FlyingPanda
Registered user
In fact, the more I look at Boxerlust's magic dyno figures from Stuttgart the more I start to think there's somebody in Germany telling Schweinefleischies
I’ve been Hilltopped
- Thread starter Gstom
- Start date
FlyingPanda
Registered user
That's what it was all about for me too. I don't have a sensitive enough rear end to see if the figures are accurate, but the difference was night and day. I don't suppose I would have been able to spot a small increases, so my arse tells me it's a big one, and that, as I mentioned, also happens to be what the graph shows!
Just think about the following..why would a manufacturer like BMW that knows a thing or two about making engines would go through all the cost & effort of designing new heads with 2 intake cam lobes that switch under load and/or rpm,a 2 mm bigger piston and new crankshaft with 3 mm more stroke to gain only 11 hp if it was so simple that a new fuel map would have given them 16 hp...Get real !
Because they have to run the bikes past noise and emission testing at 4000 rpm so have to cripple the bike's fuelling to pass. Hence the lumpy power and torque curves you see on stock bikes. Hilltop smooths this out and that's what makes the bike feel so much nicer to ride. The new 1250 will have similar lumpy curves but the extra capacity and valve lift at higher revs mean they can pass the 4000 rpm test without compromising the rest of the curve so much.
I don't want to rain on the OP's parade here, and the subject has already been debated to death, so I will try to keep it short.
Boxerlust does in my opinion have a valid point. A random search on internet will provide plenty of charts from Dyno runs that shows rear wheel HP of 115 Hp +/-.
US engines will show a bit less as there is fuel with more ethanol. There has been mentioned that Acra. system gives 12 HP increase. According to Acras own website, the number is 3 HP.
So how do I explain that you feel more grunt in the engine, and it does not show on the Dyno chart?
The Dyno runs are made with throttle wide open. (WOT). The BMW fueling is set lean during normal running conditions, while at WOT the engine gets richer fueling. Therefor the HT software does not do much for the WOT conditions. This is also according to what the HT guy has claimed. The only area where HT can make a difference is to add more fuel at less than WOT, and in this area you will indeed be able to feel the difference.
As for the RR showing only 1 Hp less on rear wheel than the given 199 from factory data is fairly common, and has been verified by several tests, It's all on the net. BMW are fairly conservative with their numbers, so the powerloss is of course more than 1 HP on the RR, and it's more than 10 HP on the LC. However, the number 199 for the RR and 125 for the boxer LC are not based on a dynorun for the particular engine you buy, it's a number given by the factory and reflects what you at least can expect, and if you read tests comparing different bikes, quite often the BMW has less loss on the rear wheel compared to the factory number than the competition. This is not because the shaft drive is more efficient than a chain drive. It is not....
I don't understand why HT before-numbers are lower than measured by anyone else, but I am convinced that a procedure that gives the engine more fuel at midrange is noticeable and gives a smoother running engine.
So to OP I will say, enjoy your HT'ed bike, but don't stake your life on the dynocharts...
Boxerlust does in my opinion have a valid point. A random search on internet will provide plenty of charts from Dyno runs that shows rear wheel HP of 115 Hp +/-.
US engines will show a bit less as there is fuel with more ethanol. There has been mentioned that Acra. system gives 12 HP increase. According to Acras own website, the number is 3 HP.
So how do I explain that you feel more grunt in the engine, and it does not show on the Dyno chart?
The Dyno runs are made with throttle wide open. (WOT). The BMW fueling is set lean during normal running conditions, while at WOT the engine gets richer fueling. Therefor the HT software does not do much for the WOT conditions. This is also according to what the HT guy has claimed. The only area where HT can make a difference is to add more fuel at less than WOT, and in this area you will indeed be able to feel the difference.
As for the RR showing only 1 Hp less on rear wheel than the given 199 from factory data is fairly common, and has been verified by several tests, It's all on the net. BMW are fairly conservative with their numbers, so the powerloss is of course more than 1 HP on the RR, and it's more than 10 HP on the LC. However, the number 199 for the RR and 125 for the boxer LC are not based on a dynorun for the particular engine you buy, it's a number given by the factory and reflects what you at least can expect, and if you read tests comparing different bikes, quite often the BMW has less loss on the rear wheel compared to the factory number than the competition. This is not because the shaft drive is more efficient than a chain drive. It is not....
I don't understand why HT before-numbers are lower than measured by anyone else, but I am convinced that a procedure that gives the engine more fuel at midrange is noticeable and gives a smoother running engine.
So to OP I will say, enjoy your HT'ed bike, but don't stake your life on the dynocharts...
Oh god, there’s another one
Has he been breeding, or is it the same person?
Well, I have to hand it to you, your spelling has improved.
Pretty soon you are ready to bring some substance to the debate as well.
Well, I have to hand it to you, your spelling has improved.
Pretty soon you are ready to bring some substance to the debate as well.
My spelling?
Care to point me to an example?
As to bringing substance to the debate, I’ve taken 8 of my bikes to Hilltop. How many have you taken there, and how much first hand experience do you have?
My spelling?
Care to point me to an example?
As to bringing substance to the debate, I’ve taken 8 of my bikes to Hilltop. How many have you taken there, and how much first hand experience do you have?
Nope. Both lines where correct. Well done
Whether Hilltop is worth it or not is a personal thing I guess and better fueling alone is probably enough reason to do it, but 16bhp from a semi fuel map, c'mon someone's yanking ya chain me thinks.
Have had Aprilia's, x3 and Ducati's all mapped via pc3/5 with custom map per cylinder and filter kit/race can and not seen 16bhp gain. One Aprilia had a big bore kit to 1066cc from 998 plus mapping and barely made that much more. Emmision regs rarely reduce peak power as that is not where they are emission tested (5k rpm) so that is where they lean them off not near max rpm where peak power is made.
Perhaps they fixed that dragging rear brake as part of the upgrade process.
Have had Aprilia's, x3 and Ducati's all mapped via pc3/5 with custom map per cylinder and filter kit/race can and not seen 16bhp gain. One Aprilia had a big bore kit to 1066cc from 998 plus mapping and barely made that much more. Emmision regs rarely reduce peak power as that is not where they are emission tested (5k rpm) so that is where they lean them off not near max rpm where peak power is made.
Perhaps they fixed that dragging rear brake as part of the upgrade process.
Nope. Both lines where correct. Well done
Twat.
I said ages ago that Hilltop just chuck more fuel in
- they trade emissions for smoother running in the mid range.
Strange; I had an rsv1000sp and got almost 25bhp out of it when it got remapped. Guess the back brake wasn't working, then again they never really do.Whether Hilltop is worth it or not is a personal thing I guess and better fueling alone is probably enough reason to do it, but 16bhp from a semi fuel map, c'mon someone's yanking ya chain me thinks.
Have had Aprilia's, x3 and Ducati's all mapped via pc3/5 with custom map per cylinder and filter kit/race can and not seen 16bhp gain. One Aprilia had a big bore kit to 1066cc from 998 plus mapping and barely made that much more. Emmision regs rarely reduce peak power as that is not where they are emission tested (5k rpm) so that is where they lean them off not near max rpm where peak power is made.
Perhaps they fixed that dragging rear brake as part of the upgrade process.
The 1098 only got 5bhp more but a large increase around 5•5k.
It is about the area under the graph, you may recall using rms for calculations.
I care more about driveability and flexibility than a nonsense figure.
Do you really think a BMW main dealer would be offering hilltop mods if they are as ineffectual as you suggest ?
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
An SP is a detuned for the road homologation bike with a short stroke, Cosworth pistoned motor. It was intended to be ripe for tuning for superstock use etc.
You also mis quote me as I didn't say that it was ineffectual, in fact I said it probably is worth it for the fueling benefit. But 16bhp from a bit of fuel in the mid range, not even a full map. That's just not happening in the real world.
True, on the sp mostly topend power but the 1098r got from memory around 16ish in midrange.
I would expect, as a general statement, around 10% power increase with other mods etc.
When I had a yoshi Harris many moons ago with all of 120bhp it was an evil bastard round town, with a fuel consumption to match.
The rr is a pussy cat round town, great fuel consumption and 100bhp more.
I was out yesterday, with 20 40/50's bikes. 70 miles of enjoyable fun.
Remember that: FUN !
Panther M100, sfa power, fires every third village whether it needs to or not.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
I would expect, as a general statement, around 10% power increase with other mods etc.
When I had a yoshi Harris many moons ago with all of 120bhp it was an evil bastard round town, with a fuel consumption to match.
The rr is a pussy cat round town, great fuel consumption and 100bhp more.
I was out yesterday, with 20 40/50's bikes. 70 miles of enjoyable fun.
Remember that: FUN !
Panther M100, sfa power, fires every third village whether it needs to or not.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
10% for a filter. can and remap sounds fair in general . The OP has near 15% from a partial map, and I don't see that regardless of the merits of the map elsewhere in the range. If he's happy then all's good, I'm just calling out highly dubious peak gain figures in his case.
When I had the big bore bike done they quoted the original pre big bore power as 110 which I thought was dubious for a Gen2 Tuono. (should be around 120) Turns out they did the run with the removable baffles still in the cans and the gains were 8/9 bhp less than it seemed at first glance when you accounted for that. Had I not queried it they were happy to claim it as a dyno gain.
Older bikes being fun. Hell yeah. Mate has an RD350lc which is a riot as you disappear up the road in a mist of 2 stroke fumes. Them were the days.
On a slightly different note, but still related to Hilltop.
Just got a 2016 gsa and to mine and the salesmans surprise we found a couple of hilltop dynos graphs in the paperwork.
There are no notes or keys so no idea what it all means. Can anyone give me a simple explanation?
Sent from my LLD-L31 using Tapatalk
Just got a 2016 gsa and to mine and the salesmans surprise we found a couple of hilltop dynos graphs in the paperwork.
There are no notes or keys so no idea what it all means. Can anyone give me a simple explanation?
Sent from my LLD-L31 using Tapatalk
On a slightly different note, but still related to Hilltop.
Just got a 2016 gsa and to mine and the salesmans surprise we found a couple of hilltop dynos graphs in the paperwork.
There are no notes or keys so no idea what it all means. Can anyone give me a simple explanation?
Sent from my LLD-L31 using Tapatalk
They are for pre and post tweak runs showing Afr, torque and power. Essentially showing the bike made a claimed 97bhp pre tweaking and 112 post tweaking.
The 112 is about right for the bike, the 97 less so. Most examples I can find for stock LC bikes are around the 110/112 mark. Playing devils advocate, if you were going to massage the figures you would do it on the pre run as the post run figure can be checked at any other dyno. The pre not so unless you remove the tweaks.
I found a post on here for someone with a pre LC 1200 that had a claimed pre update power of 78 and a post of 101. That's about 25%. really !!! Most pre Lc bikes seem to make around 90 + from reading around in stock trim.
funnily enough I was reading the superbike website last night and they did a mythbusters test with Bazzaz testers on their official testing dyno using a bazzaz fi unit on a cbr1000. They made significant fueling improvements but gained an average of 1.3 peak bhp over 3 runs with the best being 2.2bhp. Their conclusion it seems is that big gains in peak power from fueling alone on a standard production bike are more myth than fact.
Hilltop possibly play with ignition etc as well so I would think they can extract a bit more but 25% ? Even Harry Potter would struggle to conjur up that spell. Buy it to improve your fueling but for me I would take the % power gain with a pinch of salt if it's anything like 15% +
Possibly, but some bikes are well below optimum and others are fairly close to it.
So getting a large increase in power can be easy on some engines but difficult/expensive on others.
It comes down to power v reliability. Engineers want the most they can get marketing/sales want better reliability, they don't want warranty claims or upset customers.
The BMW has a reputation for very lean running and issues with noise, both of which cause power to be reduced to meet emissions and sound tests.
If, people were unhappy with the improved driveability after Hilltop, then caring sharing blokes that we are, the internet would be full of complaints.
There are always some who are unhappy no matter what, and the occasional fuck up or problem, some may disagree and think there are better/different options for them.
There are only choices of solutions.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Similar threads
