Performance exhaust

[revhed]

Jardine exhause standard intake and 20054 Triumph tune.

[dougl]

On 2007-04-19 02:16, revhed wrote:
Jardine exhause standard intake and 20054 Triumph tune.

You can really see the loss of torque with the 20054 tune on the blue curve. You can also see that the Jardines shift the maximum torque up by about 1000 rpm - less back pressure.

[dougl]

On 2007-04-19 12:15, moto wrote:
What did you do about the O2 sensor?

The O2 sensor stays with Tuneboy.

[dougl]

On 2007-04-19 15:34, moto wrote:
Well, I know you can set the A/F table out of range, and then the ECU will not try to make any corrections. But if the sensor is not doing anything anymore, you might also want to remove the thing. The problem with that is that the ECU will then throw a trouble code. One way around this might be to adapt a DJ "O2 sensor controller" from another model. I just wanted to know whether the sensor was left in, and if not, what was done to keep the ECU from throwing a code.

Wayne from Tuneboy used his Tuneboy software to tune that bike, not a Power Commander. Tuneboy allows you to adjust all the maps that program the ECU. There's no need to bypass the O2 sensor, which controls fuel using the L tables at throttle positions (TP) less than 6%. I'm pretty sure that Wayne doesn't do anything to the L tables except to add some fuel to the lower rows to to limit popping at zero throttle on decel. For a setup like Jardines and Unifilters, he's adding fuel in the F tables.

When you install a PCIII, it just adds fuel as a function of throttle position and RPM. It doesn't interact at all with the ECU, which is using the O2 sensor at low throttle position. This is why you have to install the PCIII O2 sensor bypass, which basically disables the O2 sensor and allows the PCIII to determine the fuel at low TP.

[Pig9r]

This is why you have to install the PCIII O2 sensor bypass, which basically disables the O2 sensor and allows the PCIII to determine the fuel at low TP.

And it keeps the ECU from trimming out the fuel mapping while in closed loop.

[dougl]

I would defer to your expertise. My experience with this comes from my interactions with Wayne in dealing with his Tuneboy program and from others on these forums like Pig9r and Toystoretom who have also struggled with it.

I completely disagree, as, if you actually want the engine to run right, you want to get the ECU to stay out of closed loop mode.

My bike runs fine in closed loop - except for popping on decel at zero TP. This isn't really a performance issue. Using a modified version of Wayne's 20050_2 tune, I have smooth power curves with 140 max HP and 150 max torque. Everyone with aftermarket pipes has the backfiring problem. After consulting with Wayne on this. He sent me a logging program and I sent him manifold pressure, TP, and rpm data. We used these to enrich the lower rows of the L tables. This seems to work pretty well.

Pig9r and ToystoreTom tried taking it out of closed loop by lowering all A/F below 14.57. They couldn't get it to idle or run right at low TP. That's all I know about that.

Could be, but I see no reason to leave the L tables untouched. On every single Triumph I've ever tuned, the bottom few rows of %TP/MAP had serious room for improvement, which when left unaddressed, left annoying driveability problems. Attempts to tune this area could reveal that no improvement can be made, but I seriously doubt it, as I've never seen such a thing.

Like I said, the only problem at low TP seems to be popping on decel and we addressed this by adding fuel to the L tables. The tune I created with Wayne's help is posted on the r3owners.com site under "trading tunes" on the first page. The tune is 20050_DynoFinalMap_TOR_CatBypass_decel.dat. I put fuel in the 0 MAP row and from about 1500-3500 rpm up to about 656 millibars on the left axis.

I would add and subtract fuel wherever needed. Besides that, Wayne told me that the trims affect both F and L tables. Did he not use the trims? Or did he change his mind about whether they affect both?

The trim application in TuneEdit does affect both the L and F tables but I don't know if this is the case if you use the TuningLink emulator. Wayne should have separate trim functions for the L and F tables. If you compare Wayne's custom dyno tunes with the stock tune (20050), the L tables are the same, so I don't know how Wayne did his dyno tunes.

Once again, I don't care about PCs. My question pertained to using tune edit. You may want to re-read.

My Triumph mechanic is a DynoJet center who does most of his custom tuning work on Hardleys. He's the only dyno tuner in Reno who's competent enough but he will not get into the Tuneboy. There isn't enough business in this town to make it worthwhile.

Consequently, I don't know squat about how the TuningLink emulator in Tuneboy works or how mapping it manually would work. From these forums, there's only one guy I know of (Hombre) who got someone to dyno tune his bike with Tuneboy - and that took 9 hours.

You appear to be a professional tuner. Are you a DynoJet center? I and I'm sure a lot of folks on this and the other R3 forums would be interested in your experience with dyno-tuning with Tuneboy.

[dougl]

On 2007-04-20 16:26, moto wrote:
Do you have dyno charts to look at for all throttle positions?

I just have standard looking charts of HP and torque vs rpm. He did only 2 runs from cold with Wayne's tune. Then we loaded the stock tune (20054) and there are 2 runs for that. I'll e-mail to your shop.

What equipment and methodology were they using in order to tune these areas?

I don't think any methodology was involved. I think Tom's bike has a PCIII and they were trying to fix the popping by adjusting the PCIII with the ECU in open loop.

I would like to look at the map but can't find it. Can you send me a direct link?

I'll e-mail you the map.

Like I said, and maybe I'm misunderstanding something, I can't see how this can work, as the ECU should try to correct this back if it's still looking at the O2 sensor.

I'm sure I understand it less. The number in the tables (L or F) is an air volume and it uses the A/F target to calculate the fuel. So the higher the number, the more fuel. You're saying that with the sensor on, it's keeping the fuel constant to give an A/F of 14.57? Then why even have an L table? I raised the values in the L table higher than I have them now and the throttle started getting sluggish and unresponsive.

Are the areas below 12% throttle modified in the F tables?

Don't remember. I thought that between 6 and 12%, the ECU interpolates between the F and L tables.

I have a Factory Pro eddy current brake with 4-gas EGA (see http://www.moto-lab.com/Dyno_Tech/).

I looked at your site.

[flyingmoose]

Its obvious that some of you know a lot more about tuning the rocket than me. I definitely enjoy reading the posts and gain a lot of knowledge from them.

However, I would like a more layperson response or comparison to this question. I have a stock (engine/performance wise) '05 Rocket. I have heard the TOR's with bypass on a showroom Rocket and liked the sound. I have never heard Jardines in person and think they might be louder than I want.

In any event, I am interested in a general "seat of the pants" comparison (hp, torque, acceleration, etc.) of an appropriately tuned Rocket with TOR's and bypass, Jardines, and stock exhaust. Any info from you guys would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[ This message was edited by: flyingmoose on 2007-04-28 22:18 ]

[revhed]

Seat of the pants feel, bike performs much better through out from take off to full revs. Jardines are very loud but ok whilst cruising, very noisy around town. Dont really notice the intake noise from the Tuneboy filters unless you are right up it. Will be taking the bike to the street drags this Wednesday night for a couple of runs. Practice video link below, need to improve on my shifting a bit before Wednesday. I will post race slips later in the week.

[flyingmoose]

Thanks for your response revhead. If I read your post correctly, you are commenting on the Jardines vs. stock.

Is there anyone out there that has experience with both the TOR with cat bypass and Jardine systems and can make an all around comparison over stock and between the two? I have heard TOR's in person but never ridden, and I have never seen or heard Jardines in person. I'm trying to get some info to help decide which system I want to buy. It would be great if I could try them out, but you just don't see many RIII's around in any configuration (which is one of the things I like about it).