I had my car on the dyno this afternoon. 152 BHP at the rear wheels is quite nice. The chap said it was leaning gradually out above 6500 RPM which 150 main jets seemed to sort. He said that he was quite pleased with the run as the power builds up nicely and it runs well at part throttle as well.

I haven't been out on the road in it yet as 5:00 pm rush hour traffic isn't my idea of fun but I'll go out later to see what it's like
Rescued attachment dyno004.GIF

good stuff mate.

I assume its on carbs, but is the engine stock apart from the usual jets/air filter / exhaust?

Carbed 98 R1, 4 into 1 with straight through silencer. My own airbox with tuned inlet and cotton filter. The airbox is tuned to 4200 RPM. The idea is that is smooths the build up of torque, which used to happen suddenly at 5000 RPM. The downside, such that it is, is that torque is made worse below 2800 RPM.

That's quite impresive from an engine that's supposed to only give 150bhp at the flywheel, what about dyno jets, i've heard this floating about, is it expensive , and does it give good result's, is there any other way of eaking extra horses from a small engine.

Brad

Thats a nice plot...

Of course the dyno results may not be entirely accurate, but it must be way above standard.. No dyno would be more than 10% off surely...

You must be a happy bunny

Where did you get it dyno'd, I've got mine booked in at TTS for the 23rd, will be well happy if I get similar results.

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by amalyos
Where did you get it dyno'd, I've got mine booked in at TTS for the 23rd, will be well happy if I get similar results.

Steve.

---

R1s do seem to give out a nice extra chunk of power when liberated of the EXUP etc, but to achieve those figures I do have a suspicion its either had a bit of stealthy tuning work done on it by the previous owner who's kept it quiet when writing off the bike (Im assuming it came from a written off bike?), or that Mr dyno is being a bit optimistic.

To compare, my 03 injected engine runs pretty well (12.9s 1/4mile) and is significantly quicker than when i had the carbed blade, yet on the rollers it "only" showed an indicated 137bhp at the wheels.

Also this thread on the DSR Forums has some dyno results for the latest breed of 2007 1L engines which on paper are up to 30bhp more powerful than our generation of R1, yet they only record 150-160bhp at the rear wheel on the dyno.

As mentioned though, its obviously running very nicely regardless of the outright figures, but I think its worth mentioning that 152bhp is more than you'd expect from your average R1 engine, so others aren't disappointed when they get their own cars on the rollers and only get 140bhp or so.

cheers

Chris

i would suspect either the engine has been tweaked, the dyno is way out or the figure shown is a corrected flywheel figure.
My dynojetted 99 carb'd R1 4-2-1 MK indy manifold gave 125BHP at the wheels. the guy tuning it at holeshot reckoned that was about what you would expect from a good engine with those modifications.
good power for you though

As mentioned already regardless of the final figures the plot shows a healthy engine with a decent torque curve at the top.

The plot formatting looks like it was using the same software as the SUN dyno used at my tuning garage. Which by default is setup to calculate flywheel figures..
Our Hayabusa engine stroked to 1400cc and using a flowed head, cams, Emerald ECU and free flowing exhaust made 201BHP (so approx 162BHP @ the wheels) and 116 ft lbs on a similar setup!

As usual the best advice is to use the same dyno so you can compare mods etc

[Edited on 10/3/07 by bimbleuk]

I'm afraid its another vote for an optimistic rolling road calibration.... Unless the plot is showing flywheel figures (or the engine has had some serious tweaking). However the fact that the fuelling is correct is good and will maximise the potential of the engine regardless. Its well worth doing.

Just for reference I've just had my recently rebuilt 03 R1 mapped at Powertec (engine arm of Radical in Peterborough) and the peak power was 135bhp at the wheels (~160ish at flywheel). Interestingly the injected power curve is stronger in the midrange (if you compare graph shapes) and peak power is held on for longer to 11k approx.

Its a shame that so many rolling roads offer optimistic figures, it only makes sense to compare results from the same RR.

Cheers

Paul

I don't know about any tuning that the engine had before I bought it (from Malc BTW) but I did notice that the inlet tracts on the block had been honed. It suggests that the previous owner took an interest, shall we say, in the engine. That's not to say that the rolling road isn't out of calibration. I've heard stories about back to back tests at different stations giving wildly different results. He said it was power at the wheels. I asked abot flywheel power and he only gave a vague estimate. It was a Sun analyser on the road. Full nerd points to Bimbleuk for spotting that.

The actual numbers are not as important as the fact that he made me go up a jet size, giving me some more power. It is noticably quicker at the top end than it was before getting it done which is worth the £82.25 rolling road session to me.

[Edited on 10-3-2007 by smart51]

quote:

---

Originally posted by smart51
I don't know about any tuning that the engine had before I bought it (from Malc BTW) but I did notice that the inlet tracts on the block had been honed. It suggests that the previous owner took an interest, shall we say, in the engine. That's not to say that the rolling road isn't out of calibration. I've heard stories about back to back tests at different stations giving wildly different results. He said it was power at the wheels. I asked abot flywheel power and he only gave a vague estimate. It was a Sun analyser on the road. Full nerd points to Bimbleuk for spotting that.

The actual numbers are not as important as the fact that he made me go up a jet size, giving me some more power. It is noticably quicker at the top end than it was before getting it done which is worth the £82.25 rolling road session to me.

[Edited on 10-3-2007 by smart51]

---

Excellent! Your chimberley is obviously better than I thought it was too!

Smart

as a matter of interest, are you running the MNR manifold? If so, 4:1 or 4:2:1?

Went for a quick blast in mine today - it comes onto the cam (~5k) like being hit from behind with a big hammer... is this normal for a carbed R1? I have the TTS kit in & it was checked before SVA but has not had any dyno work done.
Bob

quote:

---

Originally posted by G.Man
as a matter of interest, are you running the MNR manifold? If so, 4:1 or 4:2:1?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob C
Went for a quick blast in mine today - it comes onto the cam (~5k) like being hit from behind with a big hammer... is this normal for a carbed R1? I have the TTS kit in & it was checked before SVA but has not had any dyno work done.
Bob

---

Interesting - I've never experienced a belt of power like it - so sudden it's more like an impact! One to watch out for - could be embarrassing on a corner!
I guess I can see the method in your madness now!! ;^)
Bob

Thats an area where the injected engine gains over the carbed evidently, its mid range is a bit stronger and also the power is delivered a lot more smoothly compared to the carbed engines.

That benefit probably makes it feel subjectively slower though, a bit like old school turbo engines feeling very quick because of the lag and then sudden power.

quote:

---

Originally posted by smart51

quote:

---

Originally posted by G.Man
as a matter of interest, are you running the MNR manifold? If so, 4:1 or 4:2:1?

---

It is an MNR 4 into 1

---