I’ve been Hilltopped

[spoonz]

I read a post from 2015 on here from a poster called Xantomish (you can look it up yourself)

His pre tweak run was 82bhp on a 6k mile 2015 Lc. His post tweak run was 115 so an increase of 33bhp. Firstly I don't buy 82 for a second or a 33bhp gain, 115 sounds reasonable. Having doubts himself as his bike had no sign of being over 1/3 down on stock pre taking it there he watched the very next guy have his dynoed and that was 99 - 112. More believable but still a low pre figure. He couldn't account for the radical differences.

Anyhow I spoke to a dyno center this morning to get prices etc for a just a basic run on mine and I posed the hypothetical question to him of rigged gains. He knows it happens in a number of ways.

Either by adding a correction factor to the software (meant to correct for alt etc) which might add or remove say 10% from all your runs. Simply altering the way you apply the power on the pre run. Or as many Dyno's have sensors to auto correct for alt, temp, air pressure etc they can be manipulated. He knew of one Dyno where a barometric sensor was mounted in the base plate of the dyno and took a reading through a hole. If the operator put one foot over the hole it altered the dyno reading.

The problem he said with the foot over the sensor or adjusting your riding method is that your results whilst doing that will be all over the place as it's never the same twice. Hmm that was food for thought.

As I said before I don't think it's all smoke and mirrors as other dyno runs on tweaked bikes have shown improved afr etc. So why does it matter then as some say. Well potentially it doesn't I guess if your happy with that. You could argue that if I told you that you got Y but you really got X that provided you were happy with X and it's better than the W you had before then all is good. Fair enough.

Me personally I don't tick like that and stuff like that discredits the industry if that is what is happening. A good mate of mine is a director of a large Scottish port so gets nice company cars. He ordered a nice 4wd Audi saloon, all bells and whistles. Loved it to death until it went for new tyres 18 months later and they pointed out it was a 2wd model. He went back to the dealer and demanded it was changed even though he was happy with it. It was a paperwork nightmare as it was a lease car but they swapped it. Hated the 4wd version, was slow and nowhere near as fun to drive and he palmed it off onto another member of staff. When I asked why he didn't just ask for compensation and just stick with the 2wd model (which was an option offered) he said, because I asked for a 4wd model, was told I got a 4wd model and that is exactly what I should have got, no if's, but's or something similar.

That's kind of where I would be with this.

 

[Mr Bean]

Either by adding a correction factor to the software (meant to correct for alt etc) which might add or remove say 10% from all your runs.

Funny you should mention that - my RT pre and post runs had different correction factors applied, from memory SAE and DIN were used. Would that have an affect?

 

[fred_jb]

The additional torque, particularly it appears at lower revs, that the 1250 produces is going through the standard gearbox, and I've not read any reports of that having been beefed up to cope, so I don't have serious concerns about the transmission not coping with the modest increases that Hilltop produces. As far as I'm concerned the increased torque at lower revs just improves standing starts and low speed driveability, particularly with pillion and luggage. This was the main improvement I noticed. The other thing I noticed was a change in the sound the bike made, and to me that was not an improvement. It's difficult to describe, but before as you opened the throttle the engine note stopped burbling and took on a harder edge. After Hilltop this is much less pronounced and I don't particularly like the somewhat softer sound it now makes even if it is the result of a more optimum air/fuel ratio.

 

[spoonz]

Funny you should mention that - my RT pre and post runs had different correction factors applied, from memory SAE and DIN were used. Would that have an affect?

Depends what the correction factor was. DIN and SAE are just different standards of measuring power output of an engine. The difference is so small that I doubt it would change the overall reading much assuming the correct factor is used. (which is 1.0139)

 

[Roger 04 RT]

Five more pages of the usual speculation. With all the engineers around why doesn’t someone mount wideband O2s and measure the before and after fueling?

The Dyno chars in post #37 also includes the AFR values

The Dyno chars in post #37 also includes the AFR values[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I have no opinion about Hilltop since I’ve never measured the result or seen it measured.

That said, 20% or greater HP increases make no sense, nor does the “dangerously lean statement”.

The AFR values in that chart also make no sense. I’ve measured and published the AFR profile of a dozen BMW boxers and the afr vs rpm vs throttle is quite different.

—At the start of acceleration from cruise (where a dyno begins too) the AFR is always 14.7:1. From there is always gets richer.

—The chart shows an AFR below 11:1 from 3k to 4k, that doesn’t happen.

Usually these problems are due to the AFR probe being place at the exhaust outlet behind the CAT and initial conditions. For the 10.x:1 AFR, I have no explanation.

I could go on but if you’re interested I’ll send you a link.

 

[Tractors are go]

The Dyno chars in post #37 also includes the AFR values

Thanks. I have no opinion about Hilltop since I’ve never measured the result or seen it measured.

That said, 20% or greater HP increases make no sense, nor does the “dangerously lean statement”.

The AFR values in that chart also make no sense. I’ve measured and published the AFR profile of a dozen BMW boxers and the afr vs rpm vs throttle is quite different.

—At the start of acceleration from cruise (where a dyno begins too) the AFR is always 14.7:1. From there is always gets richer.

—The chart shows an AFR below 11:1 from 3k to 4k, that doesn’t happen.

Usually these problems are due to the AFR probe being place at the exhaust outlet behind the CAT and initial conditions. For the 10.x:1 AFR, I have no explanation.

I could go on but if you’re interested I’ll send you a link.[/QUOTE]Thank you for your consider comments and views, although I may not necessarily agree I do respect them as you have spent time and effort looking at this from different angles.

Yes, the afr probe will be in the exhaust.

What impact if any would you expect for those of us sans cat ?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Boxerlust]

The saga continues...
I don't care what people believe in or how they spend their more or less hard earned money but don't tell me my R 1200 LC made 96 hp and after my ECU remap it made 113 hp when according to the BIKE (magazine) dyno a lowly aircooled E-4 R Nine T G/S makes 101 hp and E-3 R1200R & R1200RT made each 117 hp on the same dyno...which correspondence with exactly what I said.
I've been Hilltopped...yes you have...

 

[Tractors are go]

The saga continues...
I don't care what people believe in or how they spend their more or less hard earned money but don't tell me my R 1200 LC made 96 hp and after my ECU remap it made 113 hp when according to the BIKE (magazine) dyno a lowly aircooled E-4 R Nine T G/S makes 101 hp and E-3 R1200R & R1200RT made each 117 hp on the same dyno...which correspondence with exactly what I said.
I've been Hilltopped...yes you have...

Okay, I won't tell you, happy now ?

Well off you fuck then.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[spoonz]

As someone mentioned that Boxer engines might respond particularly differently to fuel alterations and that might offer an explanation I thought lets look at that. So as I have been in the Aprilia world for lots of years I thought I would look there for experiences with Hilltop.

There were a few pretty much all along the same lines with low pre runs and final runs putting it back where most are in stock trim, but I picked out one (happy to link anyone into it that wants to read it) as one of the replies was by an Italian chap called Gabro. Gabro is an Aprilia specialist and to my knowledge the only tuner in the world that can totally re write the firmware of a v4 Aprilia ecu and customise it (except Aprilia Corse) He also tunes his own team bikes in Italian Superbikes using the V4.

Now punter with a V4 goes to Hilltop. Pre run - 129bhp going up 35bhp after tweaking so he's happy. That is until everyone else tells him their bikes make best part of 150 in stock trim and no one has had gains anywhere near that even with other mods. No one could find a healthy v4 making any less than 142 in stock trim. So Gabro then mentions that from fueling corrections alone he only ever sees 3-5bhp peak power and no more, it's just about smoothing things out. This is probably the best tuner your money will buy Aprilia wise.

Sounding familiar ? I just sold my Ducati 848 that made 122 rwhp with just cans and that is giving away 150cc and 2 cylinders to the v4 that they dyno at just 7 more.

 

[Roger 04 RT]

Thank you for your consider comments and views, although I may not necessarily agree I do respect them as you have spent time and effort looking at this from different angles.

Yes, the afr probe will be in the exhaust.

What impact if any would you expect for those of us sans cat ?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

What you'll get depends on what the bike was doing just before the throttle was twisted to Wide Open, and what RPM you're looking at.

Before Wide Open you need to have steady RPM and some kind of "static" load (as opposed to just the dyno inertial load which only comes into play while the roller is being accelerated) on the rear wheel. If the bike is decelerating at all from the inertial of load of the roller, your bike will go into overrun fuel cutoff where there is no fuel being injected. If you were to twist the throttle open suddenly from those conditions, even without a CAT you get a very lean AFR.

At lower RPMs, another thing happens at the tailpipe outlet. After each pulse of exhaust comes out the tailpipe, a little air is drawn back in by what's called a resonant effect, kind of like an echo. That too could result in a lean reading.

On the chart earlier in the thread, there was a long stretch of AFR that looks well below 11:1, I can say with some certainty that I've never seen that by measurement, and it would be WAY to rich for good power. Best power mixture is in the vicinity of 12.8:1 give or take. I really can't even guess where such a rich reading came from.

As you suspected, without a CAT, at least you don't have the problem of the CAT doing its job and making the exhaust leaner (fewer unburned hydrocarbons). For bikes that do have CATs, it takes a while for the O2 stored in the CAT to be consumed during the WOT pull.

All my measurements are made with Wideband O2s installed ahead of the CAT and much closer to the exhaust valve.

 

[Boxerlust]

spoonz thanks for this post !
That's exactly what you said especially on a highly tuned engine like a LC-boxer where emission regs at certain rpm leave maybe 3-5 hp on the table if you are actually able to crack the code what no reputable BMW tuner has been able to do so far.That why they use Rexxer and open Akra E-3 and end up with 5-6 hp more as also the same gain in torque at certain rpm's where the "man" wants it lean and quiet...but a bike that made 113 hp after tuning where stock bikes already make 117 hp I would not advertise that I got 16 hp more after tuning...

 

[Tractors are go]

What you'll get depends on what the bike was doing just before the throttle was twisted to Wide Open, and what RPM you're looking at.

Before Wide Open you need to have steady RPM and some kind of "static" load (as opposed to just the dyno inertial load which only comes into play while the roller is being accelerated) on the rear wheel. If the bike is decelerating at all from the inertial of load of the roller, your bike will go into overrun fuel cutoff where there is no fuel being injected. If you were to twist the throttle open suddenly from those conditions, even without a CAT you get a very lean AFR.

At lower RPMs, another thing happens at the tailpipe outlet. After each pulse of exhaust comes out the tailpipe, a little air is drawn back in by what's called a resonant effect, kind of like an echo. That too could result in a lean reading.

On the chart earlier in the thread, there was a long stretch of AFR that looks well below 11:1, I can say with some certainty that I've never seen that by measurement, and it would be WAY to rich for good power. Best power mixture is in the vicinity of 12.8:1 give or take. I really can't even guess where such a rich reading came from.

As you suspected, without a CAT, at least you don't have the problem of the CAT doing its job and making the exhaust leaner (fewer unburned hydrocarbons). For bikes that do have CATs, it takes a while for the O2 stored in the CAT to be consumed during the WOT pull.

All my measurements are made with Wideband O2s installed ahead of the CAT and much closer to the exhaust valve.

Thank you, as always insightful and considered.

I shall cogitate.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Tractors are go]

As someone mentioned that Boxer engines might respond particularly differently to fuel alterations and that might offer an explanation I thought lets look at that. So as I have been in the Aprilia world for lots of years I thought I would look there for experiences with Hilltop.

There were a few pretty much all along the same lines with low pre runs and final runs putting it back where most are in stock trim, but I picked out one (happy to link anyone into it that wants to read it) as one of the replies was by an Italian chap called Gabro. Gabro is an Aprilia specialist and to my knowledge the only tuner in the world that can totally re write the firmware of a v4 Aprilia ecu and customise it (except Aprilia Corse) He also tunes his own team bikes in Italian Superbikes using the V4.

Now punter with a V4 goes to Hilltop. Pre run - 129bhp going up 35bhp after tweaking so he's happy. That is until everyone else tells him their bikes make best part of 150 in stock trim and no one has had gains anywhere near that even with other mods. No one could find a healthy v4 making any less than 142 in stock trim. So Gabro then mentions that from fueling corrections alone he only ever sees 3-5bhp peak power and no more, it's just about smoothing things out. This is probably the best tuner your money will buy Aprilia wise.

Sounding familiar ? I just sold my Ducati 848 that made 122 rwhp with just cans and that is giving away 150cc and 2 cylinders to the v4 that they dyno at just 7 more.

If it is the rsv4 1000 Tuono are they not around 150ish as standard so 135-138 at rear wheel could be correct. If it's a RR circa 200bhp then it should be taken round the back and put out of its misery, if after tweaks etc it's still giving 150bhp it needs shot.

I was amazed by how much the sp made after odds and sods were done, around 175, but it was/is a race engine and emasculated by legislation.

As for the Ducati figures, it goesa lika diss.


We make ona odd day add 50% power, ona da evens 100% more. Not once has any of mine ever been close to a reasonable rear wheel horsepower, still enjoyed them though.

Unlike the panigale v4s which I found truly scary and did not like. I was quicker with my old 1098R.. or perhaps I just older and slower now

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[spoonz]

It was an rsv4 APRC version which has better heads amongst other things than previous incarnations. They average about 175-180 at the crank or 150 to 156 rwhp on most dyno's. The lowest figure i mentioned anyone could find on a V4 (142) was for a TV4 1000.

Interestingly having just looked at the thread again, the punter has removed the text from all his posts and just put 00000 since i last looked ?????? Unfortunately his remarks are quoted in other peoples replies so for whatever reason he suddenly did that, it failed.


My Ducati was maintained and tested at Louigi Moto who are the dogs so i believe the figures. Not tried the 1299 Panni but 1199 was as flighty as hell if you let rip.

 

[Tractors are go]

It was an rsv4 APRC version which has better heads amongst other things than previous incarnations. They average about 175-180 at the crank or 150 to 156 rwhp on most dyno's. The lowest figure i mentioned anyone could find on a V4 (142) was for a TV4 1000.

Interestingly having just looked at the thread again, the punter has removed the text from all his posts and just put 00000 since i last looked ?????? Unfortunately his remarks are quoted in other peoples replies so for whatever reason he suddenly did that, it failed.


My Ducati was maintained and tested at Louigi Moto who are the dogs so i believe the figures. Not tried the 1299 Panni but 1199 was as flighty as hell if you let rip.

Had a shot of an aprc when they came out, size of a 250 superdream but the power X 6 equalled much fun, but I couldn't have lived with it.

The extra 20 odd bhp has not made the V4S a better bike, in my view, unless you're Welsh and your forename is Chaz.

If only I can find someone to let my try out the RCV.





Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[spoonz]

Had a shot of an aprc when they came out, size of a 250 superdream but the power X 6 equalled much fun, but I couldn't have lived with it.

The extra 20 odd bhp has not made the V4S a better bike, in my view, unless you're Welsh and your forename is Chaz.

If only I can find someone to let my try out the RCV.





Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Rsv4's are too small for me really and I get uncomfortable very quick as I'm 6ft 4. Strangely I could live with the 848 and even toured it in Europe many times, same for my old rsv. I also just like the power delivery of twins especially compared to IL4's.

 

[gebrauchtwagen83]

I’m booked in for Monday. My r1200r is quite snatchy low down so got my fingers crossed for a significant improvement

 

[Boxerlust]

Gebrauchwagen...your TC R1200R will have 16 hp more...84 before and 100 rwhp after...
That is how much 2010-on TC boxers make !
I myself ride an 2016 R9T which has the same engine...the fueling is perfect and it is really strong for what is is.It makes 110 hp at the crank which is a lot for an aircooled twin as Triumph only get 90 from their new Booneville Scramblers which are watercooled twins.
But it is still a tractor engine...don't expect wonders with a little less or more fuel.
If you want real change you have to pay real money.
Edelweiss/Dirk Scheffer in Essen Germany get's 150hp/140NM out of these motors going up to 1400cc ! But they also cost 10 grand...there you get the hardware,cylinders,pistons,crank,heads,headers/pipe and the ECU remapped for this configuration.
That would be a significant improvement !

 

[Blackal]

Things were a lot simpler when we just had the R1100s.................

 

[tanneman]

Things were a lot simpler when we just had the R1100s.................

Not to worry. There was enough Heath Robinson mods back in the day. Only the expensive stuff actually worked but the beta testing had been done and by the time I started researching the mods the trolls had long since fucked off