If I read the BMW official dyno graph correctly an extra 25 ft/lb of torque at 2,000 rpm means the bike makes more than a standard bike does at 6,500rpm.
Not bad going...
I’ve been Hilltopped
- Thread starter Gstom
- Start date
If I read the BMW official dyno graph correctly an extra 25 ft/lb of torque at 2,000 rpm means the bike makes more than a standard bike does at 6,500rpm.
Not bad going...
Totally with you on that Mr Tractor. I would possibly have my own bike done because the BMW stock fueling is never going to be optimum and I don't care about peak power. But whether you care to admit it or not you know very well that 25% or even 15% gain is a stretch unless the bike was an absolute unserviced dog before.
I just had a 30 min trawl of the net looking for anyone with a GS LC with a stock dyno figure under or anywhere near 100bhp. Lowest I found was 110 with average gains of 7-8 bhp. (dynojet claim 113 stock - 119 modded) which I find a believable gain.
People make up their own minds but you should be aware of all sides of the debate in doing so.
I just had a 30 min trawl of the net looking for anyone with a GS LC with a stock dyno figure under or anywhere near 100bhp. Lowest I found was 110 with average gains of 7-8 bhp. (dynojet claim 113 stock - 119 modded) which I find a believable gain.
People make up their own minds but you should be aware of all sides of the debate in doing so.
indeed !
I have a friend who had from new 2•0iS Sierra, lovely car, ran beautifully, but dog slow. Until he found it had a Transit engine in it, Low compression, and about 30bhp down on the correct engine.
Sadly, some engines run better than others, for varying reasons.
It is the area under the graphline that is more important than the peak number.
Flexibility and driveability are of far greater importance than a peak number.
Except when it is my bike obviously !
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Sadly, some engines run better than others, for varying reasons.
It is the area under the graphline that is more important than the peak number.
Flexibility and driveability are of far greater importance than a peak number.
Except when it is my bike obviously !
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
I searched and could only find dyno runs that confirm the post tweak figures and afr etc as being about as per the dyno sheets. Hence why I think Hilltop add benefit to the bike in general.
Couldn't see anything for a stock bike as a comparison to the pre runs on here. But plenty non hilltop graphs on the net if you google them.
Most press bikes have been 'fettled' here is one that slipped through the net:
https://www.cycleworld.com/2018-superadvbike-showdown-in-desert#page-13
https://www.cycleworld.com/2018-superadvbike-showdown-in-desert#page-13
Nutty to answer your question why dyno's in the colonies report the same numbers as hilltop...
Those tuners are in the business to make money !
So they have a pre and after remap setting to impress the customer who just spend a bunch of money.So when a hilltopped bike shows 113 rwhp after remap that is about right since stock R1200LC depending how good they run and if the are 2013-14 light crank which could make up to 118 rwhp or 2015-16 E-3 with added weight on crank/alternator around 115 and 2017 on E-4 113-115 rwhp then this was a true reading.As the R 1200 LC E-3 made around 126-128 and later E-4 around 123 crankshaft hp according to the MOTORRAD dyno...
But 16 hp for a little code giving a little more or less fuel on a highly tuned engine like a BMW LC Boxer...sorry that is not happening !
Just to put it into perspective there is a german guy that tunes LC boxers for a living and he did some modification to intake,put a Akra E-3 pipe on it and did a custom map on a Rexxer and all he got is 5 hp out of it on a 2017 E-4 Rally...16 hp just from a map is snake-oil !
But then on older engines from other manufacturers a map and pipe/intake modifications could get you around 20 hp no question...
Those tuners are in the business to make money !
So they have a pre and after remap setting to impress the customer who just spend a bunch of money.So when a hilltopped bike shows 113 rwhp after remap that is about right since stock R1200LC depending how good they run and if the are 2013-14 light crank which could make up to 118 rwhp or 2015-16 E-3 with added weight on crank/alternator around 115 and 2017 on E-4 113-115 rwhp then this was a true reading.As the R 1200 LC E-3 made around 126-128 and later E-4 around 123 crankshaft hp according to the MOTORRAD dyno...
But 16 hp for a little code giving a little more or less fuel on a highly tuned engine like a BMW LC Boxer...sorry that is not happening !
Just to put it into perspective there is a german guy that tunes LC boxers for a living and he did some modification to intake,put a Akra E-3 pipe on it and did a custom map on a Rexxer and all he got is 5 hp out of it on a 2017 E-4 Rally...16 hp just from a map is snake-oil !
But then on older engines from other manufacturers a map and pipe/intake modifications could get you around 20 hp no question...
Cycle World are some muppets who don't get beemers but love Harley,Ducati,KTM...testing the R1200 while the 1250 is out...
Also only 100 rwhp while another unit made 113 rwhp clearly shows that something was wrong with the bike as 2-3 hp variations are o.k. but 13 is definitely the indication that something is wrong as E-4 bikes are not that much weaker than E-3 ones and then mostly only in the mid-range a problem the new 1250 more than solved.
But also how embarrassing how Ducati and especially KTM cheat on hp numbers when they advertise 160 and have 30 hp less at the rear wheel...
160 crankshaft hp should translate into 152 and not 129 rwhp , especially on a chain driven bike that is ready to race...
Not !
Fake News...
Also only 100 rwhp while another unit made 113 rwhp clearly shows that something was wrong with the bike as 2-3 hp variations are o.k. but 13 is definitely the indication that something is wrong as E-4 bikes are not that much weaker than E-3 ones and then mostly only in the mid-range a problem the new 1250 more than solved.
But also how embarrassing how Ducati and especially KTM cheat on hp numbers when they advertise 160 and have 30 hp less at the rear wheel...
160 crankshaft hp should translate into 152 and not 129 rwhp , especially on a chain driven bike that is ready to race...
Not !Fake News...
So my "old" 2017 S1000rr sports with system and airbox system then remapped didn't gain an extra 19bhp at the top end and 27 midrange. Thank goodness for your modern LC
A friend, now deceased, Allan Bett of Central Scotland vjmc had a rg500 ex press bike it had 108bhp, a bit more than "standard" of course it hadn't been fettled !
Is blueprinting tuning or just ensuring everything is optimal ??
Tony Scott, you may have heard of him, advised me, he could get 150bhp out of my VF1000R or 180bhp but it be getting rebuilt every year. OR I could save my money and buy myself a 1000 fireblade instead.
If you think that any tuner is falsifying and manipulating data results.
Can I be there when you say it to their face.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Tractors, with all due respect the two older bikes you mentioned would (almost certain) never give those increases by adjusting the fueling and ignition in isolation - cams, porting, higher rev ceilings yes.
fred_jb
Registered user
Cycle World are some muppets who don't get beemers but love Harley,Ducati,KTM...testing the R1200 while the 1250 is out...
Also only 100 rwhp while another unit made 113 rwhp clearly shows that something was wrong with the bike as 2-3 hp variations are o.k. but 13 is definitely the indication that something is wrong as E-4 bikes are not that much weaker than E-3 ones and then mostly only in the mid-range a problem the new 1250 more than solved.
But also how embarrassing how Ducati and especially KTM cheat on hp numbers when they advertise 160 and have 30 hp less at the rear wheel...
160 crankshaft hp should translate into 152 and not 129 rwhp , especially on a chain driven bike that is ready to race...
Fake News...
I only read the first paragraph to find the first example of muppetry - they say that only the the Triumph has auto preload adjustment and the others require user selection out of three options. The model of GS they have there will have auto-preload as long as it has the ESA suspension option, so I don't know where they have got that from.
The vf1000r was £3k for the engine work 12 years ago and was valves/headwork.
The SP, fitting the race system, you had to do it after registration, as it wasn't homologated and came in a separate box with the bike, and a changed airbox and remap. But it was as sold, just a detuned wsb, which was decastrated.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
@ Tractors...I have said everything to this regard but just for you.
You can't compare apples with oranges , S1000RR with R1200 LC engines.
I believe you got this improvement out of your 2017 S1000RR engine after a ECU-reflash and hardware changes on intake and exhaust side especially in the mid-range as E-4 regulations did not do it any favours.But this is a highly tuned race engine capable up making close to 240 crankshaft hp depending on state of tune that is choked by EU regulations and not a torquey everyday road motor like a LC boxer making good torque and power while delivering great fuel economy running out of steam at 8000 rpm...on an engine like this you'll never gain 16 hp with a few lines of code adding or subtracting a little fuel.Simply not happening even if the dyno operator makes it look like it...
You can't compare apples with oranges , S1000RR with R1200 LC engines.
I believe you got this improvement out of your 2017 S1000RR engine after a ECU-reflash and hardware changes on intake and exhaust side especially in the mid-range as E-4 regulations did not do it any favours.But this is a highly tuned race engine capable up making close to 240 crankshaft hp depending on state of tune that is choked by EU regulations and not a torquey everyday road motor like a LC boxer making good torque and power while delivering great fuel economy running out of steam at 8000 rpm...on an engine like this you'll never gain 16 hp with a few lines of code adding or subtracting a little fuel.Simply not happening even if the dyno operator makes it look like it...
The LC is an old engine with modern knobs on it, and I would have expected more than 125bhp from it upon release, 130 would have been a good starting point.
But then, what would have been left for the next upgrade ?
It is lower revving, and there lies the problem. More revs = more power.
What would be gained from getting 145bhp ish ? Would it make the gsa better ?
Unlikely. Having tried a 765rs, getting back on the gsa was like a pair of comfy slippers.
Where the 1200 engine wins is its ease of use and flexibility. There's not much difference two up or laden compared to solo.
When you consider that the AT has similar power to the original R1100gs but certainly can't compete with it for rideability.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
But then, what would have been left for the next upgrade ?
It is lower revving, and there lies the problem. More revs = more power.
What would be gained from getting 145bhp ish ? Would it make the gsa better ?
Unlikely. Having tried a 765rs, getting back on the gsa was like a pair of comfy slippers.
Where the 1200 engine wins is its ease of use and flexibility. There's not much difference two up or laden compared to solo.
When you consider that the AT has similar power to the original R1100gs but certainly can't compete with it for rideability.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Regarding Dynocharts of stock bikes. I did a quick search. The first one that came up was a -16 with full Acra.
Here is the Dyno chart:
And the numbers:
So how much extra power does the Acra system add? A search at Acras own webpage gave the following values:
The links to where I found these pictures:
http://www.akrapovic.com/en/moto/product/13234/BMW/R-1200-GS-ADVENTURE/2016/Optional-Header-SS?segmentId=1&brandId=44&modelId=369&yearId=4008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_fCoVy1F00
As for the claimed variations that may improve the engine more or less, keep this in mind:
While there are variations, carburetor engines may have been jetted wrong, and ignition may be out. But on modern engines with digital engine management system, all parameters are based on engine Top Dead Center position. This sets the ignition and gives feedback for the fueling. The fueling is also kept within parameters based on feedback from the O2 sensor. This assures that the fueling and ignition is optimized, and there is not very much more you can do without messing with mechanical changes. Thus, claiming that the tweaked fueling gave an extra gain on a particular engine because it was out of parameters does not hold water. If the engine performs below standard, just tweaking the fueling will not be enough.
.
Looking at the dynochart provided by gazuk shows a interesting point. Look at the AFR graphs. The graph shows a fairly well controlled fueling, which can only be achieved by using feedback from the lambda. Most likely HT tweaks the AFR and gets the same effect as the AF-XIED. Tweaking the ignition timing may make less sense, sins the engine management system already sets the ignition based on all available parameters.
As mentioned earlier, the stock fueling at WOT is fairly good, so extra fuel tweaking will not do very much on the Dyno. However, at powersettings at less than WOT, extra fuel will be noticed. Also, the extra midrange fuel will make the Adaptive map a bit richer, which will be noticed when you open up the throttle.
Here is the Dyno chart:
And the numbers:
So how much extra power does the Acra system add? A search at Acras own webpage gave the following values:
The links to where I found these pictures:
http://www.akrapovic.com/en/moto/product/13234/BMW/R-1200-GS-ADVENTURE/2016/Optional-Header-SS?segmentId=1&brandId=44&modelId=369&yearId=4008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_fCoVy1F00
As for the claimed variations that may improve the engine more or less, keep this in mind:
While there are variations, carburetor engines may have been jetted wrong, and ignition may be out. But on modern engines with digital engine management system, all parameters are based on engine Top Dead Center position. This sets the ignition and gives feedback for the fueling. The fueling is also kept within parameters based on feedback from the O2 sensor. This assures that the fueling and ignition is optimized, and there is not very much more you can do without messing with mechanical changes. Thus, claiming that the tweaked fueling gave an extra gain on a particular engine because it was out of parameters does not hold water. If the engine performs below standard, just tweaking the fueling will not be enough.
.
Looking at the dynochart provided by gazuk shows a interesting point. Look at the AFR graphs. The graph shows a fairly well controlled fueling, which can only be achieved by using feedback from the lambda. Most likely HT tweaks the AFR and gets the same effect as the AF-XIED. Tweaking the ignition timing may make less sense, sins the engine management system already sets the ignition based on all available parameters.
As mentioned earlier, the stock fueling at WOT is fairly good, so extra fuel tweaking will not do very much on the Dyno. However, at powersettings at less than WOT, extra fuel will be noticed. Also, the extra midrange fuel will make the Adaptive map a bit richer, which will be noticed when you open up the throttle.
Tractors I agree with you except the LC is one of the most modern engines out there...just look at the heads and fuel injection system."Problem" is that it is tuned for ROAD riding making usable power and TORQUE from above idle to 8000 rpm where it shuts off...like you said to make exciting top-end power without sacrificing rideability in the rpm range you use 90% of the time it probably would need another 100 cc and be tuned to run all the way up to 9500/10000 rpm.
Would it make the GS a better bike ?
It would give it more top-speed which could create some stability issues running with bags and topcase but for sure make it more exciting...my ADV is definitely a little lively up front going 130mph with bags and topcase but I rather have it this way than a more stable but slower steering bike.
Would it make the GS a better bike ?
It would give it more top-speed which could create some stability issues running with bags and topcase but for sure make it more exciting...my ADV is definitely a little lively up front going 130mph with bags and topcase but I rather have it this way than a more stable but slower steering bike.
I know, I have read most of them
:Every Hilltop thread on here reads roughly the same, happy customers and people who don't believe it but don't post any evidence, so I can't be bothered either. Even if one doesn't believe the figures the bike rides better, hence why people are happy.
Out of interest, are there any other mapping options for the LC engine?
I had my other Hilltopped a few years back with good results but that had full exhaust too. It now has 40k on it and still runs really well with no issues.
Hilltop also offers a money back guarantee so there is nothing to lose
The biggest improvement I found was not the Akra, shiny bling bling, but the decatted headers.Regarding Dynocharts of stock bikes. I did a quick search. The first one that came up was a -16 with full Acra.
Here is the Dyno chart:
And the numbers:
So how much extra power does the Acra system add? A search at Acras own webpage gave the following values:
The links to where I found these pictures:
http://www.akrapovic.com/en/moto/product/13234/BMW/R-1200-GS-ADVENTURE/2016/Optional-Header-SS?segmentId=1&brandId=44&modelId=369&yearId=4008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_fCoVy1F00
As for the claimed variations that may improve the engine more or less, keep this in mind:
While there are variations, carburetor engines may have been jetted wrong, and ignition may be out. But on modern engines with digital engine management system, all parameters are based on engine Top Dead Center position. This sets the ignition and gives feedback for the fueling. The fueling is also kept within parameters based on feedback from the O2 sensor. This assures that the fueling and ignition is optimized, and there is not very much more you can do without messing with mechanical changes. Thus, claiming that the tweaked fueling gave an extra gain on a particular engine because it was out of parameters does not hold water. If the engine performs below standard, just tweaking the fueling will not be enough.
.
Looking at the dynochart provided by gazuk shows a interesting point. Look at the AFR graphs. The graph shows a fairly well controlled fueling, which can only be achieved by using feedback from the lambda. Most likely HT tweaks the AFR and gets the same effect as the AF-XIED. Tweaking the ignition timing may make less sense, sins the engine management system already sets the ignition based on all available parameters.
As mentioned earlier, the stock fueling at WOT is fairly good, so extra fuel tweaking will not do very much on the Dyno. However, at powersettings at less than WOT, extra fuel will be noticed. Also, the extra midrange fuel will make the Adaptive map a bit richer, which will be noticed when you open up the throttle.
Obviously all the mods, headers/can/remap were done to deal with poor fuel that is found around Edinburgh.
All mods were advised to insurers, and as none is for additional performance; honest.
They weren't interested.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
I share your point of view, but when it comes to increasing the power by increasing the RPM, there is a catch. Since the 1200 boxer (and all other BMW boxers as well) is a two cylinder engine, this means that when the pistions move they create a pumping/suction effect in the crankcase. Up to moderate RPM this works out ok, but look at the charts, above 7K rpm the torque drops rapidly, thus increasing the RPM further will be wasted energy for this engine design. Opening up the crankcase for improved breathing (there is already a breather) my improve power, but will introduce a can of other problems. So BMW have built the boxer for those that appreciate a torquey engine. The only race won by a boxer engine will be the Boxercup. But even so, driving on public roads at legal speeds (and then some) the boxer is still a capable engine.
Similar threads
