How does the setup change the engine performance......does it spin up easier with less backpressure?
It's about a £2k mod so wondered what the benefits are?
It's about a £2k mod so wondered what the benefits are?
Benefits of Akrapovic downpipes and zaust on 1250
- Thread starter roundincircles
- Start date
More noise and a little bit more power. If the gains are say 5 rear wheel bhp in the mid range at the rear wheel then it's costing you £400/bhp increase. You'll need a dyno tune to sort the afr out too.
Or you could just stick with stock tuning, keep the downpipes as factory and buy a cheaper zorst, keeping £1500 towards your next European tour
Or you could just stick with stock tuning, keep the downpipes as factory and buy a cheaper zorst, keeping £1500 towards your next European tour
Deleted account 191119001
Registered user
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2017
- Messages
- 12,799
- Reaction score
- 5
More noise and a little bit more power. If the gains are say 5 rear wheel bhp in the mid range at the rear wheel then it's costing you £400/bhp increase. You'll need a dyno tune to sort the afr out too.
Or you could just stick with stock tuning, keep the downpipes as factory and buy a cheaper zorst, keeping £1500 towards your next European tour
Or even better spend the 2k on Touratech shocks, and bike will be transformed, ask stick he has them on his bike in Spain as we type.
I'll second that as I am in spain at the moment fully loaded touring with the TT rear shock fitted. Unfortunately 2K will only get you the rear shock inc fitting, I don't think the front TT shock is needed as the front is so much improved with having the rear under control it feels like a different bike.
Is that on a 1250? I find the standard shock on bumpy roads at speed hopeless, very jarring on spine.
I do agree on the alternative suggestions as Bike performance can be improved in other less costly ways but, of course I massively respect what anyone does with their hard earned! I’ve also spent huge amounts of money on full akra systems!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Monkey Rum
Registered user
Ignoring any performance gains, I would be interested to know if it make any difference to throttle or engine response (as per the OP), any real world experience would be useful
Edit....
Also, I think it might be interesting to know how the full system stacks up against an end can in these areas
Ta
Edit....
Also, I think it might be interesting to know how the full system stacks up against an end can in these areas
Ta
What makes a positive difference to throttle response and pick up is afr tuning to eliminate/compensate for Euro3/4/5 restrictions. A standard bike with standard pipes and some AFR work will feel smoother and have better pick up than a bike fitted with headers/noisy end can unless they also address those same issues (which most will as you have to re-tune for free flowing systems anyway).
The main difference between both if properly sorted (from previous experience of having done this) is more noise and very slight gains higher up for the bike with the more open can. Bike's I've done this work to have had peak power increased between 5 to 10bhp with full systems and re-tuning (including free flowing air filters). Imho it's not worth the outlay over a standard set up with aftermarket can only but with some afr smoothing work done. It's a very personal thing though and people are free to do what they want with their hard earned. The 1250 doesn't lack grunt, nor does the 1200. The 1200 is likely to benefit most from any retuning for afr smoothing as the 1250 has better fuelling AFAIK as standard. I can't say I'm inclined to do anything with my 1200, but then again I haven't ridden one that's been tweaked.
The main difference between both if properly sorted (from previous experience of having done this) is more noise and very slight gains higher up for the bike with the more open can. Bike's I've done this work to have had peak power increased between 5 to 10bhp with full systems and re-tuning (including free flowing air filters). Imho it's not worth the outlay over a standard set up with aftermarket can only but with some afr smoothing work done. It's a very personal thing though and people are free to do what they want with their hard earned. The 1250 doesn't lack grunt, nor does the 1200. The 1200 is likely to benefit most from any retuning for afr smoothing as the 1250 has better fuelling AFAIK as standard. I can't say I'm inclined to do anything with my 1200, but then again I haven't ridden one that's been tweaked.
Monkey Rum
Registered user
Cheers @Morety nicely explained.
I’ll be sticking with stock and if I decide I need (!?!) more power I’ll look again at the XR or Multi V4
I’ll be sticking with stock and if I decide I need (!?!) more power I’ll look again at the XR or Multi V4
Same TT shock on 1200 or 1250.
Thanks for that, helpful
Deleted account 191119001
Registered user
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2017
- Messages
- 12,799
- Reaction score
- 5
+1 on that and just to addon, the 1250 uses wideband 16bit O2 sensors now not the old narrowband 8 bit sensors, so fuelling is nearly perfect, not much to gain anymore, money is better spent as says post number 4
this makes sense, as when i was logging mine over weekend i was getting 0.78-0.8 from both sensors (at idle). Presumably, this is V rather than MV of the older narrowband sensors.
Yes. Older ones are narrow band hence my comments about greater gains potentially available for the 1200's than the newer 1250 wide band systems. So....to sum up:
If you have a 1250, invest your money on touring or suspension or a nice Klim or Rukka outfit instead (you'll get more gains).
If you have a 1200 and want to spend money on making it smoother, keep the headers, buy a lighter pipe to save weight and have the afr looked at to smooth out running (or fit AF-XIEDs). Then I'd only bother if the bike was a keeper and not on a PCP. Alternatively save the money for the inevitable ESA bill when that time comes.
If you have a 1250, invest your money on touring or suspension or a nice Klim or Rukka outfit instead (you'll get more gains).
If you have a 1200 and want to spend money on making it smoother, keep the headers, buy a lighter pipe to save weight and have the afr looked at to smooth out running (or fit AF-XIEDs). Then I'd only bother if the bike was a keeper and not on a PCP. Alternatively save the money for the inevitable ESA bill when that time comes.
what if you have a 1250, all the touring and clothing you require?
headers dont sound like a waste of money to me
According to Akrapovic stats,
3.5hp gain
5lb-ft
2.4kg weight loss.
respectable figures if true for a bolt-on
You'd gain more performance by shedding a few kilos than by having and extra +3bhp. It's a hell of a lot of money for very little gain in reality, isn't it?
Does the extra 5ft lbs peak torque matter compared with standard performance which is pretty damned impressive to begin with and more than adequate?
I doubt that any seat of the pants dyno test would be able to tell much, if any difference at all to those power gains. It's a personal choice and people are free to spend their hard earned how they want but this chase for more power all the time, and for slight gains just don't seem to offer vfm compared with suspension tweaks as already mentioned above.
My own personal preference would be to be happy with the already decent power/torque and to improve handling or reliability. You can get a similar weight loss from many lightweight after-market end cans without the expense of a full system. Most bhp gains from road legal end cans tend to be limited to a few bhp at most, or nothing at worst but at least you shed the weight, get a fruitier sound and have money left over. Up to you though how you spend your money. No-one else can make that decision for you.
Does the extra 5ft lbs peak torque matter compared with standard performance which is pretty damned impressive to begin with and more than adequate?
I doubt that any seat of the pants dyno test would be able to tell much, if any difference at all to those power gains. It's a personal choice and people are free to spend their hard earned how they want but this chase for more power all the time, and for slight gains just don't seem to offer vfm compared with suspension tweaks as already mentioned above.
My own personal preference would be to be happy with the already decent power/torque and to improve handling or reliability. You can get a similar weight loss from many lightweight after-market end cans without the expense of a full system. Most bhp gains from road legal end cans tend to be limited to a few bhp at most, or nothing at worst but at least you shed the weight, get a fruitier sound and have money left over. Up to you though how you spend your money. No-one else can make that decision for you.
Interesting post thanks, what is afr? Is that the ECU MAP? Is that what Hilltop do?
jUST Googled it....Australian Financial Review (Newspaper)
It's what tuners do to alter air fuel ratio to get decent efficiency whilst maximising output in torque and power. The mechanism for doing this is one of several means including altering existing ECU fuel map codes to make a bespoke map, using something like a power commander to sit piggy back and alter mapping or with a reflash of a custom map to the ECU if it can be overwritten. Tuned from the factory, the bikes have to meet EU emissions restrictions which result in a dip due to lean running round the 3 to 6 thou RPM range. AFR is typically around 14.7 give or take, usually slightly more at this point as I understand it. Catalytic converters work best at leaner settings and higher temperatures hence the bikes are optimised for clean running rather than smoothest power delivery. For that, AFR is optimum between about 12.8 and just over 13 (ie running richer, cooler and with the dip in response removed). HT claim to do get more power but I haven't seen their claims for smoothing running nor have I seen any evidence to back that up, partly as AFR readings cannot reliably be taken from a sensor plugged into the end of the exhaust which is what some tuners use (as it is "downstream" of the CAT). The HT topic (search is your friend!) is already the subject of many an excitable debate elsewhere on the forum so probably best not elaborated upon here
It's what tuners do to alter air fuel ratio to get decent efficiency whilst maximising output in torque and power. The mechanism for doing this is one of several means including altering existing ECU fuel map codes to make a bespoke map, using something like a power commander to sit piggy back and alter mapping or with a reflash of a custom map to the ECU if it can be overwritten. Tuned from the factory, the bikes have to meet EU emissions restrictions which result in a dip due to lean running round the 3 to 6 thou RPM range. AFR is typically around 14.7 give or take, usually slightly more at this point as I understand it. Catalytic converters work best at leaner settings and higher temperatures hence the bikes are optimised for clean running rather than smoothest power delivery. For that, AFR is optimum between about 12.8 and just over 13 (ie running richer, cooler and with the dip in response removed). HT claim to do get more power but I haven't seen their claims for smoothing running nor have I seen any evidence to back that up, partly as AFR readings cannot reliably be taken from a sensor plugged into the end of the exhaust which is what some tuners use (as it is "downstream" of the CAT). The HT topic (search is your friend!) is already the subject of many an excitable debate elsewhere on the forum so probably best not elaborated upon here
Thanks for explaining that. Can you recommend a tuner? I would rather have smoother than extra BHP. I do like torque. My 1250 almost misfires at about 3250 rpm, I wondered if that was lean running.
Similar threads
