Triumphrat

Eldercanuck · 10-17-2007

I just installed the Zard slip-on and it sounds sweet. I've done various searches and read a pile of threads, but not many people have been able to compare the performance and fuel economy of the Zard (or other low mount slip-ons) coupled with the 20102 map (TORS) versus the 20133 map (Arrow). Anyone with data or opinions to share?

Yeah, I know the Tuneboy is the way to go ultimately, but this will have to wait for budgetary reasons...

Eldercanuck · 10-17-2007

Where are all the re-Zards normally on this forum?

Goffe · 10-17-2007

They're not re-Zards - They're "Special"

Boss · 10-18-2007

As one of this forum's "special" people :-)

Having tried both tunes with a Zard slip-on, my feeling is that the 20133 tune gives a crisper throttle performance throughout, and slightly better performance higher up the rev-range.

However, I can't say conclusively, as it has not been proved on a dyno, so it is just a gut feel.

Also, I haven't noticed any real difference in fuel economy either.

trenery · 10-18-2007

I have just ordered a Zard slip on. How do I install the tune? Or does me dealer need to do it.

Do you take the baffle out or leave it in?

Ta

Mike

Boss · 10-18-2007

I have a tuneboy to install the tunes, but if you don't have one, then the dealer should be able to oblige (costs vary depending on who/where you are!)

As far as the baffle is concerened, I have run mine with (ironically for track use) and without and there seems to be little difference in performance.

Eldercanuck · 10-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boss

As one of this forum's "special" people :-)

Having tried both tunes with a Zard slip-on, my feeling is that the 20133 tune gives a crisper throttle performance throughout, and slightly better performance higher up the rev-range.

However, I can't say conclusively, as it has not been proved on a dyno, so it is just a gut feel.

Also, I haven't noticed any real difference in fuel economy either.

Thanks, Boss!