I know - it is one or the other. Both will smooth out the fuelling - jsut differently.
Power commander also may suffer from connector-damage (water or physical damage).
Al
I've been to the Hilltop, and I've seen the promised land........
- Thread starter SteveM
- Start date
I know - it is one or the other. Both will smooth out the fuelling - jsut differently.
Power commander also may suffer from connector-damage (water or physical damage).
Al
Old Wobbly
Registered user
Had mine done on 4th July - has made a positive & significant difference; plus I've got cat free pipes/akra end can which contributes v nicely, and a QS which is tremendous fun!!!!!!
Got 101 bhp & 86 torques now which is shweeeet.....
Keith - Can you post your QS setup please? I have one on my 675R track bike and it's wonderful so would definitely like one on the GSA. Thx.
Deleted account 181015003
Registered user
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 13,017
- Reaction score
- 4
Sort of its Power Commander and rolling road session and map wrote to Power Commander or rolling road session and map wrote to ECU the map just goes to a different place and as you say with the connector damage risk its just one more thing to go wrong but with the power commander its easy to revert to standard.
I'm sure Keith has the translogic, and translogic supply triumph (just branded with the triumph logo)
I also ran a quickshifter on my TC but it was a power commander version.
Ya right fella i had water ingress in the plugs on my PC and had to fill them with silicon grease, they both do the same tho, but PC gives you more options ie plug n play with a quickshifter, cost wise is probably on par because PC will need Dyno time, so resale value takes dyno time into account and So what you spent i recon there ain't no differences.
I do like Geoff as well, he's a very clever chap (not just on the dyno either) and would not hesitate to recommend him.
As mentioned, my QS is made by Translogic & branded as Translogic and specific to year/make/model etc; it was fitted by a chap called Paul Nash in Latchingdon, Essex who is an authorised installer of these lovely items...details are on the TL website
http://www.translogicuk.com/products.php
Interesting graphs. What they say is that I would have to be using 6500 rpm on full throttle before the change would give me something that I currently dont have power wise. But in UK traffic, I never do use that rev range at full throttle so the extra power isnt needed. Much the same applies to the extra toirque though that would save me having to change down as much.
I suspect that a lot of other posters dont really need the extra power too.
I suspect that a lot of other posters dont really need the extra power too.
Deleted account 181015003
Registered user
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 13,017
- Reaction score
- 4
Look at the torque at 2000- 3500 rpm on the graphs I uploaded that's where you notice the difference the fueling at 2000 rpm was 20 to 1 the bike also runs a lot cooler
A nice byproduct of my recent remap has been an increase in MPG from 44.3 to 47.2 in the last 450 miles.
It might take a while but this remap will eventually pay for itself.
Though it would still have been worth it even if the fuel consumption has worsened by 3 MPG in my opinion.
It might take a while but this remap will eventually pay for itself.
Though it would still have been worth it even if the fuel consumption has worsened by 3 MPG in my opinion.
As I said " Much the same applies to the extra torque though that would save me having to change down as much." The difference is maybe 500rpm or another gear and thats only if you are using full throttle. And my engine doesnt overheat on the existing mixture.
I guess that what was running through my mind was that the remap wouldnt really be much use to me with my normal sort of riding. Fine you would say - I ride much faster. But the occasional sports bike rider apart, I find that I ride at much the same speeds as most everyone else on our sort of bike so I do wonder whether people go in for these tune ups because they need them or because their mates have done / status symbol / willy waving.
Its a bit like the way that some guys 5ft6inch tall and all town riding must have the adv rather than the standard gs.
One of the things that the remap seems to address is lean fuelling ....and that's not particularly good for the engine..... 
Roymondo
Registered user
One of the things that the remap seems to address is lean fuelling ....and that's not particularly good for the engine.....
Nor is it good for smooth riding just off idle, pootling through town traffic, low-speed nadgery etc. The hoped-for improvements are not just about stopwatches and fuel consumption.
I had mine done for the main reason of curing the low speed pick up issue I had and also to give me a bit more confidence in the engines longevity as I plan to keep the bike a long while. Mines an '08 GSA which by all accounts is the model with the leanest fuelling. Both of these reasons have been fulfilled with the added bonus that the bike has a bit more umph which I felt it was a bit lacking in standard trim especially two up.
Bendy toy
Registered user
I ride mine with posh petrol because its much nicer to use than plain 95 RON. A happy side effect is better throttle response if I want it. Getting a remap would be the same sorts of benefits on steroids. Its totally invisible so keeping up with the Jones's is right out of the picture and I have Touralichroads farkles for all that.
I wasn't interested in hypothetical higher top speeds. The exact opposite in fact - it makes for a much nicer bike around town, & at "average" speeds.
Posh petrol doesn't seem to make any difference with my '08.
