FBF X-Pipe

[Guest Ragin' Pit Bull]

My X-Pipe finally arrived last week. I installed it and had Ferracci remap my Power Commander and what a difference. I'll scan my dyno chart tonight and post. The bike feels like a different bike. The curve is smoother with a considerable horsepower increase from 4500 to 5500 rpm. Also gained a bit of torque too! I'll post my dyno chart tonight.

[RacerX]

Victor, see if you can pull the dynorun files off the dyno computer while you're there at FBF... I'd like to do overlays against some of the other bikes.

E-mail them to me at: Todd@GuzziTech.com

 

So Ferracci now stocking the X-pipe? Pictures? Pic on bike? Does this x-pipe compensate for the offest swingarm spacing on the wider-rimmed bikes?

 

Thanks man,

Todd

[al_roethlisberger]

Ulitimately I think the best PR for FBF would be to put their x-pipe, Stucci, and Mistral first on an all-stock bike and one with free-er flowing exhaust.... but most importantly all things being equal, then dyno them a handful of times so that everyone could see exactly where each x-over provides a benefit.

 

Seems like it would be easy to do, and I'm sure that the community would appreciate it.

 

BTW, although the Stucci x-over doesn't account for the wider right side on 2002+ bikes, it's generally "close enough" or in my case, can be bent a bit.

 

But yes, I agree that all the manufacturers of aftermarket pipes and x-overs should make modified versions for 2001 and earlier bikes with the 4.5" rim, and the 2002+ bikes with the wider swingarm. Otherwise one runs into spacing and fitment "challenges"

 

al

[dlaing]

common sense seems to predict that the X crossover like the Stucchi should do bettter than an H crossover like the FBF, however the FBF dyno results on the Moto Euro bike seemed to suggest that the FBF crossover works well.

Flow is difficult to predict.

Looking forward to Victor's dyno results!

[Guest Ragin' Pit Bull]

Victor, see if you can pull the dynorun files off the dyno computer while you're there at FBF... I'd like to do overlays against some of the other bikes.

E-mail them to me at: Todd@GuzziTech.com

 

So Ferracci now stocking the X-pipe? Pictures? Pic on bike? Does this x-pipe compensate for the offest swingarm spacing on the wider-rimmed bikes?

 

Thanks man,

Todd

Sorry I haven't put anything up yet. My time at home especially in front of the computer is very limited. The fitment is great on the LeMans. I should be putting the dyno chart tonight.

[Guest Ragin' Pit Bull]

OK, here it is:

Biggest gain is right around 5000rpm. Looks like 6-7 horsepower and the difference can be felt. Torque increased there also by a large amount. Best of all, NO MORE PINGING!

[al_roethlisberger]

Hi Victor,

 

Nice results

 

Can you post a little more complete info on the bike used, especially listing any modifications, and total mileage?

 

I would also be interested to know the altitude and temp when the run was performed.

 

Finally, and most interesting for me... did you have the Stucci x-over on prior to the run with the FBF x-over, or the stock x-over? I'm curious what x-over the FBF was being compared to in this run.

 

Oh, and a link/photo to what the FBF x-over looks like would be great as well

 

thx!

 

al

[Guest Ragin' Pit Bull]

Initial run was with airbox conversion kit, FBF slip-ons, and Power Commander, stock pistons, stock heads, stock valves and stock crossover with roughly 600 miles. In the new run, I just changed the crossover and remapped the Power Commander with 13,000 miles. Both runs were done on very warm days. I working on getting a picture together.

[Guest Brian Robson]

Here's a question from someone with limited mechanical insight; but why on all the graphs is there a chasm of torque between approx 3,500-5,000 rpm? It would seem that all of the mods don't cure this dip, or is there an answer somewhere? I apologize if this has been answered before and my equally limited computer abilities have been unable to find the answer.

[dlaing]

Here's a question from someone with limited mechanical insight; but why on all the graphs is there a chasm of torque between approx 3,500-5,000 rpm? It would seem that all of the mods don't cure this dip, or is there an answer somewhere? I apologize if this has been answered before and my equally limited computer abilities have been unable to find the answer.

Excellent question!

I can only guess that it is a combination of things but the crossover is the primary culprit.

Technically there are sound waves and air pressure inside the exhaust system that allow the mixture to flow better or not. You have probably heard the term back pressure. The wave action is a little more complicated than just back pressure.

The position of the crossover on our bikes probably boosts the power just after the hole in the rpm range. The lower rpms probably do not get the boost.

The Mistral crossover appears to remove the most of the hole when used with mistral mufflers. albeit at the expense of top end power.

(according to the dyno results at http://www.manleycycle.com/Tech.htm )

But according to Ian J. and others, the Mistral gives more peak power at the expense of midrange. I think they were using stock mufflers to arrive at that conclusion.

The Stucchi removes the dip in the HP curve, and removes most of the dip in the torque curve, with no apparent loss of top end power.

The FBF appears to remove most of the hole and boost the power a little bit before and after. So it appears to be the best cross over yet!

The Quat-D on my bike appears to come in last place for power improvement.

Similar to the Mistral/Mistral setup, it eliminates the dip in the HP curve albeit, at the expense of top end power.

I also feel that the hole is reduced by running looser valves. But my seat of the pants dyno is in need of calibration! and it may just be taking power off the top and moving it lower.

The new bikes with higher compression and the front crossover seem to have eliminated the hole.

I am curious what the power curve for a bike with no crossover would look like and how a 2003 would respond to aftermarket crossovers?

[al_roethlisberger]

Hrmm, question: I'm not doubting Victor's information, but I have to point out how unusual it seems(to me) that the base Dyno run with just the air-box lid kit, exhaust, and PCIII has the output of the engine already at 88+ HP and 68ft-lbs of torque with only a couple hundred miles on the engine?? That's amazing output, but a bit of an optimistic surprise. Impossible? ...no I'm not saying that, but certainly surprising to me.

 

Initial run was with airbox conversion kit, FBF slip-ons, and Power Commander, stock pistons, stock heads, stock valves and stock crossover with roughly 600 miles.

 

After the FBF x-over is added, the peak HP is almost unchanged, and torque is only up another 2-ish ft-lbs(However all are increased by around 4-5 points in the midrange, which is a good thing ).

 

However, the close nature of these results are what I would have expected if other mods such as the Stucci x-over were on the base run, then tested with the FBF x-over... not such a small increase over just the OEM x-over. In other words, by all other things being equal, and just changing from the OEM x-over to the FBF, I expected a bigger difference.

 

In the new run, I just changed the crossover and remapped the Power Commander with 13,000 miles.

 

I just would have expected a larger change in Dyno performance from 13,000 miles later, and the new x-over and map.

 

 

My concern is how accurate this Dyno is currently running, as the base run seems awfully optimistic for what is basically a stock bike.. almost 90 RWHP. It's only down a couple HP from the "hot rod Scura" that is balanced, blueprinted, etc.

 

Any thoughts? ...or am I just being too cynical or jealous because I only got ~86HP and 66ft-lbs on my bike

 

Honestly, I'm confused.

 

I still say that the best info for the community(and FBF's marketing) is if we could take the same bike and dyno it with all three x-overs within a few hours of eachother. I think that would be the most telling. Using dyno runs from a year and 13,000 miles ago is nice to have, but not the best comparison IMHO.

 

Victor, any chance FBF might do a more "official" comparison as I describe above? It seems like it would be easy and not terribly expensive to do. I know I'd really love to see that to make a good comparison.

 

 

Oh, and I'd still really like to see a photo of the x-over

 

 

al

[Lex]

Al,

 

Most dynos used now are Dynojets. They do not measure HP, they infer it by the rate the bike accelerates a heavy drum. They are well known for being inconsistent from unit one to another and are often optimistic. I wouldn't worry to much about the numbers in and of themselves, look at the delta. For example one dyno I spent some time around would often show a stock small valve/ carb BMW 1000 CC airhead making over 60 HP, the truth is closer to 50 HP. But if a modification moved the power up from, lets say, 60 to 63 HP you knew you had a 5% gain even if the bike was really only making in the mid fifties in "real" power.

 

People who want/ need more exact power numbers use a brake dyno like the ones made by Superflow. They also often use an engine dyno (not a rear wheel dyno) to cut down the number of variables from test to test.

 

Cheers,

 

Lex

[Guest Ragin' Pit Bull]

Hrmm, question:  I'm not doubting Victor's information, but I have to point out how unusual it seems(to me) that the base Dyno run with just the air-box lid kit, exhaust, and PCIII has the output of the engine already at 88+ HP and 68ft-lbs of torque with only a couple hundred miles on the engine??  That's amazing output, but a bit of an optimistic surprise.  Impossible?  ...no I'm not saying that, but certainly surprising to me.

 

However, the close nature of these results are what I would have expected if other mods such as the Stucci x-over were on the base run, then tested with the FBF x-over... not such a small increase over just the OEM x-over.    In other words, by all other things being equal, and just changing from the OEM x-over to the FBF, I expected a bigger difference.

 

My concern is how accurate this Dyno is currently running, as the base run seems awfully optimistic for what is basically a stock bike.. almost 90 RWHP.  It's only down a couple HP from the "hot rod Scura" that is balanced, blueprinted, etc.

 

Any thoughts?  ...or am I just being too cynical or jealous because I only got ~86HP and 66ft-lbs on my bike    

 

Victor, any chance FBF might do a more "official" comparison as I describe above?  It seems like it would be easy and not terribly expensive to do.   I know I'd really love to see that to make a good comparison.

 

 

Oh, and I'd still really like to see a photo of the x-over

 

 

al

If you put two bikes, made the same day, on a dyno, they'll come up with different horsepower figures. I'm thinking mine was a pretty strong one. We've seen stock V11 Sports come through here with less than 80 horsepower, some with more.

As far as I know, the dyno is running fine. Part of the high horsepower results are that Eraldo Ferracci did the custom maps himself. That's worth a couple of horsepower in my opinion. He does have a pretty good reputation tuning bikes....

I posted up that I was looking for a used Stucchi crossover to purchase so that I could do some personal experimentation, but no one bit.

I'm working on getting a picture.

[al_roethlisberger]

Understood, and thanks Victor.

 

Here's hoping the FBF marketing folks can see the value of just going out and buying(then reselling after complete) the competing x-overs and doing a "bake off".

 

I'd love to see it.

 

al

[gthyni]

Raceco sells a

crossover

 

Is this their own construction?

Anyone having tried it?