....

[LOWFLYER]

[quote=sureshot;745673]I am thinking of a new bike.
1600
THE BIG Valcan 2000 ,
I like LOrdgt bike.alot.
I like power,and wonder if I would kick myself if I got the 1600.
WHAT YA THINK VuLCAN dudes.
What kind of gas milage is the big 2000 getting ?[/QUOTE

Hey change that back! J/k Myself and LordGT would certainly recommend the V2K, but I guess we're bias. If you want a cruiser style one like the 1600, get the V2K LT. 2053cc's is hard to beat for bragging rights. I have yet to see a V2K around these parts. V2K all the way!

[LordGT]

Originally Posted by sureshot

I am thinking of a new bike.
1600
THE BIG Valcan 2000 ,
I like LOrdgt bike.alot.
I like power,and wonder if I would kick myself if I got the 1600.
WHAT YA THINK VuLCAN dudes.
What kind of gas milage is the big 2000 getting ?

Like LowFlyer says, we love our V2K's.

If your really looking at power, you know there are a lot of bikes that will embarass the V2K, most are OUTSIDE of the Cruiser line up. But the M109R and VRod will do it, and the Stratoliner and VTX 1800 are right there also.

So when you say you like Power, what is it your actually looking for? Do you want to stay in the Cruiser Family?

But the V2K is just better looking in my eyes. Especially from behind. And if you can find a left over 06 Limited, it's got great colors. The frame is Grey instead of Black. Just something different. Plus more chrome. There are a couple of no cost mods that people are trying and saying that the V2K pulls harder in the first 3 gears, and responds quicker when you twist the grip. One is a Resistor mod, and one is removing the Secondary Butterflies. You can search the threads and you'll find out what these do.

Answering your Gas Mileage question. I do have a PCIII, Baron's Big Air Kit and HK Sideburner Pipes, so it's not stock. I've lost about 2mpg overall.

I get 36-39 mpg in town. Usually 36mpg. Last tank was 38.5mpg.
I've gotten as low as 34.5 I think, but as high as 40, In Town.

I used to get 43-45 mpg on the Hwy, depending how fast I was going.
I haven't tried the Hwy since the upgrades. But I"m guessing 43mpg on the Hwy.

I'm not easy on the gas either. So I may get less than some V2K owners. I've heard stories on here recently of 46-50 mpg on a V2K. But don't bank on that.

Also, if you fill the tank up to the BOTTOM of the Upper MOST LIP at the top of the filler neck, you can squeeze another gallon of gas in the tank. That gives you about 6.5 gallons of gas, which 5.8 to 6.0 are useable.

I've been playing and I can get 40+ miles more after the fuel light goes on in TOWN. And then I add about 5.8 gallons of gas. So a Tank in town usually runs about 210 miles. But 200 miles on a tank is a pretty safe bet.

Unless you NEVER let up on the Throttle...

It's actually pretty good gas mileage for a big cruiser. My friends Valkyrie gets way worse mileage and we are pretty much neck and neck in 1st thru 3rd gears. And he can't go as far on a tank.

V2K BABY!!!!

[Tyler33]

arbburn, doesnt it seem fishy that you have the exact same a/f ratio at say 4k rpms but you somehow make 5 more hp/tq?

[LOWFLYER]

Originally Posted by LordGT

Like LowFlyer says, we love our V2K's.

I get 36-39 mpg in town. Usually 36mpg. Last tank was 38.5mpg.
I've gotten as low as 34.5 I think, but as high as 40, In Town.

V2K BABY!!!!

Ok, I wanna know who your friggin tuner is b/c I get if I'm lucky 33 mpg and usually 30 and 31 and I'm making less power than you.....grrrr I wonder if it has something to do with the fact you sport a windshield?

[LordGT]

Originally Posted by LOWFLYER

Ok, I wanna know who your friggin tuner is b/c I get if I'm lucky 33 mpg and usually 30 and 31 and I'm making less power than you.....grrrr I wonder if it has something to do with the fact you sport a windshield?

I didn't have a windshield at first, and I got better mileage then also, plus it was stock at the time. So I don't think that's it.

I have to REALLY HAMMER the throttle hard and often to get down to 32 mpg.

Maybe have it dyno tuned again. Maybe have a few things checked, like compression, and A/F ratio as it's running, etc...etc..

[chef001_2005]

It has been forever since i have posted on this forum, but i saw this thread and found my dyno sheet. i am slightly confused that with my T.P.S broken in the wide open throttle postion(PCIII is compensating until a oem T.P.S is available), i am getting better numbers than basically all of the 1600's.

max POWER = 83.2 @5800
max TORQUE= 91.2 @3800-4000

these numbers seem off to me after seeing others. Mods are intake(not sure what kind), V&H cruisers, pcIII custom map, Big bore kit(not sure on how big).


If i ever get the new T.P.S. i will get it remapped and repost numbers.

[zphreaky1]

If you in fact have a big bore kit those numbers are way too low. Did you have the kit installed or was it installed before you bought it?

[chef001_2005]

It was on when i bought it along with all of the other mods. it could be the Throttle Position Sensor being broken that is messing up th numbers.

[MeanWon]

Originally Posted by zphreaky1

If you in fact have a big bore kit those numbers are way too low. Did you have the kit installed or was it installed before you bought it?

Actually his numbers are about right considering he is starting with a 1500 cc motor and not the 1600 cc motor.

[MeanWon]

Originally Posted by Tyler33

arbburn, doesnt it seem fishy that you have the exact same a/f ratio at say 4k rpms but you somehow make 5 more hp/tq?

Tyler,

A/F ratio can be consistant across a range of rpm's and does not neccessarily dicated fuel cosnumption at a given HP. The use of that A/F burning optimally is the key.

[Tyler33]

I don't understand what you're saying MeanWon. I'm talking about a specific rpm - 4000 where the A/F mixture was basically identical but the custom tuned map produced 5 more hp and over 5 more tq. Maybe the ignition curve was changed there but that seems like a big gain for already having a good a/f mixture to begin with.

[MeanWon]

Originally Posted by Tyler33

I don't understand what you're saying MeanWon. I'm talking about a specific rpm - 4000 where the A/F mixture was basically identical but the custom tuned map produced 5 more hp and over 5 more tq. Maybe the ignition curve was changed there but that seems like a big gain for already having a good a/f mixture to begin with.

I see, I misundertood (read your reply too fast). Anyway, the difference very well could be a different dyno and different condtions and/or different parameters entered into the computer. That is why dyno numbers have to be somewhat taken with a grain of salt. Unless everyone in the country used the same dyno, at the same location and the parameters for the bike were entered in all the same for each bike, you will see varying numbers. There are just to many varibles involved to compare dyno numbers from one dyno to another.

[Tyler33]

Dude, it was the same dyno, arbburn had his bike dyno tuned. I'd assume similar conditions, that's the point. To me it looks like the dyno setup was doctored to show that the "custom map" made more power. I'm not a dyno expert though but when your a/f mixture is already pretty good, I dont see how this custom map can gain 5-10% hp and tq throughout the entire rpm range.

[arbburn]

Below is the reply from the CEO of Revolution - one of the recommended P3 dyno expert shops. (www.revolutionspeed.com)

I don't claim I know the answer to the questions, all I know is when I crack the throttle, my Nomad moves a heck of a lot faster. I have had lots of bikes dyno'ed after mods, sometimes I have been disappointed that I really couldn't tell much of a difference. This was definitely not the case here.

BTW - I also sent the a similar inquiry to Curt Shannen over at Dynojet Research. I'll post his reply if I get one.

Regards,

arb

-------------------------
There is more to the output than the a/f ratio. the bike's computer takes
things like timing into effect. also the a/f ratio will deviate betwwen
runs a bit. a .3 change in a/f ratio can yield diff results. due to the
number of variables including the previous points of the map before and
after the 4k mark and how it all flows together, this will give the gains.
smoother power delivery via the map values may yield the same a/f ratio but
because the fuel and timing are delivered in a more linear manner, you get
the power gain as the engine has less output waste.

hope this helps. the other answer you can give is "it's magic!" hehehe.
But is the bike running ok?

Michael Kamalian
CEO - Revolution Manufacturing, Inc.

[MartyB6]

2005 V2K, K&N air kit, PCIII USB, Stock pipes - plugs & baffles removed - cats still in place, synthetic oil.

[Tyler33]

haha, I like the magic answer better... easier on my brain. Glad to hear you are satisfied with the results.

[rod2625]

During lunch today I had a dyno run on my '07 VN900 (5,800 miles). From a performance standpoint it has the Scootworks +2 front pulley, Baron's BAK and stock pipes. The tech was saying that with the stock exhaust baffle the probe was not inserted as far as he would have liked, which should have produced an air/fuel ratio on the lean side due to more oxygen present closer to the end of the pipe. In fact the test showed I am running a little rich even without an EFI kit (FI2000 or TFI). If I decided to add an EFI kit with my present configuration I would have to go to a PC since it is the only one of the three than can lean the mixture. Because this dealer is a Triumph/Yamaha/Honda dealer he was not familiar with the Kawi's and said that they might just run rich by nature. The power curve was about as good as it could be without any adjustment to the EFI. The tech was impressed by how smooth running the Kawi was. The one question I have is that everyone says the Scootworks pulley should reduce the torque but nobody complains since the prevailing thought is that it has plenty of torque. So would having the pulley affected the max torque or not?

VN900 listed
50 hp @5700,
58 ft/lb @3700 (crank)

May '07 posted dyno of AntiGenX's STOCK VN900 Custom
42.62 hp,
48.12 ft.lb (wheel)

VN900 Scootworks +2 pulley, Baron's BAK, stock pipes
48.41 hp (13.5% increase over stock dyno)
54.11 ft/lb (12.4% increase over stock dyno) (wheel)

So with the BAK I am seeing an increase of about 6 hp and 6 ft/lbs of torque. My gas consumption has gone from approx. 45-48 mpg to 41-45.

[rod2625]

I did not bother to post the UNCORRECTED run. FYI here is the results on that:
Max Power = 49.44, Max Torque = 55.19

8/28/07 11:48AM Run Type: RO Run Conditions: 76.10 degrees F, 30.06 in-Hg, Humidity: 35%, Uncorrected: 1.00

[rod2625]

Originally Posted by MartyB6

2005 V2K, K&N air kit, PCIII USB, Stock pipes - plugs & baffles removed - cats still in place, synthetic oil.

I am fairly new to reading dyno charts, but from what I have picked up so far is it correct to say from your charts that you are running lean. Please correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression that with higher rpms it is good to run a little rich, the engine runs cooler whereas a lean running engine is running hot which is not good for engine parts.

[MartyB6]

Originally Posted by rod2625

I am fairly new to reading dyno charts, but from what I have picked up so far is it correct to say from your charts that you are running lean. Please correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression that with higher rpms it is good to run a little rich, the engine runs cooler whereas a lean running engine is running hot which is not good for engine parts.

I have no clue as to how to read the charts for lean or rich. In my case, I'm thinking that if you are right and I'm running a bit lean, that might work OK because the dyno run and PCIII custom map was done at about 14' above sea level, and I live at about 2800'......does that make any sense??