Hilltop - is it worth it?
- Thread starter fredaroony
- Start date
- Status
Ok a question for some of you.
Now I come from a different angle as I do believe the Hilltop "map" does make improvements. I've seen post Hilltop maps that show that. My problem and most peoples problems is the bhp/torque figures which to me discredit it somewhat.
So do you genuinely believe that a 1200lc can make 82 bhp without any obvious issues (6k miles) and makes 107 after the update knowing what you do about how the hilltop map works. ? Also do you think an Aprilia v4 can make 129 and go up 35 in the same way when no one else in the world gets more than 6hp from fueling updates alone or has seen a bike with any less than low 140's in stock trim ?
Now forget whether you like the Hilltop mod in respect of whether you have a nicer bike or they are nice guys, do you believe that is a genuine gain from code that interacts with the oem map. I am a 40 year career electronics/computer engineer so what they claim in terms of map location etc is technically possible.
Just curious as to whether you think the positives outweigh the negatives in your minds despite the bhp figures being mostly fantasy (those 2 examples are not unusual for them) or you just accept it is all as claimed and the rest of the world are just crap at tuning bikes ? I would totally get doing it just because it improves the ride of the bike, I just don't get the blind acceptance of fantasy figures some have.
Now I come from a different angle as I do believe the Hilltop "map" does make improvements. I've seen post Hilltop maps that show that. My problem and most peoples problems is the bhp/torque figures which to me discredit it somewhat.
So do you genuinely believe that a 1200lc can make 82 bhp without any obvious issues (6k miles) and makes 107 after the update knowing what you do about how the hilltop map works. ? Also do you think an Aprilia v4 can make 129 and go up 35 in the same way when no one else in the world gets more than 6hp from fueling updates alone or has seen a bike with any less than low 140's in stock trim ?
Now forget whether you like the Hilltop mod in respect of whether you have a nicer bike or they are nice guys, do you believe that is a genuine gain from code that interacts with the oem map. I am a 40 year career electronics/computer engineer so what they claim in terms of map location etc is technically possible.
Just curious as to whether you think the positives outweigh the negatives in your minds despite the bhp figures being mostly fantasy (those 2 examples are not unusual for them) or you just accept it is all as claimed and the rest of the world are just crap at tuning bikes ? I would totally get doing it just because it improves the ride of the bike, I just don't get the blind acceptance of fantasy figures some have.
I think there should be consumer probe regarding the claims hilltop makes and the disparity with manufacturer figures. I'm sure in the BMW brochure small print there is a disclaimer regarding the quoted power figures. Maybe the HP ombudsman can shed some light on this 
I would agree ish.
Numbers don't matter, it is how it is delivered.
Take an e600, not that much power weight slightly more than a gsa, doubt off a standing start 0-60 any of us would beat it.
I've seen good rr make 205/6 bhp as standard and poor ones around 180. If you compare your bike in isolation it will feel ok, but a good one against a poor ? It'll get eaten every day of the week.
The Panigale V4s makes similar peak power to my rr now, but I far prefer the rr, more linear in its power delivery and easier/flexible to access.
The truth is 100bhp bmw will equal similarish performance/economy as a 100bhp Yamaha/Suzuki/KTM. It is how it is delivered that counts, and your riding style too. A bike where you can use all the power easily is far nicer to ride than one where you can't.
The peak number matters nowt, it's nothing more than willie waving. Unless your a girl obviously.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
I'm with you but you kind of didn't answer the question. More directly I'm saying do you think the hp claims I mentioned are genuine or artistic license despite you liking the way the more credible improvements make the bike ride ?
This is the crux of it really.
For my gsa, from memory, went from 96, about right with an akra/headers/k&n to around 106.
Roughly a 10% increase, which I would think is a reasonable figure to achieve, although I have seen increases of 15%-18% after refuelling/ignition timing being set up better.
The rr (non HT) with airbox mod/filter and full race system went up to 219 which again is around the 10% ish mark although that was topend mid range was more.
I accept the sp is slightly different, it was around 25% more.
Some engines are easier to get better results out of than others.
Do I think that the figures are manipulated, unlikely, it is too easy to get found out and with all the sceptics on here alone, just imagine how the competition would love to catch him out, prove he's a fraud and that they are better so spend their money there instead.
There are certain people, who have a good reputation with certain manufacturers/bikes, or perhaps just better/more experienced.
For example I'd go to jhs racing if it related to an sv650 but bsd for a Ducati, both V twins and I have no doubts both could do a good job, just that the likelihood is that jhs would do a slightly better job on an sv compared to bsd, and that is no slight on the quality work that bsd do.
Do I think it possible, for someone who has put more effort and expertise to get better results than others, of course. 15%- 18% depending upon how good/bad the baseline is should be achievable for a mass produced engine, although I reckon 8%-12% would more be the norm.
Hopefully this answers it ?
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Roughly a 10% increase, which I would think is a reasonable figure to achieve, although I have seen increases of 15%-18% after refuelling/ignition timing being set up better.
The rr (non HT) with airbox mod/filter and full race system went up to 219 which again is around the 10% ish mark although that was topend mid range was more.
I accept the sp is slightly different, it was around 25% more.
Some engines are easier to get better results out of than others.
Do I think that the figures are manipulated, unlikely, it is too easy to get found out and with all the sceptics on here alone, just imagine how the competition would love to catch him out, prove he's a fraud and that they are better so spend their money there instead.
There are certain people, who have a good reputation with certain manufacturers/bikes, or perhaps just better/more experienced.
For example I'd go to jhs racing if it related to an sv650 but bsd for a Ducati, both V twins and I have no doubts both could do a good job, just that the likelihood is that jhs would do a slightly better job on an sv compared to bsd, and that is no slight on the quality work that bsd do.
Do I think it possible, for someone who has put more effort and expertise to get better results than others, of course. 15%- 18% depending upon how good/bad the baseline is should be achievable for a mass produced engine, although I reckon 8%-12% would more be the norm.
Hopefully this answers it ?
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Partial answer. Big difference between 82 and 96 (which is still a bit low) but the gain is more realistic.
The bit I have a problem with is the widely fluctuating pre readings which even when are unrealistic by any reasonable persons observation no one cries foul. I just don’t buy into hilltops magic formula is best as they are superbly clever as it just doesn’t stand up against other tuners with much more knowledge of other marques. It’s not a bmw specific trait with them.
Even if I buy into the theory that some bmw are very very poor from the factory and hence why u got 10bhp against others getting 30+, that still doesn’t cross over to other marques. As the other dyno operator said to me. If you get wildly fluctuating pre figures but consistent power figures post then something ain’t right.
It’s everyone’s choice to spend their money as they see fit but if you ordered salmon and got tuna in any other walk of life u would kick off no matter how much u like tuna. Reading your carefully worded answers I suspect we are somewhat on the same page.
The bit I have a problem with is the widely fluctuating pre readings which even when are unrealistic by any reasonable persons observation no one cries foul. I just don’t buy into hilltops magic formula is best as they are superbly clever as it just doesn’t stand up against other tuners with much more knowledge of other marques. It’s not a bmw specific trait with them.
Even if I buy into the theory that some bmw are very very poor from the factory and hence why u got 10bhp against others getting 30+, that still doesn’t cross over to other marques. As the other dyno operator said to me. If you get wildly fluctuating pre figures but consistent power figures post then something ain’t right.
It’s everyone’s choice to spend their money as they see fit but if you ordered salmon and got tuna in any other walk of life u would kick off no matter how much u like tuna. Reading your carefully worded answers I suspect we are somewhat on the same page.
What is a plausible number in rise of power when tweaking fuel and ignition only? Even if HT guy claims that customers should expect moderate gain on the dyno, the dyno charts are quite optimistic.
Everyone is free to belive whatever they like. I'm not saying that the HT-job does not work. But the boxer runs mainly lean on partial power, while at WOT it gets a richer mixture. This means that the difference in fueling will not be noticed very much when running WOT on the dyno, while a richer midrange will be noticed.
Anyway, back to numbers, and what to expect.
In 2016 Alpha racing launched a new head to the 1200GS LC and showed it at the Intermot. They claim maximum 145 HP on the crank, 134 on rear wheel (not shown on the chart below, but the number is claimed on their website.)
Take a look on their dyno chart:
Most of the action happens when passing 6K. Their chart is corrected to show the power from the crank, so deduct ~10 Hp.
While below 6K the maximum gain is 5Hp. That is an engine where the heads are modified and fuel system optimized for performance, but stock air filter and can. Above 6K the modified heads are relay starting toy pay off, and that is mainly where the power is rising.
So, tweaking the fuel only, not very much extra should be expected at WOT.
If anyone is willing to belive that Jesus has a brother living north west of London I can only say, feel free….
Everyone is free to belive whatever they like. I'm not saying that the HT-job does not work. But the boxer runs mainly lean on partial power, while at WOT it gets a richer mixture. This means that the difference in fueling will not be noticed very much when running WOT on the dyno, while a richer midrange will be noticed.
Anyway, back to numbers, and what to expect.
In 2016 Alpha racing launched a new head to the 1200GS LC and showed it at the Intermot. They claim maximum 145 HP on the crank, 134 on rear wheel (not shown on the chart below, but the number is claimed on their website.)
Take a look on their dyno chart:
Most of the action happens when passing 6K. Their chart is corrected to show the power from the crank, so deduct ~10 Hp.
While below 6K the maximum gain is 5Hp. That is an engine where the heads are modified and fuel system optimized for performance, but stock air filter and can. Above 6K the modified heads are relay starting toy pay off, and that is mainly where the power is rising.
So, tweaking the fuel only, not very much extra should be expected at WOT.
If anyone is willing to belive that Jesus has a brother living north west of London I can only say, feel free….
He does indeed; at Northwood and he's FoSM !What is a plausible number in rise of power when tweaking fuel and ignition only? Even if HT guy claims that customers should expect moderate gain on the dyno, the dyno charts are quite optimistic.
Everyone is free to belive whatever they like. I'm not saying that the HT-job does not work. But the boxer runs mainly lean on partial power, while at WOT it gets a richer mixture. This means that the difference in fueling will not be noticed very much when running WOT on the dyno, while a richer midrange will be noticed.
Anyway, back to numbers, and what to expect.
In 2016 Alpha racing launched a new head to the 1200GS LC and showed it at the Intermot. They claim maximum 145 HP on the crank, 134 on rear wheel (not shown on the chart below, but the number is claimed on their website.)
Take a look on their dyno chart:
Most of the action happens when passing 6K. Their chart is corrected to show the power from the crank, so deduct ~10 Hp.
While below 6K the maximum gain is 5Hp. That is an engine where the heads are modified and fuel system optimized for performance, but stock air filter and can. Above 6K the modified heads are relay starting toy pay off, and that is mainly where the power is rising.
So, tweaking the fuel only, not very much extra should be expected at WOT.
If anyone is willing to belive that Jesus has a brother living north west of London I can only say, feel free….
I remember seeing similar things when Krauser developed their 4V heads.
How many of us go two from low/mid revs to peak power ?
It is the interaction between throttle/engine/rear wheel that matters more to me.
Do I believe that MY gsa has around 108bhp, with decat/akra/k&n I bloody well hope so !
On a more serious note, although not apples v apples; it is quicker than 3 other tc's and as quick as 4 other LC's which would be about right power wise.
Against a breathed upon tc or lc not a chance.
But !!!
Two up, fully laden it's far easier to ride than before ht.
Trundling up th A1 at 50mph (average speed camera's) I was getting 73mpg SO it is running more efficiently.
It is a nicer, smoother bike to ride, yes. However the mind does play tricks.
Nobody likes to think they've been conned or sold a dud, Hello Mr Trump and Mrs May, and it is easier to justify than admit you are wrong and wasted your money.
I do think if it wasn't delivering then there would be scores of people shouting across the internet and cluttering up forums.
However as a bear with little brains and a love of honey, what do I know.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
73 mpg.....
So if Hilltop is manipulating the figures from a seperate part of the ECU, then where is the ECU getting is MPG figures?
Most certainly not from the Hilltop part.
So all that is bollox
So if Hilltop is manipulating the figures from a seperate part of the ECU, then where is the ECU getting is MPG figures?
Most certainly not from the Hilltop part.
So all that is bollox
Let us start at the beginning;
There is zero
There is one.
Put a string of them in a certain order, let's call it parameters and this will go to the ecu or brain. If it is within the thing we called parameters the brain will accept it, if it is spouting utter drivel then it won't.
Clever things brains.
Now this brain, can do lots of things, like average speed, or outside temp, average fuel even.
It uses things called sensors, to "calculate" this.
Then the brain sends another set of zeros and ones running around the canbus until it arrives at the correct destination, then it uses things called numbers to display an average fuel consumption.
This is normally equated to miles (distance) covered and the amount of fuel (gallons) used.
You need to be very careful because all miles are not the same as unsurprisingly are gallons either.
Then you come to metrication where things called kilometres and litres are used instead. In the good old days only Johnny Foreigner used these measurement scales. However, petrol or essence as those bloody frogs call it, has for some time been the standard unit of supply.
This causes considerable flumoxing for not only da yoof but also the old foggies.
One measure is Imperial (God save the Queen) and the other metric (bloody dagos) this is why dementia and drugs exist.
Now, as long as this hasn't been to taxing or technical for you, excellent.
Others crayons are available for the terminally dense.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
It was trickling along at 50 mph, just shows how you can get a good fuel consumption out of them; two up, both panniers and the givi 58L outback.73 MPG should be 3,2L/100km, that calculates into 620 km range on the 20L GS. 930 km if on the GSA.
I wish you the very best of luck
Normal is a lot less than that
.Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
fred_jb
Registered user
I think the instantaneous fuel consumption figure can be a bit misleading, but the average mpg shown on mine agrees surprisingly well with my own records. Sad person that that I am, I always brim the tank and record odometer reading and litres on the receipt, then enter the numbers into a spreadsheet when I get around to it. This shows my average, over the 11000 miles since new in March 17, as 46.3 mpg and the bike display says 46. I don't see any significant difference between pre and post HT.
Interestingly the average speed is shown as 42.8 mph which I find quite surprising as I do a lot of high speed miles on motorways and dual carriageways where I don't spare the (mechanical) horses. Must be going pretty slow the rest of the time!
Interestingly the average speed is shown as 42.8 mph which I find quite surprising as I do a lot of high speed miles on motorways and dual carriageways where I don't spare the (mechanical) horses. Must be going pretty slow the rest of the time!
Nothing sad about it at all, I do similar.
I got 4mpg better coming back from hilltop than going there.
And it's up hill towards Scotland too.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
I’ve always taken the ‘pre’ figures with a pinch of salt, as I’d imagine that BMW would have a lot of angry customers if a bike claiming to have 125bhp only has 83bhp or whatever it is. Obviously nobody else does either, otherwise BMW would have a lot of lawsuits to deal with.
And the post remap figures? Who cares. It’s not a sportsbike. But it rides much nicer after the remap.
fred_jb
Registered user
My bike was a shade under 106 bhp before and 111 afterwards which I find entirely believable for a shaft drive bike that is supposed to have 125 bhp at the crank. The HT guys seemed surprised at my before figure which they said was high, which would suggest that a lot of the bikes they see record lower figures - I wonder why? I have a RT end can on mine, but I can't see that making much difference, if anything I would think it might be more restrictive than the standard GS exhaust.
And there it’s is, a straight answer mr nutty ktm. I’m 100% with u on everything u said.
So really the dyno part is really a waste of time and I’m likely to get the same result just sending my ecu to hilltop.
Tractors- I get the comment made re mpg. I think he was saying that if the ecu is dumb to the hilltop code then it may not account for it in the figures. Depends how the usage is calculated but it was a valid question me thinks. Is the ecu calculating injector duty cycle etc or just something simple like a basic algorithm based on TPS readings over a set distance etc.
So really the dyno part is really a waste of time and I’m likely to get the same result just sending my ecu to hilltop.
Tractors- I get the comment made re mpg. I think he was saying that if the ecu is dumb to the hilltop code then it may not account for it in the figures. Depends how the usage is calculated but it was a valid question me thinks. Is the ecu calculating injector duty cycle etc or just something simple like a basic algorithm based on TPS readings over a set distance etc.
- Status
Similar threads
