Power Vision Information Thread
#8451
04-28-2016, 08:29 AM
Tune testing with PV and Andrews 57h cams, 103 TC Breakout
Ready for some more tuning drama?
Did some testing yesterday since I have had a tough time getting bike to run right with the 57h cams. I did a comp test w/ engine cold, acr's disabled and have 181F/182R. That ruled out being off a tooth on the cam timing, which I thought may be the case since bike was running so oddly. I even went so far as to re-adjust all pushrods and triple confirm their 1.42 tappet depth.
I created two identical tunes but using different base maps with different hidden code for the crank tooth setting, tunes files "A" and "B". The two tune files are attached here. The "B" ride data log is also attached in case anyone would like to review it. It is all in the single zip file attachment.
The B log was done while TT-AT was enabled with B tune loaded- it is a short log and in town riding only. Slightly lean on front cyl but need to do some more tuning runs. I'm mainly interested in seeing if the MAP scaling is correct now with this B tune for my TP-based VEs.
“A” tune is using the stock stage1 HD base map, unmodified crank tooth setting, that I was running before the cam upgrade. I chose this map because there is equal opinion from tuners that there is no merit to adjusting a "crank tooth setting" and bike will tune fine using a regular base map. this stock tune map also performed in the same odd manner as the two modified 57h base tune maps I received. and i had placed all the same VEs etc into it from with the modified 57h base maps. no diff on odd operation.
“B” tune is a 57h base map from a member here that had DJ change the “crank tooth setting” in the hidden code, and this tune is working well for them. They had the same issue at first as I am experiencing now. Same bike, same cams and similar modified pipes / AC as mine. for some reason this tune base map works much better across the board, even when using the exact same VE's / timing etc as from the other tune files.
Tune file prep:
All I did was open these two base maps in WinPV, and then import the same 72 settings to both so they are configured equally identical. I used the CDE tables from the good working 57h "B" tune on both of these files, and I used a set of VE / spark tables are generally good for a start.
Testing:
I started the bike with each tune file loaded and let it idle, monitoring engine temp to make sure I was looking at identical engine running conditions for the back to back evaluation.
“A” tune idles at 45kpa cold setting down to 43 warm
“B” tune idles at 39kpa cold settling down to 35 warm
"B" tune feels tighter riding it and the sense of flabbiness on the lower end is gone. My excessive rear cylinder spark knock is gone.
"A" tune reacted in the same poor way as the base maps given to me by DJ and FM for the 57h cams. (NOTE: I am NOT knocking DJ or FM so absolutely no one should interpret it this way- This is meant to be informational and for learning / discussion purposes).
Results:
Conclusion is that whomever worked the "B" tune file hidden code for the crank tooth setting, and also adjusted the CDE tables did something right, because it clearly ran better than the other base maps I received regardless of VE / timing tables used.
There would seem to be merit to this hidden crank tooth setting and having the crank start / stop reading MAP at the appropriate time based on cam events. Although it pisses me off to no end that it is not discussed, documented, or written about anywhere, and it is purposefully hidden to us by Dynojet in the PV. TTS / FP3 gives the end user an adjustment for different cams, but again it is still not discussed or documented well on its true operation in the ECM code.
Anyway I figured some of you would at least find these results interesting.
I will say though that there is more than one way to properly tune a bike. We are just exploring one avenue and one little known setting here, and it relates more to home DIY tuners. A very experienced tuner, or an experienced dyno operator could certainly tune a bike well even with a stock base map that does not have a modified crank tooth setting for a given cam. This is because they have tools, knowledge and expertise that most of us do not.
Did some testing yesterday since I have had a tough time getting bike to run right with the 57h cams. I did a comp test w/ engine cold, acr's disabled and have 181F/182R. That ruled out being off a tooth on the cam timing, which I thought may be the case since bike was running so oddly. I even went so far as to re-adjust all pushrods and triple confirm their 1.42 tappet depth.
I created two identical tunes but using different base maps with different hidden code for the crank tooth setting, tunes files "A" and "B". The two tune files are attached here. The "B" ride data log is also attached in case anyone would like to review it. It is all in the single zip file attachment.
The B log was done while TT-AT was enabled with B tune loaded- it is a short log and in town riding only. Slightly lean on front cyl but need to do some more tuning runs. I'm mainly interested in seeing if the MAP scaling is correct now with this B tune for my TP-based VEs.
“A” tune is using the stock stage1 HD base map, unmodified crank tooth setting, that I was running before the cam upgrade. I chose this map because there is equal opinion from tuners that there is no merit to adjusting a "crank tooth setting" and bike will tune fine using a regular base map. this stock tune map also performed in the same odd manner as the two modified 57h base tune maps I received. and i had placed all the same VEs etc into it from with the modified 57h base maps. no diff on odd operation.
“B” tune is a 57h base map from a member here that had DJ change the “crank tooth setting” in the hidden code, and this tune is working well for them. They had the same issue at first as I am experiencing now. Same bike, same cams and similar modified pipes / AC as mine. for some reason this tune base map works much better across the board, even when using the exact same VE's / timing etc as from the other tune files.
Tune file prep:
All I did was open these two base maps in WinPV, and then import the same 72 settings to both so they are configured equally identical. I used the CDE tables from the good working 57h "B" tune on both of these files, and I used a set of VE / spark tables are generally good for a start.
Testing:
I started the bike with each tune file loaded and let it idle, monitoring engine temp to make sure I was looking at identical engine running conditions for the back to back evaluation.
“A” tune idles at 45kpa cold setting down to 43 warm
“B” tune idles at 39kpa cold settling down to 35 warm
"B" tune feels tighter riding it and the sense of flabbiness on the lower end is gone. My excessive rear cylinder spark knock is gone.
"A" tune reacted in the same poor way as the base maps given to me by DJ and FM for the 57h cams. (NOTE: I am NOT knocking DJ or FM so absolutely no one should interpret it this way- This is meant to be informational and for learning / discussion purposes).
Results:
Conclusion is that whomever worked the "B" tune file hidden code for the crank tooth setting, and also adjusted the CDE tables did something right, because it clearly ran better than the other base maps I received regardless of VE / timing tables used.
There would seem to be merit to this hidden crank tooth setting and having the crank start / stop reading MAP at the appropriate time based on cam events. Although it pisses me off to no end that it is not discussed, documented, or written about anywhere, and it is purposefully hidden to us by Dynojet in the PV. TTS / FP3 gives the end user an adjustment for different cams, but again it is still not discussed or documented well on its true operation in the ECM code.
Anyway I figured some of you would at least find these results interesting.
I will say though that there is more than one way to properly tune a bike. We are just exploring one avenue and one little known setting here, and it relates more to home DIY tuners. A very experienced tuner, or an experienced dyno operator could certainly tune a bike well even with a stock base map that does not have a modified crank tooth setting for a given cam. This is because they have tools, knowledge and expertise that most of us do not.
Last edited by LA_Dog; 04-28-2016 at 08:38 AM.
#8452
04-28-2016, 06:24 PM
Novice
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Ft. Worth, TX.
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Target Tune
Am I missing something or is Target tune really the game changer that it's being advertised as? I've owned my power vision for over 2 years now and the bike runs great; no deceleration pop and power seems good. I'm a tech savvy person but don't see the reason to fix what isn't broken.
Until otherwise convinced, shelling out another $500 for this unit seems to be a waste. Don't get me wrong here, I want to believe it's the great advancement in user tuning systems that it seems to be advertised as but I just don't see the point. If your bike runs good, ride it and be happy. If you want max torque and horsepower, go have it dyno tuned by a reputable tuner. If you want to shell out 500 bones for the latest gadget and play with the engine of your $20k+ machine, that's certainly your right.
Being a true believer that Power vision is a fantastic product, I really want to see Dynojet and their distributors succeed but the power vision documentation is terrible. On the other hand, the support I received from Jamie and the crew at Fuel Moto were top notch. The documentation on this new system is bound to be just as bad as the PV. Until Dynojet gets the issues with documentation on the PV up to speed, I probably won't be shelling out anymore of my hard earned cash for more of their products.
Just my 2 cents.
Until otherwise convinced, shelling out another $500 for this unit seems to be a waste. Don't get me wrong here, I want to believe it's the great advancement in user tuning systems that it seems to be advertised as but I just don't see the point. If your bike runs good, ride it and be happy. If you want max torque and horsepower, go have it dyno tuned by a reputable tuner. If you want to shell out 500 bones for the latest gadget and play with the engine of your $20k+ machine, that's certainly your right.
Being a true believer that Power vision is a fantastic product, I really want to see Dynojet and their distributors succeed but the power vision documentation is terrible. On the other hand, the support I received from Jamie and the crew at Fuel Moto were top notch. The documentation on this new system is bound to be just as bad as the PV. Until Dynojet gets the issues with documentation on the PV up to speed, I probably won't be shelling out anymore of my hard earned cash for more of their products.
Just my 2 cents.
#8453
04-28-2016, 08:48 PM
Ready for some more tuning drama?
Did some testing yesterday since I have had a tough time getting bike to run right with the 57h cams. I did a comp test w/ engine cold, acr's disabled and have 181F/182R. That ruled out being off a tooth on the cam timing, which I thought may be the case since bike was running so oddly. I even went so far as to re-adjust all pushrods and triple confirm their 1.42 tappet depth.
I created two identical tunes but using different base maps with different hidden code for the crank tooth setting, tunes files "A" and "B". The two tune files are attached here. The "B" ride data log is also attached in case anyone would like to review it. It is all in the single zip file attachment.
The B log was done while TT-AT was enabled with B tune loaded- it is a short log and in town riding only. Slightly lean on front cyl but need to do some more tuning runs. I'm mainly interested in seeing if the MAP scaling is correct now with this B tune for my TP-based VEs.
“A” tune is using the stock stage1 HD base map, unmodified crank tooth setting, that I was running before the cam upgrade. I chose this map because there is equal opinion from tuners that there is no merit to adjusting a "crank tooth setting" and bike will tune fine using a regular base map. this stock tune map also performed in the same odd manner as the two modified 57h base tune maps I received. and i had placed all the same VEs etc into it from with the modified 57h base maps. no diff on odd operation.
“B” tune is a 57h base map from a member here that had DJ change the “crank tooth setting” in the hidden code, and this tune is working well for them. They had the same issue at first as I am experiencing now. Same bike, same cams and similar modified pipes / AC as mine. for some reason this tune base map works much better across the board, even when using the exact same VE's / timing etc as from the other tune files.
Tune file prep:
All I did was open these two base maps in WinPV, and then import the same 72 settings to both so they are configured equally identical. I used the CDE tables from the good working 57h "B" tune on both of these files, and I used a set of VE / spark tables are generally good for a start.
Testing:
I started the bike with each tune file loaded and let it idle, monitoring engine temp to make sure I was looking at identical engine running conditions for the back to back evaluation.
“A” tune idles at 45kpa cold setting down to 43 warm
“B” tune idles at 39kpa cold settling down to 35 warm
"B" tune feels tighter riding it and the sense of flabbiness on the lower end is gone. My excessive rear cylinder spark knock is gone.
"A" tune reacted in the same poor way as the base maps given to me by DJ and FM for the 57h cams. (NOTE: I am NOT knocking DJ or FM so absolutely no one should interpret it this way- This is meant to be informational and for learning / discussion purposes).
Results:
Conclusion is that whomever worked the "B" tune file hidden code for the crank tooth setting, and also adjusted the CDE tables did something right, because it clearly ran better than the other base maps I received regardless of VE / timing tables used.
There would seem to be merit to this hidden crank tooth setting and having the crank start / stop reading MAP at the appropriate time based on cam events. Although it pisses me off to no end that it is not discussed, documented, or written about anywhere, and it is purposefully hidden to us by Dynojet in the PV. TTS / FP3 gives the end user an adjustment for different cams, but again it is still not discussed or documented well on its true operation in the ECM code.
Anyway I figured some of you would at least find these results interesting.
I will say though that there is more than one way to properly tune a bike. We are just exploring one avenue and one little known setting here, and it relates more to home DIY tuners. A very experienced tuner, or an experienced dyno operator could certainly tune a bike well even with a stock base map that does not have a modified crank tooth setting for a given cam. This is because they have tools, knowledge and expertise that most of us do not.
Did some testing yesterday since I have had a tough time getting bike to run right with the 57h cams. I did a comp test w/ engine cold, acr's disabled and have 181F/182R. That ruled out being off a tooth on the cam timing, which I thought may be the case since bike was running so oddly. I even went so far as to re-adjust all pushrods and triple confirm their 1.42 tappet depth.
I created two identical tunes but using different base maps with different hidden code for the crank tooth setting, tunes files "A" and "B". The two tune files are attached here. The "B" ride data log is also attached in case anyone would like to review it. It is all in the single zip file attachment.
The B log was done while TT-AT was enabled with B tune loaded- it is a short log and in town riding only. Slightly lean on front cyl but need to do some more tuning runs. I'm mainly interested in seeing if the MAP scaling is correct now with this B tune for my TP-based VEs.
“A” tune is using the stock stage1 HD base map, unmodified crank tooth setting, that I was running before the cam upgrade. I chose this map because there is equal opinion from tuners that there is no merit to adjusting a "crank tooth setting" and bike will tune fine using a regular base map. this stock tune map also performed in the same odd manner as the two modified 57h base tune maps I received. and i had placed all the same VEs etc into it from with the modified 57h base maps. no diff on odd operation.
“B” tune is a 57h base map from a member here that had DJ change the “crank tooth setting” in the hidden code, and this tune is working well for them. They had the same issue at first as I am experiencing now. Same bike, same cams and similar modified pipes / AC as mine. for some reason this tune base map works much better across the board, even when using the exact same VE's / timing etc as from the other tune files.
Tune file prep:
All I did was open these two base maps in WinPV, and then import the same 72 settings to both so they are configured equally identical. I used the CDE tables from the good working 57h "B" tune on both of these files, and I used a set of VE / spark tables are generally good for a start.
Testing:
I started the bike with each tune file loaded and let it idle, monitoring engine temp to make sure I was looking at identical engine running conditions for the back to back evaluation.
“A” tune idles at 45kpa cold setting down to 43 warm
“B” tune idles at 39kpa cold settling down to 35 warm
"B" tune feels tighter riding it and the sense of flabbiness on the lower end is gone. My excessive rear cylinder spark knock is gone.
"A" tune reacted in the same poor way as the base maps given to me by DJ and FM for the 57h cams. (NOTE: I am NOT knocking DJ or FM so absolutely no one should interpret it this way- This is meant to be informational and for learning / discussion purposes).
Results:
Conclusion is that whomever worked the "B" tune file hidden code for the crank tooth setting, and also adjusted the CDE tables did something right, because it clearly ran better than the other base maps I received regardless of VE / timing tables used.
There would seem to be merit to this hidden crank tooth setting and having the crank start / stop reading MAP at the appropriate time based on cam events. Although it pisses me off to no end that it is not discussed, documented, or written about anywhere, and it is purposefully hidden to us by Dynojet in the PV. TTS / FP3 gives the end user an adjustment for different cams, but again it is still not discussed or documented well on its true operation in the ECM code.
Anyway I figured some of you would at least find these results interesting.
I will say though that there is more than one way to properly tune a bike. We are just exploring one avenue and one little known setting here, and it relates more to home DIY tuners. A very experienced tuner, or an experienced dyno operator could certainly tune a bike well even with a stock base map that does not have a modified crank tooth setting for a given cam. This is because they have tools, knowledge and expertise that most of us do not.
Not saying it isn't important, I think it is. the intake tract is under fluctuation of pressures through out running. Changing the cam could change the timing of those pressure fluctuations (depending on when you measure MAP, you could be influenced by intake reversion, or other differences - too early and might not read enough vacuum if the intake opens later than stock, etc.). definitely follows that if the cam changed things enough, you'd wanna change when the pressure was read. But how many folks here are running cams that might need It? This could be why there's little out there.
Add to that differences in heads, exhaust, displacement, etc. maybe not all folks running your cam have issues. Maybe you're just one of the lucky few... I still think it's great that a feature like that it's available, otherwise you might not have been able to correct your issue. But, ya, there ought to be more info on it, even if they keep it hidden. (Can you imagine the potential issues that could cause if we all started messing with that stuff ourselves?). Maybe your odd MAP readings at idle could be an indicator that this needs to be done, if it don't have an idle MAP issue maybe it's OK. Maybe I need to check this out myself. My idle MAP is all over, bouncing from upper 20s to mid 30s
Last edited by Coug; 04-28-2016 at 09:10 PM.
#8454
04-28-2016, 09:08 PM
^ Coug- LOL yeh, I guess it is only important to the degree that your bike is running correctly. if there is in fact a key setting for the crank teeth in the ECM code that needs to be adjusted to different cam intake open / close events, then generally we do need to know about it and it would be ideal to be able to tune it ourselves as needed. or at very least, have something technical and correct to read about it so we understand how / why it is important to have correct. for many, the base tune given to them for a new cam from FM will drop right in and be good to go- for others, like me with a cam that is not "common" in base tune files, or did not buy from FM, it's another story and will require some trial and error. For instance, DJ has zero available ready-made tune files for 2012-up softail / dyna with aftermarket cams. zero. not a single one.
#8455
04-28-2016, 09:13 PM
Former Sponsor
Am I missing something or is Target tune really the game changer that it's being advertised as? I've owned my power vision for over 2 years now and the bike runs great; no deceleration pop and power seems good. I'm a tech savvy person but don't see the reason to fix what isn't broken.
Until otherwise convinced, shelling out another $500 for this unit seems to be a waste. Don't get me wrong here, I want to believe it's the great advancement in user tuning systems that it seems to be advertised as but I just don't see the point. If your bike runs good, ride it and be happy. If you want max torque and horsepower, go have it dyno tuned by a reputable tuner. If you want to shell out 500 bones for the latest gadget and play with the engine of your $20k+ machine, that's certainly your right.
Being a true believer that Power vision is a fantastic product, I really want to see Dynojet and their distributors succeed but the power vision documentation is terrible. On the other hand, the support I received from Jamie and the crew at Fuel Moto were top notch. The documentation on this new system is bound to be just as bad as the PV. Until Dynojet gets the issues with documentation on the PV up to speed, I probably won't be shelling out anymore of my hard earned cash for more of their products.
Just my 2 cents.
Until otherwise convinced, shelling out another $500 for this unit seems to be a waste. Don't get me wrong here, I want to believe it's the great advancement in user tuning systems that it seems to be advertised as but I just don't see the point. If your bike runs good, ride it and be happy. If you want max torque and horsepower, go have it dyno tuned by a reputable tuner. If you want to shell out 500 bones for the latest gadget and play with the engine of your $20k+ machine, that's certainly your right.
Being a true believer that Power vision is a fantastic product, I really want to see Dynojet and their distributors succeed but the power vision documentation is terrible. On the other hand, the support I received from Jamie and the crew at Fuel Moto were top notch. The documentation on this new system is bound to be just as bad as the PV. Until Dynojet gets the issues with documentation on the PV up to speed, I probably won't be shelling out anymore of my hard earned cash for more of their products.
Just my 2 cents.
#8456
04-29-2016, 12:05 PM
I did the Rev Perf tuner when I did the 120" upgrade. I was happy with it and Rev Perf, the bike ran okay, through three cam changes two a/c's, head porting and two exhausts. After I finalized the build I then got the PV/AT then had it dyno tuned. Now I upgraded to TT and the bike is running great except for my idle issue which I think is an intake leak.
#8457
04-30-2016, 12:48 PM
I'm going to wait for a well respected pro to chime in on this "hidden" settings stuff.
It all sounds kind of fishy to me, not that there isn't anything there.. it's just that it popped up very recently after years of people talking about tuning.
Never mind, I found it.
https://www.hdforums.com/forum/ignit...l#post15098064
I also went into WinPv, hit the help tab and found IVO IVC in the contents.
It all sounds kind of fishy to me, not that there isn't anything there.. it's just that it popped up very recently after years of people talking about tuning.
Never mind, I found it.
https://www.hdforums.com/forum/ignit...l#post15098064
I also went into WinPv, hit the help tab and found IVO IVC in the contents.
Last edited by JustDave13; 04-30-2016 at 01:18 PM.
#8458
04-30-2016, 01:15 PM
https://www.hdforums.com/forum/ignit...support-9.html
tuners can talk about tuning for years yet not discuss something if they do not know it exists. there are probably a lot of tuner folks who know about it but do not participate in forums or internet discussion. the main problem is there is zero complete technical documentation published on HD Delphi and it's subsystems, software code and settings. the only info you'll find is what is published in tuner product manuals and that may or may not represent all of the settings available- it only represents what is chosen to be exposed by the tuning product. I just read a 700 page guide on HD tuning and delphi and in the section that talks about current model Delphi there was only one tiny paragraph on something relating to crank position sensor / cam events timing. and even that was not clear or detailed. still yet not a mention in it of crank tooth setting for cam IVC/IVO and causing start / stop of reading the MAP sensor.
there are other settings we cannot see or access such as DFCO (decel fuel cut off), and others yet to be named / discussed.
Last edited by LA_Dog; 04-30-2016 at 01:18 PM.
The following users liked this post:
JustDave13 (04-30-2016)
#8459
04-30-2016, 01:47 PM
Former Sponsor
The following 2 users liked this post by Wide Open Cycles:
JustDave13 (04-30-2016),
LA_Dog (04-30-2016)
#8460
04-30-2016, 02:15 PM
Thanks! I'm going to get tired of hitting the "thanks" button WOC- awesome. So yeh hopefully we will see inclusion of these settings at some point in the consumer version. I can see how the DFCO settings will require extensive explanation to properly use or modify them. this is part of the problem with HD Delphi in general, complete lack of complete technical / operational documentation and list of all possible ecm settings. I don't even fully know if DFCO is specific to PV or is general to the HD Delphi system.