Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
476 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Finally I got my copy of BIKE where the full data - including dyno runs for the 2006 T100 - is published (article “The Big Test: Bend-swingers” comparing: Kawasaki ZRX1200, Moto Guzzi Griso, Triumph Bonneville T100 and Ducati GT1000)

Now I’m able to compare my dyno figures after the three modifications I made on my T100 with the original configuration:

Stock:
Max. Torque: 45.8Lb.ft / 62.1Nm at 4,700 RPM
Max. Power: 57.0 bhp (+/- 66.4 gross hp) at 6,900 RPM
Average fuel consumption: 42 mpg (5.60 litres/100km)

1st Modification
- AI (Air Injection) removed.
- Baffle removed.
- Added a .020" (0.51mm) shim under each needle
- Opened the low speed mixture screws about 1/4 turn.

Results:
Max. Torque: 49.7Lb.ft / 67.4Nm at 6,062 RPM
Max. Power: 60.6 bhp (+/- 70.6 gross hp) at 6,831 RPM
Average fuel consumption: 41.8 mpg (5.63 litres/100km)

2nd Modification
- Removal of the Snorkel
- Replacement of the original by a K&N Air Filter
- Change of carburettor needles and main Jets to 116 (RF Dynojet kit RF-5105)

Results:
Max. Torque: 50.9Lb.ft / 69.0Nm at 3,562 RPM
Max. Power: 58.9 bhp (+/- 68.6 gross hp) at 6,986 RPM
Average fuel consumption: 38.1 mpg (6.18 litres/100km)

3rd Modification
- Air Box Restrictor Plate removed
Results:
Max. Torque: 52.6Lb.ft / 71.3Nm at 5,769 RPM
Max. Power: 61.3 bhp (+/- 71.4 gross hp) at 7,295 RPM
Average fuel consumption: 40.0 mpg (5.88 litres/100km)

Below the comparison between dyno runs.





Note: By no means do I pretend that these are ideal or even good modifications. The reason I post these findings is just to share with you whatever I experienced


[ This message was edited by: JMV2006 on 2006-12-04 12:24 ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
913 Posts
Nice post. Thanks for the info. Just goes to show how "tinkerable" these Bonnies are. A mod here or there can make a nice difference... Now who can show what a pair of low restriction mufflers can do??
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
476 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
On 2006-12-04 18:00, pabonne wrote:
... Now who can show what a pair of low restriction mufflers can do??
Every time I changed anything on my T100’s engine I had it pass a dyno test to check the values for torque, power and fuel mixture.
I’m surprised to read here about so many people performing modifications on jets, exhausts, engine size, etc., without checking the REAL outcome of what was done to their bikes.
The dyno check is the ONLY way to accurately know the performance of a motorbike.
Or can it be that many people do it but don’t dare to show the print out of the result? :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
How's your hand doing by the way?

I know for me, some of the reasons why I don't dyno test after every mod, are money and hassle. The nearest dyno is about an hour's ride away from me, they typically are booked two weeks in advance, and they charge $40 a pop for every dyno session. On the other hand, the next time I dyno, there will be a big difference from my first dyno run, I've sunk lots of money into the thing since.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
476 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
On 2006-12-05 07:12, RoundSlide wrote:
How's your hand doing by the way?
Thank you for asking Michael,
I’m not that well yet! I will change the plaster next Friday and I hope they will put a smaller one. I’m left-handed and as it is even to type a message here is a struggle.

Here a dyno costs US$26.00 (€20.00) which comparing with the typical price of after-market parts is not that much.
In total my bike passed 5 runs but I only had to pay for 3. The last time the dealer had to make 3 test runs to find the right jet (116) but he only charged me for one.
I’m very happy because the end result is fantastic. It runs now far much better and smoother as if it was another bike.


[ This message was edited by: JMV2006 on 2006-12-05 08:57 ]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
476 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
At this moment my mixture is ideal (13x1 from 3,500 to 5,000 RPM) for my kind of riding averaging a fuel consumption of 5.88 litres/100km (40.0 mpg)

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
What's the difference between "bhp" and measured hp at the wheel? Are they the same?


Here's my latest Wheel hp map on my 02 . Peak torque came in at 46.6 ft/lbs at the wheel. 0-100 in 13.9 seconds, air /fuel ratio was too rich averaging at 11.9.

Shorty
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
476 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
On 2006-12-15 09:07, Shorty wrote:
What's the difference between "bhp" and measured hp at the wheel? Are they the same?
The “gross hp” is the power at the crankshaft, an irrelevant figure that the manufacturers claim wrongly as bhp to impress the clients.

Brake horsepower (bhp) is the measure of an engine's horsepower without the loss in power caused by the gearbox, generator, chain, pumps and other auxiliaries. Thus the prefix "brake" refers to where the power is measured: at the engine's output shaft. The actual horsepower delivered to the driving wheels is less. An engine would have to be retested to obtain a rating in another system. The term "brake" refers to the use of a band brake to measure torque during the test (which is multiplied by the engine speed in revs/sec and the circumference of the band to give the power).

Effective horsepower (ehp) is the power converted to useful work. In the case of a vehicle this is the power actually turned into forward motion. In motorcycles, effective horsepower is often referred to as wheel horsepower. Most dynamometers measure wheel horsepower and then apply a conversion factor to calculate net or brake horsepower at the engine.

According to “Bike” magazine, in the case of the Triumph Bonneville T100, the factor is 16.5%

I’m sorry to say Shorty but your engine is not very well tuned. :(
There is a lot of room for improvement. :wink:
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top