Dynojet PC-5, with Autotune, and full exh. system Tune...

In the case of my example, I'm just using the book figures for a steady 56 MPH. Who ever drives like that? Still it gives me the numbers to explain what's happening. My rationale applies to every power configuration.

I am not getting the same gas mileage. I am getting 3-5 MPG better mileage. It is really quite simple.... It took an awe full lot of throttle to move the bike at a given environment, and now with fuel, and air better mixed for power, it now takes less throttle to move the same bike+rider. The MPG read out is verified by miles driven divided by Gallons filled in the tank. First I was cautiously optimistic, but then as the miles went by, it became clear to me that the fuel consumption had gone down a little, specially in the 40-50 MPH dirt roading. It is not an error. While I agree with your assesment above, that is primarily based on the higher gear/lower rpm. That is not the case with me. But simply average riding....town....rural.....dirt...Lots of dirt....etc.

I don't know.....All I can report is what I get, or should I say, is getting with this setup. Sorry.

Well I would never argue with you about your measurements. Miles driven and gallons put in the tank. On the other hand I don't see any way that your fuel computer can read correctly. It just doesn't have a way to account for the added. To be sure, I checked with Dynojet today. They confirmed that your fuel computer will not read correctly if you add fuel.

Fair enough...... So with that in mind..... How can this be plausible..... Is there something to the pulse length controlled by by the BMS-K, vs the higher volume demanded from the PC-5....??? I am stumped, as they clearly agree. Another thing is that I would see the low fuel light come on about 170-180 miles..... I now see it 180-190. I understand what you are saying, and are neither trying to be arrogant about this, merely just posting my findings. Have not gotten to the SAS light yet. Still working the studio.

The BMW fuel mpg computer is cumulative. It just keeps adding fuel mileage to what is stored since the last reset and averaging it out. Reset at every fill up and mine is reasonably accurate, to within a 1 or 2 miles per gallon.

When the bike was new, I routinely got 57-58 mpg riding around my rural area. Now it is down to 54mpg, but I have an accelerator module and probably twist the throttle more. I don't know why anyone should get 44 unless they are doing a lot of freeway miles. The mileage does drop off quickly at those speeds.

Just a couple observations having no meaning to your mileage anomoly. Looking at the fuel trim table (3), there is little fuel added between 4250 and 5000 RPM. There is very little to no fuel added betwwen 0 and 10% throttle opening. I have no idea how that corresponds to the way you ride. I do know this. I can go go from 51 mpg to 36 mpg with throttle manipulation. The biggest influence to my fuel mileage is my right wrist and if I see a 10 mile per tank or 2.5 mpg difference it is of no significance to me.

While I got ya, I was wondering. Back in the day I was involved with some small time auto racing guys fooling around with motors meaning I understand the value of a Dyno for the track. The Power Commander with Autotune is advertised as a device for those wishing to forgo the Dyno expense and such. If, and I mean if, one is going to accept the Autotune map, other than a piece of paper charting torque and horsepower, what value is the Dyno? One can run a Dyno tune today at 80 degrees with 10% relative humidity, tomorrow run at 60 degrees and 90% relative humidity with different results and different tunes. If we are going to plug in 13.2 or 13.5 and let it do its thing the value of the Dyno is lost as the A/F R will try to maintain the setting. Maybe there is value having a Dyno map, flipping a switch to the Autotune map, I do not know. Real world is different than a Dyno, even NASCAR changes the programming in the ECU to match conditions before the race not relying on the Dyno set up back at the shop.

It is interesting to note that only one cell, 15% throttle at 4500 rpm took fuel out. Not much can be done regarding both cylinders running the same map due to having one Lambda sensor.

This is the best technical thread going right now, I am very interested in the different opinions, results, and us all working this out in such a friendly manner. Wonderful.

Terry

Thank you sir for that great observation. I too agree with that, and like to contribute it to all of us, most certainly Roger, as he have me outgunned, flanked, and powered, with his knowledge of the subject. All too often do you see people hacking at each other, and the message vanishes. I can only speak for myself regarding the dyno. I am a very skeptical person. I am not one to buy snake oil, and for one wanted to align myself with a trusted source (SSW/Epic Motorsports) Eddie have tuned with the Dynojet system for a very long time, and his bikes winns races. But.... therein lies, or so I though, lies the issue. I don't wanna race..... Just explore the dirt. So I presented the case to him, that power would be good, but control ,and efficiency was more important. And onward we went. Fast forward... I wanted the dyno to prove to me, that this stuff works. We all know the butt dyno, but only way to either document success, or failure, is to dyno before....during, and after. Make sure that we understand where the 8GS was with regard to fueling, before the install. We ran it, and I am very satisfied. This is one of the few cases, that the stuff you read actually is true. That said, do you need to dyno it now..... NO. If you trust my judgement on the subject, then I did the work, and paid for the "independent" research, and you can just go with the same map, as I have, and you should see about the same results ( providing you have the headers+pipe installed). The thing I like the most, is the easy way you as the end user can interface, and change the mapping, to suit. Perhaps as Roger briefly touched on, that the mapping is rudementery, but again end user friendliness, is great, and if you can use a flaptop, you will feel right at home.
Cheers....

Roger, did Dynojet have anything to say about their technology works with the SAS?

Excellent explanation Erling, thank you.

Terry

Yeppers....

Very good question. I didn't ask them because it is now apparent to me that if the sas solenoid is on so that fresh air can flow into the exhaust it will affect the O2 sensor.

The bigger question now is when (under what conditions) is the solenoid energized? Hopefully EB or someone else will do some riding with a test LED installed.

Thanks again for posting these. Also, I think we've talked enough about the issues related to mileage for now.

Is there one more map which is the result of the dyno tuning? Could you add that too? If you want to try some auto tune experiments you could ride with that map, put Autotune into the mode when it collects trims but doesn't apply them. With the sas valve off that would let you see you close the dyno map is to the target AFR map.

I asked Eddie ( SSW Tuner) to leave the base map as a " zero map" as I did not want to impact the Fuel mileage....Just correcting for the off idle hop. He then after riding the dyno many times, and many power pulls, filled in the AFR based on that, and trying to create economy around cruising. He liked what he saw, and that afr, stuck'ed, as it was the power maker. I will try to get to the SAS tomorrow.....

This is making more sense to me now. Looking at 2% and 5% throttle, 1250 and 1500 RPM, the base map is +20%. The Trim map (which I'm assuming is not additive in the mode you're running but may be additive in the non-real-time PCV mode) has 25, 19 and 0, -13. What is the adjustment Trim limit programmed to on your PCV software?

This suggests the following to me: the 25 has hit a limit, the 19 has adjusted toward your 13.5 AFR for that cell. The 0 tells the Autotune not to adjust, don't know why it is there. -13% suggests that either a) this table is additive to the Base map and that it takes 20% minus 13% to hit your 13.5:1 AFR target (very reasonable) or that b) it takes 13% less fuel than stock to hit your 13.5 target (not a reasonable assumption). If I were you I would want to figure out for sure if the tables are additive.

When does the Off-Idle Hop that you mention occur? I guess it's after deceleration. I should program my LC-1 to 11.8:1 to see what happens on my bike with that annoying post decel, throttle on. This is a nasty side effect of overrun fuel cutoff.

I'd be interested in comparing the Trim table now to the Trim table when it first came off the Dyno. Can you post a copy of the original?

I'm thinking that all the Trim values of 10 were set by your tuner and that you have not got enough time in those cells for Autotune to adjust them.

RB

I guess that as my bike cruises at 4500 rpm, at 70 mph, very little fuel is added on the freeway. Other ranges, the onlu answer I can add, is that the fuel additions are inside the BMS-K " margin of operation", as other why, it should not show, and agree with fuel calculations...... I'm stumped, but can only report what I see.

Considering this further, keep in mind the F650 twins did not include this setup at all. None of the pieces. The valve cover is even different. Does anyone know if the F650 twin uses a different version of firmware in it's BMS-K?

Interesting. Everything I have read, over 30 different sites, says the secondary air system must be disabled, blocked, etc. I do not know.

http://www.bmwplanetpower.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16448

http://www.justanswer.com/motorcycle/3pvv2-hi-power-commander-installed-f800gs.html

Bottom line Erling, you are just gonna have to break down and get GS-911 for us.

Terry

Sorry, found the discussion here.

http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=637370&page=6

Too many threads regarding the same subject matter.

I am of the opinion the system needs to be physically blocked, but I could be wrong.

Terry

Yesss...

Nottt...
I reflashed the BMS-K with a setup developed together with a friend, owner of a 650.
Despite to different camshafts, they are actually the same, thus, because of big O2 exceed red by lambda during SAS operation - I can confirm the readings are validated only during steady states, when SAS is OFF.

Actually I'm fighting with exhaust popping - higher compared to friend's bike.
Reasons could be two:
1. I've Akra installed, while the friend's OEM muffler is hiding more this phenomena
2. 650 have no SAS system, that's why I'm going to try to exclude the system: I firmly believe the popping is due mainly to afterburning of fuel surplus with secondary air.

I've already wired a SAS monitor (just for curiosity, as Roger just said) but it's raining, now...
So far the only thing I can say is that (MY 2008) ECU are not generating any error message with its connector out (and wheels not spinning: nobody knows German fantasy...).

BTW: if you want to lock the cutoff, it's enough to skip the clutch lever microswitch.
Obviously there's an issue with side stand & motor starting in-gear, but you can experiment a trick to eliminate a minor idle-hop cause...