For the most part what you say is good... Getting the increases you indicate will likely require improved exhaust, intake, and proper tuning as required ingredients. However, one quibble...

You make the assumption that he started with a "good self tune". I don't believe that the information given necessarily supports that. He appears to have started off with a (very) slightly modified stock tune and he did seemingly very little auto tuning. Hard to tell if he did what little auto tuning he accomplished correctly. So calling it a "good self tune" might be misleading.

My point here was to consider that very little likely changed (based on the information given) in his before and after dyno experience. Changes were limited to changes in VE's and AFR tables (no new pipes, exhaust, etc.) So how much increase in HP/Torque does one expect (assuming no change in exhaust or intake) from those changes? If the original tune was wildly out of whack, then maybe a fair amount. IDK, but given that the pre-dyno was essentially a stock tune, perhaps one shouldn't expect too much given that nothing else changed (ie. pipes and intake). I think in this respect, we are saying the same thing.

 

All this kind of illustrates the ambiguity of it all. I've seen this more often than not as owners undertake these kind of mods to engine technology.

Too many variables and no accountability of what real improvements there may have been. ie . . . little to nothing recorded from a starting point as stock vs adding pipes, improving air intake, installing a tuner, selecting a mapped tune (or 2 or 3) and then dyno tuning = What?

This is all interesting since I've worked in manufacturing with automotive ECMs when they were first starting to be used in GM vehicles and also later. More in the hardware end than fiddling with maps and such.

It just is a bit amusing to me that folks will try all these changes, wrestle through decel popping problems, sputtering, other performance issues, fiddle with things and still end up with unknowns.

I guess I am in that stage of life where I like to buy what performs and works pretty well and not have to depend on some dubious hardware and software mods to yield even more dubious results. . . IMHO.

Thanks for the info ! Is still interesting.!

 

Like I said, did this out of curiosity and for the fun of it just to see changes in power and torque. For me, $$ was not an issue since I get significant discounts and can also minimize chargeable time so $$/hp and $$/ftlbs is scewed in this instance. IMHO if you have a PV, a dyno is not necessary unless you are encountering issues that you cannot resolved.

 

I'm not sure why you feel that there is ambiguity and unknowns after you go through the process. There's plenty of resource material readily available that explains the theory. Plenty of instrumentation/data is put to use to tell you what you have going on. You should have a baseline to compare final results with. The hassles you describe are likely born of ignorance (not meant as an insult - nobody was born with stuff pre-programmed in their head).

I hear you about being at a stage in life where you don't want the hassle. Personally, I'll do some of my own work here and there. The things I tackle I do due diligence on if needed in terms of research and homework. However, I don't always have time or the inclination. I tend to give way more priority to riding when it comes to parceling out what limited free time I have. When I don't have either, I have no problem with having my local independent do what needs to be done. Those that dig working on their own stuff, that's cool too. If I had more time, I might be more interested in it myself.

 

This convo was really getting off the rails. I was simply commenting on the simple point you were making. People have been curious about the worth of doing a dyno tune if you ALREADY have a good tune in relation to "power". Then people starting bringing in all sorts of variables to complicate the matter.

In my observation from what you posted you did start with a good tune. You then had the bike dyno tuned which resulted in a net gain of about 3. End of story.

Thank you for posting your results as I am one of those who was curious about the "gains". IMO the $400 (retail) dyno tune I would have to pay is not worth 3 of anything. My FP3 has my scoot working very well so far.

 

Seems to me that the answer to that question is self evident. If you know you already have a good tune, then of course there's probably not much point in spending money on a dyno (particularly if you are only interested in power gains).

In terms of looking at things in relation to "power" - that wasn't the point. This conversation started between the OP and I in another thread. In that thread I had asked the OP to post what I wanted to look at so that I could see if there was anything of value that could be gleaned from his results in terms of evaluating how well the PV was doing it's job (which, as it turns out, there wasn't much). The OP felt that our little side conversation was hijacking that thread so he started this thread to prevent us from stepping on the other OP's thread.

No, it wasn't bringing up all sorts of variable to complicate the matter, it was a continuation of a previous conversation (as noted).

If you want to call what was essentially the stock/OEM tune a good tune, then fine.

Which sounds like a plausible/perhaps reasonable result since nothing else changed in his setup (no change in exhaust, intake, etc.).

Curiosity if fine, but in this case, with all else besides the tune itself remaining the same, would you really expect any significant changes? I agree that paying $400 for a gain of only 3 doesn't sound like much of a bargain. A scenario where you were changing out pipes, exhaust, etc. on a stage 1 to gain 10+ (as you say), might presumably be why you would want to put money into dyno work.

However, I might also see some value in having some dyno evaluation done with making no changes to my setup in the process. I might want to see just how well my PV "auto tuning"(misnomer)/calibrating efforts paid off. Did my VE calibrations look good before going in? Second thing I might like to see is if the new AFR, Spark, etc., tables (which were presumably produced via dyno on another stock 1200 motor) that I got from Jamie over at Fuel Moto was producing (similar) good results on my bike. If there were any differences at the end of the dyno work between the tune that I brought in and what was produced on the dyno, what were they and how big were they? In the end this information might be valuable in illuminating if DIY efforts using PV's (or FP3's) have real quantifiable/verifiable value.

I feel the same way about what I've done using a PV and Target Tune. But do I really know for sure? What evidence do I have other than what's produced by my ears, looking at the plugs, my butt dyno, etc.? It might be interesting to see some real measured data and see what it might tell ya. That was the initial point of this conversation (so no, it wasn't pushed off the rails).

 

This suggest the OP might have wasted his money. But did he?

The OP noted the following in the original thread:

I can think of reasons why this dyno tune may have improved the OP's experience, even though he didn't make huge gains in max numbers.

One possibility is surging. I've read many talk about surging during moderate cruise etc. on EFI Sporty's. I know I've experienced this myself. Seen theories about quick response time of narrow bands and over aggressive control loops being the root cause. Can't say myself with any certainty if those theories are correct. However, I do know after I did my initial VE calibrations with the PV and narrowbands (and before moving on to Target Tune and wide bands), I put in an AFR table (similar to the one that was produced by the OP's dyno tune) that essentially put the bike in full time open loop (the ECM ignoring the narrow bands). This eliminated the narrow bands influence on control loops. The result? No more surging. This might suggest that there is something behind those theories. The OP's new tune has him essentially running the same. I wouldn't be surprised if he indicated that surging went away - if he was encountering it in the first place. As a side note, the surging issue is not present with Target Tune either.

Secondly, with the AFR set to 14.6 almost across the board, my bike ran like crap (in my opinion) in certain areas of the performance band. I'm sure it made the EPA happy, but not me. It was poor at cruising at steady speeds, especially in town. Sometimes the notion crossed my mind that it only liked the throttle closed or at WOT. Simply putting in the AFR table mentioned above made the bike run so much better (smoothness, cooler, power delivery, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if the OP had a similar experience.

Could the OP have achieved the same outcome himself as I did with the PV? Sure. But if he didn't want to bother doing it himself for whatever reason and chose to have it done on a dyno, then that's still goodness in my view. He may have not increased his max numbers much (and I may have not either doing it the DIY way), but if his experience (in terms of improvement) was similar to mine, then it was money well spent in my opinion.

 

- - - - " I wouldn't be surprised if he indicated that surging went away - if he was encountering it in the first place. As a side note, the surging issue is not present with Target Tune either.

Secondly, with the AFR set to 14.6 almost across the board, my bike ran like crap (in my opinion) in certain areas of the performance band. I'm sure it made the EPA happy, but not me. It was poor at cruising at steady speeds, especially in town. "

I had low speed surging. X14IEDs took care of that for me even with the addition of Rush 3" 1.75 slipons. No "popping" either. I can cruise nice and smooth at low city speeds nice and smoothly and did not have to pay $100, $150 or $400 for a Tuner device, nor fiddle with trying different tune maps. Got them on Ebay brand new discounted to $75.

X14IEDs give 6% enrichment across the band up until WOT. . .. which I rarely do and it is fine then also.

Will X14IEDs work for all Sportsters and for all years? IDK. And they likely will not work if changing Air Intake PLUS exhaust too aggressively. I do know they work well on 2007 to 2010 (EFI) Sportsters as previously noted with just a modest exhaust change if desired. . . or not.

 

I had X14ieds and they did ok but not even in the ball park with my power vision. The power vision was money well spent. Until you have had one you just wont really know.

 

As I have indicated in my earlier posts, my XL1200C has plenty of get up and go for me. I am not doing any other mods and just wanted a smoother running bike and to correct some or most of the "factory lean" running condition.

So what I do know is that I am happy with that.

After reading many threads here about it, what many owners do is change too much in air intake and exhaust and do it all at once, then experience the usual consequential issues of those changes. Then they try X14IEDs AFTER those changes and say they are "ok" or flat didn't work. No surprise there.

For a stock Sportster in 2007 to 2010 model years, X14IEDs ought to yield much improved drivability and smoother running.

Whether the Power Vision is worth the money spent is up to the person doing it. Just as it is up to those spending the money on X14IEDs. I have no argument if someone else wants to buy a Tuning Device and play with settings. I just think it is not necessary to get a nice running stock bike.

To me, $75 to get a smoother running Sportster and know it is running better and richer than stock is all I wanted. And a look at the spark plugs before I installed them and 1,500 miles after tells me they have done what I wanted and needed.