996 Dyno Run.

[petevtwin650]

A chap on a Ducati site organised a dyno run day. 15 quid for a power run and fueling.

Below is the graph and the run on a short video.

Our got 111 bhp @ 10k at 68 Ft/lbs @ 7k. A nearly new standard 848 only got 116 bhp and 68 Ft/lbs. Not too shabby for our bike in Ducati terms. Still not much more than any jap ss 600 though. :(

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i184/petevtwin650/Ducati/dyno%20day/996Dyno.jpg

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i184/petevtwin650/Ducati/dyno%20day/th_DukeDynoday016.jpg (http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i184/petevtwin650/Ducati/dyno%20day/?action=view&current=DukeDynoday016.flv)

[DarrenSV650S]

Did he alter anything or was it just to find out the bhp?

[ThEGr33k]

Nice numbers. What were other 996/Ducati's there getting?

Nice and flat when it gets to the top power, real big spread! :D

Your A/F is way rich though! :( Might be worth having that sorted out I think... if for nothing else fuel economy!

[petevtwin650]

Did he alter anything or was it just to find out the bhp?

No nothing was altered. He'd ordered a special gizmo that would reset the TPS sensor to zero and read the fault codes, but in typical fashion it didn't arrive.:rolleyes:

At least we established that our bike was running rich, which is better than running lean although obviously not ideal. Was a bit surprised as we'd fitted pipercross filters and larger bore exhausts. Some of the other bikes were seriously lean and one poor chap with a 748 (circa 100 bhp) only had 84. Something wrong there.

[petevtwin650]

Nice numbers. What were other 996/Ducati's there getting?

Nice and flat when it gets to the top power, real big spread! :D

Your A/F is way rich though! :( Might be worth having that sorted out I think... if for nothing else fuel economy!

No other 996's run on the day. A 749R. 15 grand bike when new! got a 112 bhp but only 60 Ft/lbs.

A Benilli Tre went on as well. 900 cc version. We were looking forward to impressive figures. 107 bhp. He was not impressed.

We've got another chip coming which does away with one of the twin injectors and is programmable in zones. Thing is the fuel economy is no worse than the Sv. Obviously not riding hard enough!.

[ThEGr33k]

No other 996's run on the day. A 749R. 15 grand bike when new! got a 112 bhp but only 60 Ft/lbs.

A Benilli Tre went on as well. 900 cc version. We were looking forward to impressive figures. 107 bhp. He was not impressed.

We've got another chip coming which does away with one of the twin injectors and is programmable in zones. Thing is the fuel economy is no worse than the Sv. Obviously not riding hard enough!.

112BHP is nice, guess it must rev well to make the power without the torque. 107 from the Tre inst that far off I wouldnt have though.

New Eprom I take it? I got one for mine (not a Duc...) but man it made it feel WAY better. I still need to get the change checked out :)

Anyway, why would you want to get rid of one of the injectors? Wouldnt it be easier to make each add less fuel?

Or you have a hole in the SV's tank! What MPG you getting from them both? I get 45-50 out of the falco but got 55-70 out of the SV. Similar riding style, maybe a little more idle with the falco since 40+ 6th gear. (Unless in twisties).

[Bibio]

so you never run it on deisel then......

[petevtwin650]

112BHP is nice, guess it must rev well to make the power without the torque. 107 from the Tre inst that far off I wouldnt have though.

New Eprom I take it? I got one for mine (not a Duc...) but man it made it feel WAY better. I still need to get the change checked out :)

Anyway, why would you want to get rid of one of the injectors? Wouldnt it be easier to make each add less fuel?

Or you have a hole in the SV's tank! What MPG you getting from them both? I get 45-50 out of the falco but got 55-70 out of the SV. Similar riding style, maybe a little more idle with the falco since 40+ 6th gear. (Unless in twisties).

107 from a 900 triple when on a tractor like ours we were getting 5 more. :confused:

Yeah new chip. Ultimap it's called. On better specced Dukes that have twin injectors the chip is sequential so only one is used at small throttle openings, then the second chimes in higher up the rev range. All standard 996's have a stutter at 3.5k which fitting this chip cures in conjuction with disabling 2 of the 4 injectors. A single injector per cylinder can handle 135 bhp so that#s not a problem on my bike.

Get around 40-45 mpg out of both the bikes. Can't get into top gear on the Duke reasonably until 70+. So I've been told.;)


so you never run it on deisel then......

Have you seen the price of Diesel? :shock:

[ThEGr33k]

So what size exhaust you gone for? Is it the 60mm termi system?

107 from a 900 triple when on a tractor like ours we were getting 5 more. :confused:

Yeah new chip. Ultimap it's called. On better specced Dukes that have twin injectors the chip is sequential so only one is used at small throttle openings, then the second chimes in higher up the rev range. All standard 996's have a stutter at 3.5k which fitting this chip cures in conjuction with disabling 2 of the 4 injectors. A single injector per cylinder can handle 135 bhp so that#s not a problem on my bike.


Thing is our engines are pretty much race engines, the 900 is just for the road so is probably not as highly tuned. I dont know. I think they are supposed to be about the same power as ours, maybe all he needs a exhaust and a bit of airbox work and he'll be with us?

I think mine is only one injecter per TB. Not 100% sure though.

Get around 40-45 mpg out of both the bikes. Can't get into top gear on the Duke reasonably until 70+. So I've been told.;)


You cant!? Man my top gear is geared for 180mph but I can happily run 6th from 40mph. Maybe its because of the stutter you mention? Or have you not tried to run it at that?

45mpg isnt so bad for the Duc but id have been upset if the SV did the same! :( Odd that yours is so much less than mine was! :confused:

[petevtwin650]

So what size exhaust you gone for? Is it the 60mm termi system?



Thing is our engines are pretty much race engines, the 900 is just for the road so is probably not as highly tuned. I dont know. I think they are supposed to be about the same power as ours, maybe all he needs a exhaust and a bit of airbox work and he'll be with us?

I think mine is only one injecter per TB. Not 100% sure though.



You cant!? Man my top gear is geared for 180mph but I can happily run 6th from 40mph. Maybe its because of the stutter you mention? Or have you not tried to run it at that?

45mpg isnt so bad for the Duc but id have been upset if the SV did the same! :( Odd that yours is so much less than mine was! :confused:

50mm half system. Have got a full 50mm but it needs the CO2 bosses welding in and I might lose a bit of midrange in return for top end power, so I'll not bother.

Dukes? Race tuned? Look how much power Suzuki got out of the TL or Honda with the SP1/2 and even your Falco has more HP, let alone a Hago Rep Mille.

I'd be doing about 2,200 to be going at 40 in top. Engine and drivetrain goes not likey.:(

Most of the people we rode with got pretty much the same to a tankful as us plus we're two up. So maybe you weren't trying hard enough! :D

[ThEGr33k]

50mm half system. Have got a full 50mm but it needs the CO2 bosses welding in and I might lose a bit of midrange in return for top end power, so I'll not bother.

Dukes? Race tuned? Look how much power Suzuki got out of the TL or Honda with the SP1/2 and even your Falco has more HP, let alone a Hago Rep Mille.

I'd be doing about 2,200 to be going at 40 in top. Engine and drivetrain goes not likey.:(

Most of the people we rode with got pretty much the same to a tankful as us plus we're two up. So maybe you weren't trying hard enough! :D

I dont think the TL is that much better off than ours tbh. At the rear wheel they might have a couple more bhp but we have the mid range it doesnt. The TL lost mid range for peak power... like what would happen if you went for the thicker exhaust! I think the newest RSV engine incarnation does just under 125BHP (at the wheel) stock. heh. Problem is we cant be sure without running the bikes on the same dyno :(

I think mine is at about the same 2200RPM, but its pretty smooth from about that, any less though and it starts making nice banging sounds. This engine though is SUPER smooth (for a twin) so maybe it lets me get away with it.

Ha ha. It can drop to 40 when I do the aggressive riding around the twisties. I do a lot of streight line riding to work and back though so I guess that brings the average up a lot.

[Blue_SV650S]

Look at that AFR :shock: now there is a bike in serious need of a power commander!! :lol:

[petevtwin650]

I dont think the TL is that much better off than ours tbh. At the rear wheel they might have a couple more bhp but we have the mid range it doesnt. The TL lost mid range for peak power... like what would happen if you went for the thicker exhaust! I think the newest RSV engine incarnation does just under 125BHP (at the wheel) stock. heh. Problem is we cant be sure without running the bikes on the same dyno :(

I think mine is at about the same 2200RPM, but its pretty smooth from about that, any less though and it starts making nice banging sounds. This engine though is SUPER smooth (for a twin) so maybe it lets me get away with it.

Ha ha. It can drop to 40 when I do the aggressive riding around the twisties. I do a lot of streight line riding to work and back though so I guess that brings the average up a lot.

That's my point. The TL type bikes are a more powerful and have maybe sacrified top end power for midrange. That's what race tuned engines do.

And 125bhp is still a good 10% up on mine.

Well. all we ever did was ride spiritedly (aggresive on the throttle if you will ), so we actually got better MPG than you. :D

Our bikes are toys to be used as the manufacturers intended whereas you are trying to maximise the fuel and tyre wear usage on your bike possibly as it's your day to day transport as well.

[petevtwin650]

Look at that AFR :shock: now there is a bike in serious need of a power commander!! :lol:

Well it may mean it needs the valve gaps setting and new plugs which is next in line, followed by getting the chip set up.

[ThEGr33k]

Well. all we ever did was ride spiritedly (aggresive on the throttle if you will ), so we actually got better MPG than you.

You might have noticed me mention but I was checking the rear spark plugs (got 2 per cylinder on this) and noticed that one of the rear spark plug cap was knackered. Changed that and it ran better. Then thought well its been using the same sparkers for nearly 19K miles so I swapped them out, one of the front sparkers had pretty much no gap so probably wasnt working at all. So changed those and now it starts easy (before it was a bit of an art at times). The tick over is smoother and the engine feels a LOT stronger throughout the rev range. I got a feeling it might have been running on only the two spark plugs since I got it! :(

Basically check yours and see what the craic is. Though I guess you have one spark plug per cylinder so shouldnt be too bad... since if one nackers youll probably notice. :rolleyes:

[neio79]

Still not much more than any jap ss 600 though. :(




not much at all, mine ran 105.4

[ThEGr33k]

I just done some quick summs. You know displacement of a 600 and a 1000 V2 isnt that disimialar at max power... Ill explain.

The 600's rev a lot higher than a V2 meaning that the effective air moved through the engine at a certain RPM is very similar to a 1000cc V2.

Interesting yes?

14500rpm (max power did you say Neio?) x 300 (only 300cc used per revolution...) = 4,350,000cc per min through put.

9200rpm (max power of an average twin) x 499 (one cylinder fires per revolution) = 4,590,800cc

4,590,800
--------- x100 = 95%
4,350,000

So the 600 puts through 95% of the air and fuel a 1000cc V2 does. WOW!

111
---- x100 = 95%
105

The 600 produces 95% of the power the 1000cc V2 does. Interesting.

Effectivly a 600 IL4 has the same displacement as a 1000cc V2. :cool:

[Blue_SV650S]

I just done some quick summs. You know displacement of a 600 and a 1000 V2 isnt that disimialar at max power... Ill explain.

The 600's rev a lot higher than a V2 meaning that the effective air moved through the engine at a certain RPM is very similar to a 1000cc V2.

Interesting yes?

14500rpm (max power did you say Neio?) x 300 (only 300cc used per revolution...) = 4,350,000cc per min through put.

9200rpm (max power of an average twin) x 499 (one cylinder fires per revolution) = 4,590,800cc

4,590,800
--------- x100 = 95%
4,350,000

So the 600 puts through 95% of the air and fuel a 1000cc V2 does. WOW!

111
---- x100 = 95%
105

The 600 produces 95% of the power the 1000cc V2 does. Interesting.

Effectivly a 600 IL4 has the same displacement as a 1000cc V2. :cool:

Power comes from revvs, there is nothing new/ground breaking there ;)

[Dangerous Dave]

Hmmm... the SV800 makes 109.6 bhp with 63ft/Ib, the curves are similar to the 996's expect for the dip around 5,000revs and the torque is a little better lower in the revs too.

[ThEGr33k]

Power comes from revvs, there is nothing new/ground breaking there ;)


You couldnt have missed the point more if you ran away from it! :p

[Blue_SV650S]

You couldnt have missed the point more if you ran away from it! :p


How so?

[ThEGr33k]

How so?


Basically what I was saying is that both bikes have the same displacement at max power. Just a point of interest. The fact that the power is similar and the displacement is at the same time.

Like you say everyone knows 600's rev high to make the power... so that point would be useless. :)

[yorkie_chris]

Power needs gas flow. You get gas flow from lots of big valves and well designed ports, then having engine which is undersquare enough to rev and take advantage of possible flow. SS6 has twice as many valves, revs a lot higher, so can make similar grunt with lesser cubes.

[ThEGr33k]

Power needs gas flow. You get gas flow from lots of big valves and well designed ports, then having engine which is undersquare enough to rev and take advantage of possible flow. SS6 has twice as many valves, revs a lot higher, so can make similar grunt with lesser cubes.


Aye... this is why when I win the lottery ill be making me an oval piston V2 :cool:

[yorkie_chris]

Lol it better be euromillions. Engine building is not cheap

[Blue_SV650S]

Basically what I was saying is that both bikes have the same displacement at max power. Just a point of interest. The fact that the power is similar and the displacement is at the same time.

Like you say everyone knows 600's rev high to make the power... so that point would be useless. :)

But surely it stands to reason that all other things being equal, you probably need to pump the same amount of air/fuel mix (that is what makes the bang) over the same period of time to make the same sort of power ... the only way to do this with smaller CC is higher revs ... personally I don't see it is a revelation!! ;)

But there you go, I am glad you are pleased with yourself!!! :lol:

[ThEGr33k]

So Pete are you happy with the dyno run?

Yes Chris, will need some monies :(

But surely it stands to reason that all other things being equal, you probably need to pump the same amount of air/fuel mix (that is what makes the bang) over the same period of time to make the same sort of power ... the only way to do this with smaller CC is higher revs ... personally I don't see it is a revelation!! ;)

But there you go, I am glad you are pleased with yourself!!! :lol:


Good me too. I suppose you are right. Just interesting that they were so directly comparable is all.

[yorkie_chris]

Find valve sizes and lifts and compare curtain area if you want to confuse things further ;-)

[ThEGr33k]

Find valve sizes and lifts and compare curtain area if you want to confuse things further ;-)


You mean measure air flow?

[yorkie_chris]

No, work out what is effectively "possible" airflow based on valve design.

[ThEGr33k]

No, work out what is effectively "possible" airflow based on valve design.


Care to explain how to work this out?

[yorkie_chris]

Curtain area is (Pi x valve diameter) x valve lift ... roughly.

[ThEGr33k]

Cant find the damn lift on mine... Bah. 36mm intake 31mm exhaust though.

[Lozzo]

not much at all, mine ran 105.4

1998 CBR600FW with Akrapovic full system, Dynojet stage 1 kit and K+N filter - 95.3bhp at the rear wheel on the same type of dyno that Pete's was tested on. I'm pretty happy with that, considering Honda claimed 100bhp at the crank in 1997.

I've got to drop the needles one notch to clean up the fuelling in the midrange. At low revs and top end the fuelling is fine but it goes a bit rich in the midrange and bogs slightly on hard throttle from 6,000rpm upwards.

[lukemillar]

You couldnt have missed the point more if you ran away from it! :p

Don't tell me, don't tell me............. buy a Falco!??? :p

[petevtwin650]

So Pete are you happy with the dyno run?



Yes I was. To put it into perspective, it was only 4 BHP down and equal torque to a standard 848, and Ducati rate them at 134! Book figure for mine is 112,so allowing for the uprated induction and exhaust that more or less accounts for the losses from crank to rear wheel figures.

[Skip]

Nice figures Pete - same peak power as mine! :D You have more torques though - mine only made 57 :(

[Warthog]

So are you holding any stock in the thought that after a dyno run your tyres are now dangerous and you will have to replace them?

[petevtwin650]

Nice figures Pete - same peak power as mine! :D You have more torques though - mine only made 57 :(

No substitute for cubes Skip. Your's''ll spin up quicker though.:(

So are you holding any stock in the thought that after a dyno run your tyres are now dangerous and you will have to replace them?

:D:D:DThe only thing dangerous about my tyres is the guy controlling them. :shock:

[yorkie_chris]

So are you holding any stock in the thought that after a dyno run your tyres are now dangerous and you will have to replace them?

Nah that's b0llocks. With a properly designed inertial dyno anyway... I wouldn't be so sure about putting a bike on a twin roller braked type.

[lukemillar]

So are you holding any stock in the thought that after a dyno run your tyres are now dangerous and you will have to replace them?

eh? Please explain - I don't get it :smt017

[yorkie_chris]

Some guy down the pub reckons that the extra stresses of running on a dyno stresses the tyres to the point they're no longer useable safely.

Also pub expert reckons that dyno run is very hard on your engine, if you've ever had it flat out then you're putting exact same stresses!

[Lozzo]

Some guy down the pub reckons that the extra stresses of running on a dyno stresses the tyres to the point they're no longer useable safely.

Also pub expert reckons that dyno run is very hard on your engine, if you've ever had it flat out then you're putting exact same stresses!

I'd say pub expert is a bit of a plonker and ought to speak to people who know about these things before opening his ill-informed gob and making himself look stupid.

[Warthog]

I'd say pub expert is a bit of a plonker and ought to speak to people who know about these things before opening his ill-informed gob and making himself look stupid.

Except that the plonker in the pub was a bike tyre fitter who showed me a michelin that had failed rather spectacularly 50 miles after the owner had had his bike dynoed. I found some link about somewhere...

Couple of brief searches finds:
http://www.cameronautotech.co.uk/tyres%20text.htm

"Dyno testing places extremely high loads in concentrated areas on motorcycle tyres. It is possible that damage which may be invisible to the naked eye can occur to the tyre's construction during dyno runs. It is also possible that this damage may result in tyre failure later. Tyres that have been used for dyno testing should not then be used on road or track. Dyno tests should only be carried out on worn out tyresm which can then be discarded."

I think it is also to do with the heat generated but with no airflow over the tyre so it gets hotter than usual.

Now I know less than the plonker in the pub but I just wondered what Pete thought! Don't want him blowing up on the way home. :)

[northwind]

Is that the same guy? He might have shown you a tyre that failed after a dyno run, but tyres do fail, the trick is proving the cause. Just think how many tyres are out there that didn't fail after a dyno run though. I've probably done about 20000 miles on tyres that have previously been on the dyno myself.

It can be quite hard on tyres though, especially with some operators and machines, some have abrasive drums and others will allow a lot of wheelspin and though personally I don't think it's any danger at all, it's all wear. I've usually got an old tyre around that I can fit for the purpose, when I can be bothered to do it.

[Warthog]

The link was not the same bloke, I just found it whilst surfing. I have no idea what is right or wrong, but I certainly don't want Pete blowing up :D

[yorkie_chris]

That quote from earlier is called a "cover your rse" statement heheh

Have done lots of miles on tyres which have been dyno'd, not dead yet.

[ThEGr33k]

I had mine dyno'd and it went on to do another 5K miles with no issues. :)

[petevtwin650]

The link was not the same bloke, I just found it whilst surfing. I have no idea what is right or wrong, but I certainly don't want Pete blowing up :D

Ahhh, your concern over my wellbeing is very touching Nick. :smt058

Do I owe you money or anything?:p

The run was actually quite quick as it was just a couple of calibrating ones then the rev the nut$ off one. :shock:

However our Sv was on Steve Jordans dyno all day whilst he struggled to get the stubby set up. Must've had a least 10 runs.

[northwind]

The first run probably numbed his brain from the sound

[petevtwin650]

Hmmm... the SV800 makes 109.6 bhp with 63ft/Ib, the curves are similar to the 996's expect for the dip around 5,000revs and the torque is a little better lower in the revs too.

Missed this post DD. Now that's the bike Suzuki should make.:D

Especially as the Sv is around 25 to 30 kilos lighter. :cool:

The first run probably numbed his brain from the sound

:smt098:smt098:smt098

[Skip]

You need to change your username Pete! Petevtwin996 - doesnt quite sound the same though :(

[petevtwin650]

You need to change your username Pete! Petevtwin996 - doesnt quite sound the same though :(

Well it's got to be Dieselmosedici. At last a screenname I've earned.:smt090

[Sean_C]

a screenname I've earned.:smt090

How about vtwinknobber? :D