Before going for custom map

[Dimitris]

Hello,

 

I am thinking finally to go for a custom map. But before that, I was wondering, should I recheck the valves, rebalance the cylinders and reset the TPS? Or there is no need for doing that?

 

The bike is running fine right now. The idle is stable (1000-1100rpm) and the TPS is set to 3.0 degrees (150mV when off).

[gstallons]

Do you have any accessories,modification,etc...? My answer is Yes to the custom mapping. I hope you have a Power Commander ECM installed. If so, take it to any dealer who has training to know how much,at what RPM to modify and what to look for. If no one has tinkered with the throttle bodies go ahead and look at HOW to make these adjustments. You will be glad to know how to do this.

[Ryland3210]

You should definitely do those preparations so the mapping is done under the normal engine tuning conditions, even if it appears to run OK as it is. If you don't, the mapping will be compensating for any deviations from normal tuning. Then in the future, if the bike is tuned to normal conditions, the mapping will be incorrect.

[Dimitris]

You should definitely do those preparations so the mapping is done under the normal engine tuning conditions, even if it appears to run OK as it is. If you don't, the mapping will be compensating for any deviations from normal tuning. Then in the future, if the bike is tuned to normal conditions, the mapping will be incorrect.

Thank you Ryland. Many guys here were telling me that it is not necessary, but I was thinking the way you do. Fisrt thing before tuning will be normal tuning.

 

 

gstallons, yes I have a PCIIIusb, BMC airfilter with FBF lid kit, Mistral xover, Mistral tit mufflers.

[Dimitris]

For the history:

 

I went to my mechanic. We checked and corrected-if it was necesary- the valve clearances (.10 intake, .15 exhaust).

We followed step by step the forum's procedure about TB balance and TPS set.

 

Finally, I went for a ride to check the bike and I concluded that the .521 mV (TPS 150 mV when rod off) is not so good as it was my previously 440mV (2.8 degrees).

 

Conclusion: when the TPS was at about 140 mV (with the key on, rod off) and 2.8 degrees/about 440mV (key on, rod on, engine off) (3.0 degrees-engine running) (and with the certain position of jupiter, aphrodite, andromeda and moon), the bike was running perfectly. I had the feeling that all the available power was going down on the rear wheel. So I reset the TPS from .521 to 440 mV (140mV/rod off).

 

Now I think I am ready to go for a custom map.

[Ryland3210]

For the history:

 

I went to my mechanic. We checked and corrected-if it was necesary- the valve clearances (.10 intake, .15 exhaust).

We followed step by step the forum's procedure about TB balance and TPS set.

 

Finally, I went for a ride to check the bike and I concluded that the .521 mV (TPS 150 mV when rod off) is not so good as it was my previously 440mV (2.8 degrees).

 

Conclusion: when the TPS was at about 140 mV (with the key on, rod off) and 2.8 degrees/about 440mV (key on, rod on, engine off) (3.0 degrees-engine running) (and with the certain position of jupiter, aphrodite, andromeda and moon), the bike was running perfectly. I had the feeling that all the available power was going down on the rear wheel. So I reset the TPS from .521 to 440 mV (140mV/rod off).

 

Now I think I am ready to go for a custom map.

 

 

I actually have my TPS set at 485 mv, and was quite happy with that even before I put on the Staintunes and open airbox modification. Then I had it checked on the dyno. It turned out to have near perfect mixture ratios, which means it was running rich before the mod's. If your bike is like mine, you were probably running too rich at 521 mV.

 

Setting your TPS at 440 mv and 140mV rod off is equivalent to 450 mv and 150 mV rod off. The 521 mV is simply the average of several different references. There's nothing wrong with setting yours at 440 as far as I am concerned. It means your engine will run slightly leaner and spark advance curve slightly retarded, but these are not major differences.

 

So I think you'll be fine the way you have it, and remapping the PCIII should set you up fine on the high power end of the map.

 

I will say that since making the mod's on my bike, using the original map, it occasionally does hiccup between 2500 and 3000 RPM under light throttle. This happens so seldom, I'm not concerned, but you might mention it to your tuner. I would appreciate your letting me know what you find. In my case, it's as if the mixture leans out radically for a spllt second, then goes back to normal. It never happens under medium to heavy throttle.

[dlaing]

Now I think I am ready to go for a custom map.

Your PCIII map must have been making it run too rich.

Since your mV changed 10mV when disconnected and 81mV when at idle, I am guessing that when you set it to 521mV you had to take away too much air screw. Just out of curiosity, do you know what the bypass screws are set to? Be sure to note the settings.

I would try simply increasing the TPS at the TPS from 440 to 450 mV at idle. This should bump the disconnected 140mV to 150mV and it should not mess up how the bike runs, and the next owner of the bike, or people you share the PCIII map with will have greater success, and your ignition timing will be slightly closer to what the factory intended.

Once mapped the bike is going to run well regardless, so you won't gain anything from a change of 10mV and you certainly don't need to regard my suggestion, but that is how I would do it.

[dlaing]

I actually have my TPS set at 485 mv, snip

What is your base TPS setting?

And what PCIII map are you using?

[Dimitris]

Thank you for your comments!

 

I don't remember right now the turns of air bypasses. I will have to speak with my mechanic. I remember that when we started opening the air bypasses (after we had stabilized idle at 1100rpm with the bypasses closed) we had to reduce TPS to 509mV +/- so as to ensure that bypasses will be opened at least 1/2 turn. We had difficulties in stabilizing idle at 1100 rpm. When we finished, the idle was around 1000rpms. At 2000-3000 rpms the bodies were balanced. The TPS had "stopped" to 509 mV (we begun with the base of 150 mV/rod off). I went for a ride and when I had to stop at a traffic light the idle was going even lower. I remember from the past that this had to do with richer mixture. I mean that when I went back and changed the settings to the ones I had before today (140 mV based, 440 mV rod on, according to VDST 3.0 degrees with engine running, 2.8 degrees engine not running but key to ON), the idle seemed better. Then through the PCIII we reduced mixture at "Low Range" with the left button of the PCIII (Low) to minimum scale. Immediately the engine started working even better. Then we slightly turned the trim on the ECU (right) and finally the idle was 1200 rpm steady. Through the VDST I noticed that the trim setting was to -92 (from scale -128 to +128).

 

 

Now that I am writing these words I realized that I could do sth else, before changing the settings to the previous ones (from 509 to 440) and turning the trim. I could just try and decrease the mixture, just from the PCIII. But I didn't do that.

[Jose Paulo]

why the numbers in the front cylinder fuel table are not the same on the rear cylinder fuel table in the program Direct Link Race Performance?

[Ryland3210]

What is your base TPS setting?

And what PCIII map are you using?

 

From recollection my base TPS was within 3 mv of 150, after I adjusted it. It was way off from the factory. I think it was up around 185.

When I had it dyno'd by John Tavolacci after installing the Staintunes and open airbox, he recommended not buying the PCIII, as the mixture was near perfect. You may recall my dyno chart and your comments on how smooth it was. So I'm still running the stock ECU and mapping. Except for the occasional hiccup around 2800 RPM on light throttle, it idles fine, and runs strong.

[dlaing]

why the numbers in the front cylinder fuel table are not the same on the rear cylinder fuel table in the program Direct Link Race Performance?

Differences of timing and flow.

One of the cylinders, I forget which one, has to work a little harder. It has something to do with power cycles following different degrees right to left, and also interaction of crossover flow in the airbox and in the exhaust crossover(s).

I don't know which is a greater factor.

Others could answer the question better...

I myself am also curious as to why.

[dlaing]

Thank you for your comments!

 

I don't remember right now the turns of air bypasses. I will have to speak with my mechanic. I remember that when we started opening the air bypasses (after we had stabilized idle at 1100rpm with the bypasses closed) we had to reduce TPS to 509mV +/- so as to ensure that bypasses will be opened at least 1/2 turn. We had difficulties in stabilizing idle at 1100 rpm. When we finished, the idle was around 1000rpms. At 2000-3000 rpms the bodies were balanced. The TPS had "stopped" to 509 mV (we begun with the base of 150 mV/rod off). I went for a ride and when I had to stop at a traffic light the idle was going even lower. I remember from the past that this had to do with richer mixture. I mean that when I went back and changed the settings to the ones I had before today (140 mV based, 440 mV rod on, according to VDST 3.0 degrees with engine running, 2.8 degrees engine not running but key to ON), the idle seemed better. Then through the PCIII we reduced mixture at "Low Range" with the left button of the PCIII (Low) to minimum scale. Immediately the engine started working even better. Then we slightly turned the trim on the ECU (right) and finally the idle was 1200 rpm steady. Through the VDST I noticed that the trim setting was to -92 (from scale -128 to +128).

 

 

Now that I am writing these words I realized that I could do sth else, before changing the settings to the previous ones (from 509 to 440) and turning the trim. I could just try and decrease the mixture, just from the PCIII. But I didn't do that.

Very interesting! and a bit confusing...

So, it seems you closed up the butterfly valves to 440mV, which should require giving a lot of air bypass, and thus leaner, especially at low throttle openings.

Then you set the PCIII leaner at low RPMs.

Then you set the trim leaner, which mostly effects low throttle and RPMs.

So, basically you took three steps to make it run leaner!!!

And the mind boggling part is that it runs better like this...

I am wondering if you were at the point of running the idle too lean, at maybe 14.7:1 Air:Fuel ratio, and going further lean actually cooled it down enough that valves did not tighten up too much????

I recommend the .15/.20mm over the .10/.15mm, but many claim to do fine at the tighter, manual recommended settings.

I believe it is standard operating procedure for the dyno-tuner to zero the PCIII buttons and the Throttle Position at idle.

Make sure they do!

[dlaing]

From recollection my base TPS was within 3 mv of 150, after I adjusted it. It was way off from the factory. I think it was up around 185.

When I had it dyno'd by John Tavolacci after installing the Staintunes and open airbox, he recommended not buying the PCIII, as the mixture was near perfect. You may recall my dyno chart and your comments on how smooth it was. So I'm still running the stock ECU and mapping. Except for the occasional hiccup around 2800 RPM on light throttle, it idles fine, and runs strong.

What would happen if you raised the TPS to 500 or 521mV and closed the air bypass screws enough to keep the proper idle?

What is the reason you chose 485mV?

If you go to a higher mV than 485, it seems like you might get rid of the occasional hiccup around 2800 RPM on light throttle, reduce valve recession, reduce engine vibration, extend engine life, and maybe lose 1 or 2 MPG.

[Jose Paulo]

Differences of timing and flow.

One of the cylinders, I forget which one, has to work a little harder. It has something to do with power cycles following different degrees right to left, and also interaction of crossover flow in the airbox and in the exhaust crossover(s).

I don't know which is a greater factor.

Others could answer the question better...

I myself am also curious as to why.[/quote

 

]the tables are very different