Hilltop

[Boxerlust]

I did not want to say anything more to Hilltop threads but I could not help myself after reading claims like 15% improvement in hp and torque...
Sorry guys on a R1200-LC boxer a ECU remap no matter who offers it won't give you 143 hp !
Just remember what alphatechnik had to go through (new heads,cams,no throttle plate Variable valve timing and lift and ECU remap) to bring the 125 hp R1200GS to a real and verifiable 146 hp ! 6 grand worth of hardware and new mapping to get a real 20 hp or 17% of power improvement !
If someone doesn't like the way his/her R1200GS-LC runs no matter if EU-3 or 2017 on EU-4 I strongly suggest to have the latest SW-update from BMW downloaded.
It made a big difference to mine that the only improvement I could imagine would be a 1300 cc / 150 hp GS new from 2019 on...
It is really that good...

 

[tanneman]

I think you misunderstand the claim. When measured on a dyno the WC makes about 98 - 105 bhp. Afterwards measured again on the dyno it makes 115 - 118 bhp. Quoted power is at the rear wheel.

 

[Boxerlust]

A stock R1200 LC engine will give 115-118hp to the rear wheel !
As the old aircooled twin-cam R1200 units still in production and used in R Nine T models are putting 100-102 hp to the ground.
98-105 rwhp measured on a R1200-LC means there is something seriously wrong with either the engine or dyno / dyno settings before/after which can be manipulated on any dyno by the operator.

 

[tanneman]

Are you a flat earther? That is what the dyno reads, try your local one and report back.

 

[Arsey]

A stock R1200 LC engine will give 115-118hp to the rear wheel !
.

...<iframe src='https://gfycat.com/ifr/WelloffPeacefulAurochs' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' width='300' height='150' allowfullscreen></iframe>..

 

[Mr Bean]

...<iframe src='https://gfycat.com/ifr/WelloffPeacefulAurochs' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' width='300' height='150' allowfullscreen></iframe>..

Pretty much like the Hilltop power/torque increase claims then....

 

[Arsey]

Pretty much like the Hilltop power/torque increase claims then....

I've never heard Geoff make any claims.The whole point of a a visit to somewhere like Hilltop is to put right what Euro4 has tried to put a damper on.

 

[Mr Bean]

I've never heard Geoff make any claims.

No, he provides a readout showing a rather large gain in both torque and rear wheel horsepower...

 

[Engineer]

No, he provides a readout showing a rather large gain in both torque and rear wheel horsepower...

Does he also give you the graph of increased emissions, just for balance like

 

[Norfolk Tiger]

Who cares

 

[knutk]

I've never heard Geoff make any claims. The whole point of a visit to somewhere like Hilltop is to put right what Euro4 has tried to put a damper on.

I don't get it.

Yes, I have no doubt that the engine will feel better when Hilltopped, or whatever that give the engine a tad more fuel.
Also Hilltop claims that the power increase is at best modest, and the difference will be in the way the engine runs when it gets that extra fuel.

But what I don't get is the way they make their "before runs". I have no doubt that the ones that pays extra for the before/after runs are given a sheets that shows improvement. The numbers given by more than one is 95-100 hp before, and 115 -118 hp after. This sound like a good value for money, right?

Then please explain to me why, when I search YT for dyno-runs on the 1200GS LC, they typically show rear wheel 115 - 118 hp measured on random bikes? I have yet to see one of the ones I have searched drops below 112 Hp.

The stock engine will run at AFR between 14 and 15, averaging 14,7. By adding slightly more fuel, the AFR drops, but anything richer than 13,5 is a waste of fuel, as there are no more oxygen for the extra fuel if richened further. And no more oxygen means no more power. The increased fuel is no more than that the average milage actually slightly improves. So expecting a 10 -15% power increase is not realistic, even if there are charts to prove it. My humble opinion is that the "before -run" must be too conservative.

 

[Arsey]

No, he provides a readout showing a rather large gain in both torque and rear wheel horsepower...

He didn't when I went there a while back.Simply riding the bike afterwards proved that it was worth £250,and the 10-15% better fuel consumption was a bonus.

 

[thebuyer]

Not interested in stats

Let’s talk real world ... how it feels !!

I was there on Saturday... and was disappointed that Geoff didn’t have any new pics of his girlfriend ... more interested in playing with some expensive toy you strap to your back and fly with ...

But back to MY bike ... I’ve ridden 180 miles on it today around NW on roads I know and ride regularly.. and MY bike is more flexible ... if I’m feeling lazy I don’t feel the need to change down ... pulls really well in 5th and 6th.

Yes I’ve got a piece of paper that shows something that Geoff printed off showing something or other but I’m not interested.... MY bike feels better !!!

Was it worth the money ? Yes because MY bike feels better..... and after I left Hilltop ... I went to Triumph factory for lunch, which I highly recommend..

 

[Blackal]

I don't get it.

Yes, I have no doubt that the engine will feel better when Hilltopped, or whatever that give the engine a tad more fuel.
Also Hilltop claims that the power increase is at best modest, and the difference will be in the way the engine runs when it gets that extra fuel.

But what I don't get is the way they make their "before runs". I have no doubt that the ones that pays extra for the before/after runs are given a sheets that shows improvement. The numbers given by more than one is 95-100 hp before, and 115 -118 hp after. This sound like a good value for money, right?

Then please explain to me why, when I search YT for dyno-runs on the 1200GS LC, they typically show rear wheel 115 - 118 hp measured on random bikes? I have yet to see one of the ones I have searched drops below 112 Hp.

The stock engine will run at AFR between 14 and 15, averaging 14,7. By adding slightly more fuel, the AFR drops, but anything richer than 13,5 is a waste of fuel, as there are no more oxygen for the extra fuel if richened further. And no more oxygen means no more power. The increased fuel is no more than that the average milage actually slightly improves. So expecting a 10 -15% power increase is not realistic, even if there are charts to prove it. My humble opinion is that the "before -run" must be too conservative.

There wasnt a huge improvement in my before/after runs, other than in midrange - and there does not appear to be any adverse effect on fuel consumption (bearing in mind that it was running super-lean/all over the place before).

Your doubt could be cast on any dyno-operators who ‘specialise’ in Power-Commanders, to be fair.

“I’ve fitted your PowerCommander, done a gazillion powwow runs and here is the graph showing 35bhp more.......”

 

[Mr Bean]

He didn't when I went there a while back.

He did when mine was done

 

[beaver]

He didn't when I went there a while back.Simply riding the bike afterwards proved that it was worth £250,and the 10-15% better fuel consumption was a bonus.

£250.. tell me more.. £300 is just that bit too much for me... but at £250... I may be tempted

 

[R1200GSAPilot]

Normal cost I’d £360. £300 if you join one of the popular “group discount dates”. Once you’ve had a bike “Hilltopped”, as a returning customer, it’s £260 for any bike you own.
I’ll release some dates in July shortly.

 

[knutk]

There wasnt a huge improvement in my before/after runs, other than in midrange - and there does not appear to be any adverse effect on fuel consumption (bearing in mind that it was running super-lean/all over the place before).

Your doubt could be cast on any dyno-operators who ‘specialise’ in Power-Commanders, to be fair.

“I’ve fitted your PowerCommander, done a gazillion powwow runs and here is the graph showing 35bhp more.......”

That sounds reasonable.

Mind you, I did suggest improved fuel consumption, not adverse consumption. At least that's my experience with my own bike. It's not Hilltopped, but gets added fuel for a steady AFR 13,8 - - 14.0 by means of O2 manipulation. Either way, more fuel is more fuel.
I don't have access to a dyno, but a digital storage-scope shows the AFR reading. And even if the engine get a richer mixture the gas-milage have improved by 7% according to the Trip-computer. Since Hilltop also claims that the engine keeps it adaption after they are done means that they still use the O2 sensor, and I would not be surprised if many of his customers notice improved milage as well.

 

[tanneman]

To put the £300/250 in perspective. I own a R1100S which like all BMW boxer engines are difficult/expensive to tune for more power (there are a few big bore HP2 Sport with 145 to 160 bhp but thousands of £ engine work). BMW qoutes 98 bhp. More like 85-88 bhp when you put it on a dyno (please refer to boxertrix and pelican parts for specifics). Add to that a Lennies intake duct, K&N filter, PC111 with wideband Lamda sensor and a Laser race exhaust (very rare piece of kit and a 7 year search to find it), tot it all up and the total is not far from £1200 not counting the hours spent fitting and tuning it. Which means that the bike is unbelievably tractable. Here you ride in, hand your bike over, 40 mins or less you ride out costing you mere pennies to what I have spent over the years and have a bike that feels just right and much easier to ride in town and two up.

 

[Blackal]

My bike is an HP2s - notorious for wild AF ratios stock. When fitted with a full-race Akra system - it was unrideable.

Took it for a remap at Hilltiop, and although the peak figures were not dramatically improved, the AF ratios were smoothed out lots.

No increase in fuel consumption, though - so for all those people who whisper: “All they do is throw in extra fuel and advance the ignition timing” - My bike would appear to decry that.

Al