Dynojet tuning of PC III

[BrianG]

Here is the result of the install of my second PC III.

 

The worse (blue) track is the raw PC III map that came in the unit as the "Custom Map" for the 2000 V-11 Sport with Mistral's, K&N and drilled air box. Unfortunately, we didn't do a pull on only the stock ECM, without the PC III. That might have been interesting to compare.

 

You will note that there was no huge gain in HP or torque, but it flattened the A/F curve nicely. which should result in notably better milage becasue the curve was WAY rich above even best-power. You will also note that the original PC III map had none of the classic lean-spot that the original V-11 map is noted for...

 

This is the second PC III because the first one died for no apparent reason while I was cruising down the road.

[moto]

Here is the result of the install of my second PC III.

At what throttle position?

You will note that there was no huge gain in HP or torque, but it flattened the A/F curve nicely.

Apparently with an attendant loss in HP in a few areas...

 

Regards,

 

Derek

 

[RacerX]

You will note that there was no huge gain in HP or torque, but it flattened the A/F curve nicely. which should result in notably better milage becasue the curve was WAY rich above even best-power.  You will also note that the original PC III map had none of the classic lean-spot that the original V-11 map is noted for.

 

Brian, actually it is clear of how lean the bike was, as shown by the 17.0+ spike at 4500 rpm, and how it effected power taking it from 40 to 46 hp, and 50 to 57 ft.lbs. at that same rpm as shown on the graph. Every peak power "pull", as shown, is at 100% throttle... which is NOT the strong point of the PCIII.

 

[Guzzirider]

I know its difficult comparing like for like dyno charts especially when they are run from different dynos in different conditions but the torque figure seems low to me.

 

Most V11 charts I have seen show mid 60s ft lbs- I have a similar set up to Brian except I have no airbox lid at all and a Stucchi crossover and my dyno run showed a peak of 72 ft lbs of torque.

 

Is there something wrong there?

 

Guy

[dlaing]

I know its difficult comparing like for like dyno charts especially when they are run from different dynos in different conditions but the torque figure seems low to me.

 

Most V11 charts I have seen show mid 60s ft lbs- I have a similar set up to Brian except I have no airbox lid at all and a Stucchi crossover and my dyno run showed a peak of 72 ft lbs of torque.

 

Is there something wrong there?

 

Guy 

70915[/snapback]

There may be something wrong, but I suspect the guzzi ECU temperature correction is wrong.

I don't know what the weather is like in the dynoroom, but the current weather in Edmonton is

Humidity: 92%

Wind Speed: SSE 15 MPH G 21

Barometer: 1026 mb

Dewpoint: -13°C

Heat Index: -12°C

Wind Chill: -21°C

If he does a run again in Summer, I would not be surprised to see changes.

But maybe not...just my speculative

 

The Stucchi adds alot of mid range:

Here are some graphs from http://www.guzzitech.com

 

http://www.guzzitech.com/photos/MKB-DynoV11Sport.jpg 2002 67 but with stucchi crossover

http://www.guzzitech.com/photos/GL-03LeMans-Dynorun.jpg 2003 (might have front balance pipe) over 70 with stucchi crossover

http://www.guzzitech.com/JT-Dyno-PtII-John_T.html 70.7 after extensive mods with stucchi crossover

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...ype=post&id=666 Al's bike 64.9 after pretty extensive mods. no stucchi

http://www.guzzitech.com/V11LMDyno.jpg 2002 stock 64.2 no stucchi

http://www.scripps.edu/~dlaing/v11s/DL_V11S-vs-StockV11S.jpg My2000 when it had Quat-D vs. someone elses with stock mufflers: both just over 60 no stucchi

[dlaing]

It is also interesting that his bike makes more power with the indicated leaner mixture from about 5500 to about 6300 RPMs

So, something could be improved on there.

And once they figure out what it is, I'll bet they would also increase peak Torque.

[Alex-Corsa]

Why these V11 peak so few power when "tunned" , exaust, mapping ,PCIII, ect.ect.?

[dlaing]

Why these V11 peak so few power when "tunned"  , exaust, mapping ,PCIII, ect.ect.?

70959[/snapback]

I thought they were all success stories.

Here are the peak numbers:

http://www.guzzitech.com/photos/MKB-DynoV11Sport.jpg 2002 67 but with stucchi crossover 82.37 HP

http://www.guzzitech.com/photos/GL-03LeMans-Dynorun.jpg 2003 (might have front balance pipe) over 70 with stucchi crossover, a little under 80HP

http://www.guzzitech.com/JT-Dyno-PtII-John_T.html 70.7 after extensive mods with stucchi crossover 89.99HP!

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...ype=post&id=666 Al's bike 64.9 after pretty extensive mods. no stucchi 84.36HP!

http://www.guzzitech.com/V11LMDyno.jpg 2002 stock 64.2 no stucchi about 80HP

http://www.scripps.edu/~dlaing/v11s/DL_V11S-vs-StockV11S.jpg My2000 when it had Quat-D vs. someone elses with stock mufflers: both just over 60 no stucchi

Quat-D 73HP : (

Stock 79HP

 

PCIII tuning link tuning gave me nearly four more peak HP

[Guest slowpoke]

I wish I could find my dyno chart-I'll have to keep looking-but now I don't feel so bad. My bike with Quat-D and pods (before adding velocity stacks) turned out 75 hp and 59 torque. Not amazing by today's standards but decent nonetheless.

[BrianG]

.......because the curve was WAY rich above even best-power.  You will also note that the original PC III map had none of the classic lean-spot that the original V-11 map is noted for...

70890[/snapback]

 

Wow...... my bad!! I'm not sure how I figured that 17+:1 was rich!!

 

Anyway, I found the graphs of the pulls I did in the spring of this year where we did manual laptop re-mapping on the first PC III.

 

You will note the difference in torque range numbers as compared to the Dynojet dyno readings. I'm not sure whether this is a function of the weather (it was +80F and about 10% relative humidity), or the dyno used.

 

The first pull is without the PC III, and you can see how the A/F mixture fell right off of the LEAN end of the scale.

 

Although the HP and torque curves are actually less smooth in the final pull, you can see the much flatter Air/Fuel curve. I wasn't very happy with this method of tuning because of the weird curves, but drivability was notably better than before the PC III.

 

I watched as this dyno did about 20 more motorcycles, most of whom were only there to see their HP numbers. I was amazed to see how flat their A/F curve was, and how smooth their HP and torque curves were.

 

My son says I need a 'busa!! ...... 'course he rides a Fireblade!

[Guzzirider]

Why these V11 peak so few power when "tunned"  , exaust, mapping ,PCIII, ect.ect.?

70959[/snapback]

 

Alex

 

You will find that your Sport Corsa is very similar- with a full Termignoni system and an uprated EFI chip my old one only made 80bhp too.

 

There is not much difference except the gearbox between the V11 motor and the 1100 Sport motor.

 

Guy

[Guzzirider]

Just out of interest, Mal and I are taking our V11s to Hobbsport Racing in the New Year and will carry out some comparison tests- Mal will be running his bike on the dyno with a lidless airbox, then fitting his K and N pods to see what the difference is.

 

I will be there just to drink Mark's coffee and put mine on the dyno for another comparison and because I like the noise. Embarrasingly I think my mildly tuned Harley now makes more HP and torque than my V11 but of couse the Guzzi will leave it for dead in the bends!

 

Will post the results on here and hopefully answer that age old question- what is better pods or airbox?

 

Guy

[RacerX]

There may be something wrong, but I suspect the guzzi ECU temperature correction is wrong.

Disagree. Power measurements are a direct proponent of air (and humidity) supplied to the motor. The dyno has "correction" software, but it is obvious that lower (denser) altitudes and low air temps will yield higher numbers.

 

I don't know what the weather is like in the dynoroom.

Well, this is info stored in each dyno run file, and should Brian be able retrieve the digital runfiles, we will see. Why dyno operators have such a hard time retrieving these (very commonly stored) files to hand over is beyond me.

 

It is also interesting that his bike makes more power with the indicated leaner mixture from about 5500 to about 6300 RPMs

So, something could be improved on there.

I would just be VERY aware of head cylinder temps when you do. These motors are fuel-cooled, not so much air.

 

PEAK POWER MEANS VERY LITTLE IN THE REAL WORLD PAST BRAGGING RIGHTS. How often does one ride at 100% throttle?

 

Just out of interest, Mal and I are taking our V11s to Hobbsport Racing in the New Year and will carry out some comparison tests- Mal will be running his bike on the dyno with a lidless airbox, then fitting his K and N pods to see what the difference is. Will post the results on here and hopefully answer that age old question- what is better pods or airbox?

I suspect you'll find what Eraldo Ferracci (which is why he offers a lid-less airbox kit) and I have known with Ducatis and Guzzis since the late 80s. Have fun with it though.

[dlaing]

  PEAK POWER MEANS VERY LITTLE IN THE REAL WORLD PAST BRAGGING RIGHTS. How often does one ride at 100% throttle?

70997[/snapback]

I disagree.

100% throttle is where its at!

And it is the only way I can come close to keeping up with you...fall back in the curves, wait for the straights, then hit the WOT! and I need every pony!

Sure is not as important as tuning the parts of the map that you use 90 percent of the time, but WOT power is more than just bragging rights, it is passing a semi at triple digits.

 

If you HATE the ECU thread, read no further:

I still believe that because the Guzzi ECU does not have perfect temperature adjustments, the Guzzi will not make the same reported power at 0ºC as it will at 25ºC and temperatures in between.

Sure there other considerations as to why he got 4.6 more peak HP on the other dyno.

It is a different Dyno.

One dyno I believe is STD and the other SAE

Something could be wrong with his engine.

and or his bike makes more power +80F and about 10% relative humidity than it does at whatever weather he dyno'd at.

If it was Humidity: 92%

Wind Speed: SSE 15 MPH G 21

Barometer: 1026 mb

Dewpoint: -13°C

Heat Index: -12°C

Wind Chill: -21°C

He should theoretically make better power, and the dynojet dyno will correct the HP to make appear lower.

But if the ECU's temperature compensation is not ideal he will not make the same "corrected" HP

We see that the richer mixture does nothing to help high RPM power, and in fact the leaner mixture creates more power in the upper mid-range.

I suspect this is because the engine can make more power because it is warmer, not because it is a more ideal mixture.

The leanness that he had in the lower mid rpms may have helped warm the engine, too.

The ECU allows for more fuel when the engine and air are cold.

On the dyno we would be out of the ECU's correction range for engine temperature, unless they tested on a less than roughly body temperature engine.

There is no change of correction for air temperature from 41 to 112ºF.

I think most people fine the bike runs best in cool air, ie. 41ºF.

Once you get to around freezing there is some enrichment.

But I am not sure that is a good thing.

I suspect it will just make the bike run cooler and it will make less power and efficiency.

If we had water cooled engines the engine would probably run warmer around freezing and make more power.

So my idea is to map the ECU to run leaner when air is cool, I may be totally wrong.

But it seems like a good idea to me.

Just want to keep it running smoothly and don't want to burn any valves.

[Mal]

Dlaing

 

just to clear one of your queries,

 

"the http://www.guzzitech.com/photos/GL-03LeMans-Dynorun.jpg 2003 (might have front balance pipe) over 70 with stucchi crossover, a little under 80HP"

 

it is indeed a bike with front crossover, its Guzzirider's Rosso Corsa. We both had dyno runs at the same place and although he has a stucchi and at the time I had a standard xover (all other mods the same) the results were interesting, we got very similar results, about 70 for torque and a smidge under 80bhp at rear wheel. I have the dyno chart and can dig it out if anyone wants to see it.

 

As Guy mentioned we're going to pop over to the Hobbsport people again, me to get the PC111usb fine tuned as I now have a stucchi xover (bought after Guy beat me on every run on the drag strip) and for him to have fun..any excuse .

 

In the name of science I'm also going to do a quick pods verses airbox run but funds will dictate when that will be. I appreciate some very knowledgable folk have already discussed the merits/pitfalls of pods but I want to see for myself.

 

Mal