ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Bikes > GSpot > Parallel Universe
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-02-2010, 01:05 AM   #61
Bushwhacker
Dirt, Sweat & Gears
 
Bushwhacker's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Oddometer: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Griz

14.7:1 is known and has been known for decades to be the perfect air/fuel mixture for gasoline-burning engines.
No such thing as a perfect air/fuel ratio.

14.7:1 is the ratio that has a Lambda of 1. That means you thoeretically have exactly enough air molecules to burn all the gasoline molecules. That is what the EPA thinks is perfect because it produces the least emissions.

A slightly lean mixture - 15.4/1 - generally gives the best fuel economy.

A slightly rich mixture - 12.6/1 - generally gives the best HP.

I have read that a bit leaner - 13/1 - produces the most torque.

Also leaner engines run hotter and therefore are more prone to pre-ignition, ie knocking.

Richer mixtures run cooler and most likely add to engine life.

Also a flat air/fuel curve is not necessarily the best although it does give the smoothest, most predictable power delivery, however it would seem to me that an Air/fuel curve that starts out at about 13 or a bit higher/1 and then decreases to about 12.5/1 over the RPM range would give the best torque in the lower RPMs and the best power in the upper range. This would cost you in fuel economy but I am willing to give up a bit of economy for a bit more power.

Plus this entire discussion is for pure gasoline/air ratios. Gasoline additives change the analysis and every vehicle has to be tuned on a dyno with the fuel it is going to run to obtain optimum results.

And finally, all of this is for normally aspirated engines and forced air induction engines (turbocharged) should be run richer still for both optimum power and engine life.

JMHO - YMMV
__________________
09 F800GS ABS Yellow/Black

When you look like a rude, crude, scum sucking cretin, people tend not to ask you stupid questions!
Bushwhacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 10:16 AM   #62
The Griz
North Forest Rider
 
The Griz's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Minnesota
Oddometer: 3,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushwhacker
No such thing as a perfect air/fuel ratio.

14.7:1 is the ratio that has a Lambda of 1. That means you thoeretically have exactly enough air molecules to burn all the gasoline molecules. That is what the EPA thinks is perfect because it produces the least emissions.

A slightly lean mixture - 15.4/1 - generally gives the best fuel economy.

A slightly rich mixture - 12.6/1 - generally gives the best HP.

I have read that a bit leaner - 13/1 - produces the most torque.

Also leaner engines run hotter and therefore are more prone to pre-ignition, ie knocking.

Richer mixtures run cooler and most likely add to engine life.

Also a flat air/fuel curve is not necessarily the best although it does give the smoothest, most predictable power delivery, however it would seem to me that an Air/fuel curve that starts out at about 13 or a bit higher/1 and then decreases to about 12.5/1 over the RPM range would give the best torque in the lower RPMs and the best power in the upper range. This would cost you in fuel economy but I am willing to give up a bit of economy for a bit more power.

Plus this entire discussion is for pure gasoline/air ratios. Gasoline additives change the analysis and every vehicle has to be tuned on a dyno with the fuel it is going to run to obtain optimum results.

And finally, all of this is for normally aspirated engines and forced air induction engines (turbocharged) should be run richer still for both optimum power and engine life.

JMHO - YMMV
Well, I can tell you right now that if I had tuned my KLR to 15:1 or higher I would have been seriously overheating and damaging many things. When I was going through the paces with tuning that bike, I remember hitting 15:1 and being far to lean on a test run. I got home, pulled into the garage, got off the bike, and noticed my header was glowing bright orange. 15:1 or higher for the KLR for any extended period of time: NO GOOD.

Read my previous post. You're basically echoing exactly what said. We've already been through this in this thread.
__________________
PAUL BUNYAN FOREST RIDERS MC
2013 KTM 300 XC-W
2014 KTM 690 Enduro R
The Griz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 10:27 AM   #63
LukasM
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: On a RTW ride - currently Central Asia
Oddometer: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Griz
Well, I can tell you right now that if I had tuned my KLR to 15:1 or higher I would have been seriously overheating and damaging many things. When I was going through the paces with tuning that bike, I remember hitting 15:1 and being far to lean on a test run. I got home, pulled into the garage, got off the bike, and noticed my header was glowing bright orange. 15:1 or higher for the KLR for any extended period of time: NO GOOD.

Read my previous post. You're basically echoing exactly what said.
Griz,

All you ever wanted to "achieve" was 14.7 and now 15:1 would seriously overheat and damage the bike.

If you really have still not understood it, you don't tune for ONE specific number, and 14.7:1 is not known and has been known for decades to be the perfect air/fuel mixture for gasoline-burning engines - unless you are talking about emissions.

Like I said from the beginning, you tune for load/throttle position, going from slightly lean at cruising RPMs (where it will not damage anything) to rich under full load (to produce max power and protect the engine from detonation and overheating).

Now please stop posting more BS, or at least read through the previous replys as we have been through all this already.
__________________
Currently going RTW on a KTM 690 Rally, trip blog: https://www.facebook.com/AroundTheWorldWithLukasM

Tracker: https://share.delorme.com/LukasMatzinger
LukasM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 10:37 AM   #64
The Griz
North Forest Rider
 
The Griz's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Minnesota
Oddometer: 3,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by LukasM
Griz,

All you ever wanted to "achieve" was 14.7 and now 15:1 would seriously overheat and damage the bike.

If you really have still not understood it, you don't tune for ONE specific number, and 14.7:1 is not known and has been known for decades to be the perfect air/fuel mixture for gasoline-burning engines - unless you are talking about emissions.

Like I said from the beginning, you tune for load/throttle position, going from slightly lean at cruising RPMs (where it will not damage anything) to rich under full load (to produce max power and protect the engine from detonation and overheating).

Now please stop posting more BS, or at least read through the previous replys as we have been through all this already.
OMFG Lukas, seriously. You're not reading what I'm posting. You're the classic case of someone who constantly talks but doesn't listen.... always thinking about what you're going to say next instead of listening to what the person in front of you is actually saying.

I have NEVER said that I EVER want to achieve 14.7:1 at all times under all throttle positions and under all loads and conditions. We all "shoot for" 14.7:1 is all I was saying. So yes, we've been through this. You're the one who's not getting it.

Mods, please nuke this thread.
__________________
PAUL BUNYAN FOREST RIDERS MC
2013 KTM 300 XC-W
2014 KTM 690 Enduro R
The Griz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 10:40 AM   #65
ride2little
MoveAlongNothingHere
 
ride2little's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Franklin, TN
Oddometer: 1,918
so, with all of this back and forth banter...is there a solution?

IMO, open up the exhaust, the intake doesn't appear to be a restriction and a re-map to enrichen it up a bit.

In summary.
Exhaust can
header (optional)
Power Commander (or equivalent)
tune.

No?
__________________
~MK~
BMWF800GS
KTM 400 EXC
AMA-262640
ride2little is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 10:43 AM   #66
LukasM
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: On a RTW ride - currently Central Asia
Oddometer: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Griz
OMFG Lukas, seriously. You're not reading what I'm posting. You're the classic case of someone who constantly talks but doesn't listen.... always thinking about what you're going to say next instead of listening to what the person in front of you is actually saying.

I have NEVER said that I EVER want to achieve 14.7:1 at all times under all throttle positions and under all loads and conditions. We all "shoot for" 14.7:1 is all I was saying. So yes, we've been through this. You're the one who's not getting it.

Mods, please nuke this thread.
You are so full of it and still don't see it. Nobody except you (and the manufacturers for emissions reasons) is aiming for 14.7.

Because, again, what you said below is BS:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Griz
And btw, 14.7:1 is completely safe. In fact, contradicting such a fact would be disagreeing with decades of hard scientific evidence regarding the internal combustion engine!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ride2little
so, with all of this back and forth banter...is there a solution?

IMO, open up the exhaust, the intake doesn't appear to be a restriction and a re-map to enrichen it up a bit.

In summary.
Exhaust can
header (optional)
Power Commander (or equivalent)
tune.

No?

Thats a good plan. The key here is the PC to richen up the mixture if you open up intake and exhaust.
__________________
Currently going RTW on a KTM 690 Rally, trip blog: https://www.facebook.com/AroundTheWorldWithLukasM

Tracker: https://share.delorme.com/LukasMatzinger
LukasM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 10:46 AM   #67
ride2little
MoveAlongNothingHere
 
ride2little's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Franklin, TN
Oddometer: 1,918
Oh...additionally, I've done this on all other bikes I've owned (usually a re-jet). And it does NOT cause your MPG to suffer. Rather it usually improved it.
Your motor works more efficiently. It actually works less for the same amount performance. The only issue is that once you see your motor perk up (improved throttle response), you may get into the throttle more which WILL cause the MPG to suffer.
__________________
~MK~
BMWF800GS
KTM 400 EXC
AMA-262640
ride2little is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 10:57 AM   #68
The Griz
North Forest Rider
 
The Griz's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Minnesota
Oddometer: 3,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by LukasM
You are so full of it and still don't see it. Nobody except you (and the manufacturers for emissions reasons) is aiming for 14.7.
I have to post it again I guess:

I have NEVER said that I EVER want to achieve 14.7:1 at all times under all throttle positions and under all loads and conditions. We all "shoot for" 14.7:1 is all I was saying. So yes, we've been through this.

Did you hear this time?

14.7:1 is completely safe: on an engine running at a constant RPM under constant atmospheric conditions and loads. I never said that it is safe for a motorcycle at all times under all loads and conditions. I said it's what we "shoot for".

And, yes, contradicting the 14.7:1 stoichiometric ratio is going against 80+ years of hard scientific evidence.
__________________
PAUL BUNYAN FOREST RIDERS MC
2013 KTM 300 XC-W
2014 KTM 690 Enduro R

The Griz screwed with this post 06-02-2010 at 11:03 AM Reason: To underline, color, and bold the important points so hopfully Lukas will listen.
The Griz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 11:04 AM   #69
ride2little
MoveAlongNothingHere
 
ride2little's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Franklin, TN
Oddometer: 1,918
This thread has since lost all of it's usefulness.
Can you folks please take this debate off-line? Or at least delete your back and forth?

Thanks.
__________________
~MK~
BMWF800GS
KTM 400 EXC
AMA-262640
ride2little is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 11:05 AM   #70
The Griz
North Forest Rider
 
The Griz's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Minnesota
Oddometer: 3,779
This may help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-fuel_ratio
__________________
PAUL BUNYAN FOREST RIDERS MC
2013 KTM 300 XC-W
2014 KTM 690 Enduro R
The Griz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 11:19 AM   #71
The Griz
North Forest Rider
 
The Griz's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Minnesota
Oddometer: 3,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by ride2little
This thread has since lost all of it's usefulness.
Can you folks please take this debate off-line? Or at least delete your back and forth?

Thanks.
Good call.
__________________
PAUL BUNYAN FOREST RIDERS MC
2013 KTM 300 XC-W
2014 KTM 690 Enduro R
The Griz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 12:02 PM   #72
The Griz
North Forest Rider
 
The Griz's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Minnesota
Oddometer: 3,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by ride2little
Oh...additionally, I've done this on all other bikes I've owned (usually a re-jet). And it does NOT cause your MPG to suffer. Rather it usually improved it.
Your motor works more efficiently. It actually works less for the same amount performance. The only issue is that once you see your motor perk up (improved throttle response), you may get into the throttle more which WILL cause the MPG to suffer.
+1 This was my exact result after re-jetting my KLR650.
__________________
PAUL BUNYAN FOREST RIDERS MC
2013 KTM 300 XC-W
2014 KTM 690 Enduro R
The Griz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 03:20 PM   #73
EmmettC
n00b
 
EmmettC's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Oddometer: 1
Tuning

I hope this thread is still being used.

I had my bike run on a dyno the other day, it's got a remus exhaust system and an Arrow can. It's making 82.51 HP.

The guy who runs the tuning shop (in Edinburgh) reckons it running very rich at full throttle, and very lean while cruising. I've ordered a PC so he can tidy up the fueling, I'm not looking for more power, I just want it to run well.

I'm a little worried about the fuel consumption increasing, as the tank is soooo small it really needs to be very frugal to be any use.

I'll update once the tuning work has been done. hopefully more torque, the same or better fuel consumtion, and If there's more power too, I won't complain.
EmmettC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 03:31 PM   #74
Gangplank
Advenchaintourer
 
Gangplank's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Oddometer: 2,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmmettC View Post
I hope this thread is still being used.

I had my bike run on a dyno the other day, it's got a remus exhaust system and an Arrow can. It's making 82.51 HP.

The guy who runs the tuning shop (in Edinburgh) reckons it running very rich at full throttle, and very lean while cruising. I've ordered a PC so he can tidy up the fueling, I'm not looking for more power, I just want it to run well.

I'm a little worried about the fuel consumption increasing, as the tank is soooo small it really needs to be very frugal to be any use.

I'll update once the tuning work has been done. hopefully more torque, the same or better fuel consumtion, and If there's more power too, I won't complain.
Yes!! Really happy someone decided to take this one. I've been thnking about it myself but don't have the time or a good tuner withing 4.5 hrs drive. Let us know the results. I have a similar set up to you with the Leo V. pipe so might be able to apply your results.
__________________
Ride more, bark less
Gangplank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 03:50 PM   #75
ebrabaek
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Grand Valley, Colorado
Oddometer: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmmettC View Post
I hope this thread is still being used.

I had my bike run on a dyno the other day, it's got a remus exhaust system and an Arrow can. It's making 82.51 HP.

The guy who runs the tuning shop (in Edinburgh) reckons it running very rich at full throttle, and very lean while cruising. I've ordered a PC so he can tidy up the fueling, I'm not looking for more power, I just want it to run well.

I'm a little worried about the fuel consumption increasing, as the tank is soooo small it really needs to be very frugal to be any use.

I'll update once the tuning work has been done. hopefully more torque, the same or better fuel consumtion, and If there's more power too, I won't complain.
You might wan`t to look into Dynojets autotune box along with the PC. It will allow you and your bike to tune outside the dyno....and makes for a awesome user friendly package, that you can work yourself.



Erling
ebrabaek is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 07:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014