[Rusty Shackleford]

Dyno-saurs: Visual Torque/Horsepower Data on How a 250 Roars!

Dyno charts need homes too. Some of these are from right here at CBR250.net. Hopefully, this thread can be a nice little archive of sorts for whenever anyone wants to reference the data. Here's 7 to start...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

[BBRMotosports]

Thanks for starting the Dyno chart thread. The 2nd one down is mine

 

[sendler]

Too bad you started right off with the bogus chart where they were trying to say all of the improvement came from just adding a fuel controller to a stock bike when it really looks pretty obvious that the curves are the same as all the other dynos that changed the pipe and use no fuel controller.
.
.
What is the difference between the red and the green in this one? It looks like red is with a slip on and green is a slip on plus fuel controller.
.
.

.
.
.
.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Thanks for starting the Dyno chart thread. The 2nd one down is mine

Your welcome, and yup; sure is! From what I see, there's an average max range of power from about 8,400-9,500 RPM's with an average peak between 8,500-8,800. This is useful info to use on Gearing Commander to target where you want your power. I'm about to order a 40T rear and a SpeedoDRD, and have a dyno run for AFR, TQq and HP, myself. I'll certainly post it to the collection when I do!

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

What is the difference between the red and the green in this one? It looks like red is with a slip on and green is a slip on plus fuel controller.

I'm not sure exactly. I assumed it's what you just said, though. I'm actually interested in the variations in stock curves that they're all showing.

 

[TX_Dj]

I'm actually interested in the variations in stock curves that they're all showing.

Exactly. I mean, there's not a lot to be had from the bike- and I'm fine with it as long as I feel I'm getting the most I can.

At the same time, I really think it's cool that one chart gives all the conditions of the pull. That is where all the differences lie, temp, humidity, atmo pressure, elevation, etc.

 

[sendler]

I'm not sure exactly. I assumed it's what you just said, though. I'm actually interested in the variations in stock curves that they're all showing.

I have seen that most of the stock curves are quite similar except for the basic calibration of the test. One curve may be all a little higher and one may be all a little lower. Same basic shape though. Same for all of the different mufflers. They are all about the same shape when running in noisy mode. Big gains percentage wise between 3-4K. No improvement from 4500 to 6000 where I do most of my time. A big gain at 8,700 rpm and then right back to stock above that. Adding a fuel controller will help most below 5,000. The stock maps are pretty rich above that assuming the adaptation has enough range to trim for a new pipe.

 

[CBR_Dave]

The first one for the Bazzaz looks like an outlier for the stock map: torque is dead flat at maybe 9 from 3000-4750rpm. Adding the Bazzaz seems to really be a big benefit at these lower rpm's in comparison -artifactually so almost. When comparing the stock map to the other stock maps shown (Tq is ~11 consistently) its less significant, although still seems pretty beneficial.

Dave

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

If anything, it points out that the Bazzaz dyno is biased in their favor. From having so many different readings by so many different sources, you can start to see what's realistic by taking averages. That's part of the reason I posted this thread to begin with. I was initially fooled by the 1st one as well when I first got the bike.

 

[CBR_Dave]

If anything, it points out that the Bazzaz dyno is biased in their favor. From having so many different readings by so many different sources, you can start to see what's realistic by taking averages. That's part of the reason I posted this thread to begin with. I was initially fooled by the 1st one as well when I first got the bike.

Yeah, that was my (poorly constructed) point

Thanks Rusty,

Dave

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Yeah, that was my (poorly constructed) point

Thanks Rusty,

Dave

Oh, I was just adding to what you were saying. What I've noticed is that some of the aftermarket performance enhancement accessories don't really make as much of a difference as the companies say they do, and that it's even more marginal on a smaller engine. If I were getting a slip-on, I'd just let the bike adapt, or at most, just run the pre-programmed slip-on map on a fuel controller... and still admit I did it for looks and sound (which is a perfectly valid reason too), not performance. A 250 is a 250, but it's still nice to have a bunch of dyno charts to see who's exaggerating the most.

 

[REDHAWK480]

Great thread!Getting ready to get a pipe,trying to decide if a full system is worth the extra $$ over a slip-on.Think I'll be going w/ a slip-on.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I like that with 23rwhp 2.3hp is a 10% gain, haha. Don't forget to toss your dyno up here if ya do!

 

[CBR_Dave]

I like that with 23rwhp 2.3hp is a 10% gain, haha. Don't forget to toss your dyno up here if ya do!

Hehe, yeah. My mates Bro is adding a new pipe and larger carbie jets to his 600 cruiser...for an 8HP bump. He laughed when I pointed out that's 30% of the MAX HP on our machines....

BTW, he is only doing it coz me and my mates CBR's can beat him 0-100kph no probs hahahaha!

Dave