The results are in

[Gordon T]

This talk of 80hp first run. I had my first twin cam on the dyno for a test run to see what it was putting out and 92hp comes to mind. I cant remember exactly what the figure was but it was certainly around that mark.

 

[Speedy1959]

This talk of 80hp first run. I had my first twin cam on the dyno for a test run to see what it was putting out and 92hp comes to mind. I cant remember exactly what the figure was but it was certainly around that mark.

Mine isnt a Twin cam..
Lets compare like with like !

 

[comberjohn]

BMW figures say that they are the same peak power.

 

[fizzer]

i dont know how that is , i have had both single and twin cam ,and the twin cam is by far more lively in all areas of the rev range

 

[Speedy1959]

i dont know how that is , i have had both single and twin cam ,and the twin cam is by far more lively in all areas of the rev range

I was going to say.. Whats the point of the twin cam if theres no difference?
My Brother had a 2015 LC Adventure and his engine was amazingly smooth (compared to mine).. And bloody quick !

 

[Bendy toy]

i dont know how that is , i have had both single and twin cam ,and the twin cam is by far more lively in all areas of the rev range

My brother has a single cam GSA same age and same spec as mine. Mine has 58K miles, his has 25K. His was cosseted from new so he has a less clunky gearbox and an engine that still feels tight after 25K. Mine sings along. His feels heavy.

In short if your bike was only ever run for holidays and driven like Miss Daisy, the engine will be tight. If it was used "normally" the engine will have bedded in properly and sing along.

 

[stanley]

Before remapping, my twin cam with 3k miles put out 91 bhp.
My twin cam with 17k put out 80 bhp.
After mapping they were 104 and 101 bhp respectively.
The higher mileage, lower powered one feels faster and smoother!
My "not yet remapped" single cam R1200S is much, much more powerful than either. I'm looking forward to getting that one done

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Speedy1959]

Stanley thats interesting..
Looks like your before and after power readings were very similar to my own on one of your bikes !

 

[Greenman14]

I really don't care about the numbers. My bike is now smoother and faster. Before the remap I felt it was a bit sluggish but it isn't now, its as fast as I need from a motorcycle. I've had quite a few bikes with similar quoted weights and power outputs; before the remap I felt the GS was the slowest, now its up with the best.

 

[Speedy1959]

Well said..
Mine is much nicer to ride all round than it was.

 

[Glovepuppet]

I agree with you but ere's what I see:

BMW specifications for 2009 R1200GS
Power: 103.25 HP (75.4 kW)) @ 7500 RPM
Torque: 115.00 Nm (11.7 kgf-m or 84.8 ft.lbs) @ 5750 RPM

Sspeed's Results
BEFORE:
80.9bhp @ 7420 rpm
60.4 ft/lb @ 5885rpm

AFTER:
104bhp @ 7600rpm
84.3 ft/lb @ 5500rpm

So this suggests that the Decat and Remus reduced the power and torque and that hilltop brought it back to normal. ��



If you read through the following analysis of an R1200 Dyno run, there are lots of ways that errors enter the tests. The initial conditions just prior to the pull matter a great deal. http://advrider.com/index.php?threa...-af-xied-for-bmw.749080/page-33#post-23436774.

I believe the BMW figures are at the flywheel therefore no drop in figures due to power going through the final drive, whereas the Hilltop figures are at the rear wheel having already lost some going through the final drive. My 09 GSA was Hilltopped and the rideability change was dramatic.

 

[Bungy]

After reading all of the comments i'm looking forward to mine being done tomorrow.

 

[oldnfat]

After reading all of the comments i'm looking forward to mine being done tomorrow.

You won't regret it....or believe the extra "punch" this will deliver...enjoy.

 

[Bungy]

You won't regret it....or believe the extra "punch" this will deliver...enjoy.

I had my bike fettled at Hilltop today and everything I knew wasn't right with the bike showed up on the initial dyno run. The dip at 4.5k rpm for emissions fudging just happens to be exactly where motorway cruising speed should be and is a pain. The bike was running lean throughout and especially so between 2.7k and 3.5k rpm and then consistently from there on. The numbers do not hint at the difference all of this has made to the way the bike fuels, rides and pulls throughout the Rev range. It really has transformed the bike and Jeff is very open with what he does. I'm chuffed to bits. The bit I can't explain is why my fuel economy has improved.

 

[Speedy1959]

Nice one Bungy...
The posotive comments FAR outweigh the negative armchair critics.
I too have found mine much nicer to ride.
My AVERAGE fuel consumption since having it done is around 55mpg. That shows I dont scream it everywhere but I certainly enjoy the acceleration wherever I can do.