I had the bike on the dyno today. The stacks have not yet been installed. I wanted to see what the dyno had to say before experimenting with the stacks.
Keep in mind this run was on a stale blend of 87 pure-gas & 91 cat-pee (E10).
DJ Dyno, WOT sweep test
SAE corrected (.95), smoothing 5: Max HP = 69.64; Max Torque = 49.48
SAE uncorrected, smoothing 5: Max HP = 73.21; Max Torque = 52.02
Max. HP is approx. 7750 rpm & max. torque is approx. 4850 rpm.
Run conditions: 54.78F; 29.93 BP; Humidity 17%
So why is there a difference between "corrected" & "uncorrected"? DJ automatically adjusts the "corrected" output to reference temp/pressure/humidity values so that different runs by different operators on different dynos can theoretically be compared. The "uncorrected" output was what the bike actually achieved on that dyno with that operator on that run with those specific run conditions.
The "corrected" HP is a bit higher than what I expected to see, & it pulls hard all the way to redline.
The "corrected" torque, however, is a bit lower than what I expected; that said, there is 45lbs or more torque all the way from about 3200 rpm to 8000rpm.
In the run there's a minor torque dip from about 4950 rpm to 5600 rpm, with the bottom of the dip about 5400 rpm; I see that on the road with my AFM (AFR goes rich, into the mid-12's as it sweeps through that RPM band). I think that the torque dip can be improved with a combination of larger G-Pops (covered in exhaust thread) and the velocity stacks mentioned above. That said, with prior tuning iterations that gap spanned 4000 to 6000 rpm & AFR went into the high-10's, so things are going in the right direction.
For those into show & tell, here's the SAE corrected run:
Also keep in mind that my bike is intentionally tuned for real-world driveability, not dyno supremacy. IMO, the two are different.
I think there's more to be had, & relatively inexpensively. More to follow!
