neil.nu.archive :: TZR The TZR forum

TZR » Tech » 3XV » Dyno day!

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 > [ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 08 2008,21:16 hi guys, had my 3xv on dyno for the first time yesterday, and heres the results its a 91r model, but has been blessed to have matin77 fettle the cylinders, skim the heads and to top it all of, a pair of his very own hand crafted pipes. 56bhp and thats with the std cdi. its been said before but i will say it again, martin does a first class job, and i would recomend his work to anybody. Back to top

wullie3XV9 Wullie3XV9 Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: June 2008 Posted: Oct. 08 2008,21:48 Bloody hell !!  That's more like it !!   I want that set-up for my Chrimbo please Santa !!  I've only had mine since June & allready I'm fed up of 'er going flat at an indicated 10,500 rpm, even feel it through the gears as well now !! If you see this post Martin, put me down for a tune & a set of pipes please. Money well spent I'd say Daz.     Do you still have the standard 28 mm carbs fitted, if so, what main jets, needle clip position etc., etc., & are the standard airboxes / filters still fitted. Oh !!, is that 56 rear wheel hp & was any fettling done between the two runs shown to get a max of 56hp.      Suitably impressed & jealous, Wullie.   -------------- Just when I'm about to make ends meet, someone moves the ends !! Back to top

mekros Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: April 2007 Posted: Oct. 08 2008,21:59 so both runs were done with the pipes and cylinders done? Back to top

martin77 martin77 Group: Members Posts: 453 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 08 2008,22:21 Yep..Daz uses my ported cylinders (to SP spec) and pipes. It's a shame his sugo cdi didn't play ball on the day...some investigation needed there as it would (or should) put power to over 60hp with a smoother curve. (yes Wullie, rear wheel hp) Eitherway it's a healthy example.... Back to top

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 08 2008,22:26 money well spent indeed wullie my bike is running std 28mm carbs and std air boxes, rear air box lid has had the mod to the intake done and the filters are aftermarket ones i found on ebay, nothing special. std reeds, reed blocks and stops. sp crank and flywheel. the difference between the two runs are only carburation tweeks. first run 54.44bhp, yes that is at the rearwheel 270/230 main jets 17.5 pilots needle position std second run 56.39, and thats at the rearwheel too:D   250/250 mains 15 pilot front (std) 17.5 rear needle position std Back to top

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 08 2008,22:50 blue run is with the 3xv-80 sugo cdi, it aint happy something not quite right there, with the sugo box fitted on the road, the bike clearly revs beyond 12000rpm on the clock still makin power. my rev counter is out by 800rpm though. Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 08 2008,23:02 Looking good there, Daz! Maybe try 260 front and 220 rear mains if it looked safe enough with the 270/230. Slightly rough around the 9k mark, so it'd be worth checking that the PV cables are working well and are adjusted properly maybe? Interestring that it's revving so well with the stock Cdi. Is it an -00 box or one of the others?. All the -00s I've seen or tried on the dyno seem to fall flat at about 11,300 and I'd always assumed there was a digital rev limiter as you can hear them missing at this point. Yours is unusual. But in a good way of course. Do you know if you have -00 model carbs with powerjet drilling in both or if they are the later ones with no PJ drilling in the lower bowl? That'll have quite a bearing on main jet setting As Martin notes, you should be able to get it into the 60s once you figure out why the Sugo box isn't playing ball - even with the stock carbs, which I reckon are probably the ones to use if it's primarily a road bike. Great to see another one on the road to full liberation though .  If you want to mail me the raw run data I can plot it up against some other 3XV runs so you can see where you are gaining and losing. Not exact, but close enough to give a good idea. Top job! Wb -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 08 2008,23:05 Weird one? It almost looks like the PV's aren't working with the sugo box plugged in? Did you look to check that they actually opened? And yes, the R tach's seem to over-read quite a bit at the top. Interestingly the SP one I use on the track bike is about bob on with the dyno though. -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

wullie3XV9 Wullie3XV9 Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: June 2008 Posted: Oct. 08 2008,23:12 Excellent Daz, thanks.    Sorry to be a pain, but can you clarify your needle clip position please, is "standard" the middle position of the 5 slots for your '91 R ? On my '93 RS, "standard" needle clip position is 2nd from top slot.   Martin, can you do a slightly softer "road" tune & exhausts to match, or is the SP spec. tune perfectly usable on a road bike ?   Don't want to loose too much of the excellent bottom end & mid- range "grunt" of the stock set-up . -------------- Just when I'm about to make ends meet, someone moves the ends !! Back to top

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 08 2008,23:24 warwick, the mains are now 250s in both carbs. the carbs are the oo carb of the 91 model with the powerjets fitted, the cdi is the 3xv-00. when we tried the 3xv-80 box and it was only making around 45 bhp, my first thought was the pv's not opening, so, did another run and i watched em and they opened! the dyno guy seemed to think that something electrical is retarding the ignition? is there something i should have done before using the 80 box? ie: plugging the air solinoids out? wullie, needle position is middle std for the 91 model. with martins sp tuning there is not much if any loss of low down power and the bike is still very user friendly for around town Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 08 2008,23:41 When I was running the 28s and the -80 box, the carbs and air solenoids etc. were all exactly as stock. only changes were to the mains. Plugging the -80 box in made immediate and very noticeable (even on the road) improvements above about 9k so it's a bit of a weird one. Mr. Stinkwheels has had similar problems with a box marked as a -70. Have you got the speedo restriction stuff all plugged in? It's never made much difference on mine, but if the wiring is unplugged or messed with but not 'sorted' on a 3MA it really caps the power at the top. It shouldnt affect things with the -80 box fitted in any case though. Hmmm. It's a bit of a mystery. I'll sleep on it and see if anything comes to me in the night. If nothing else I'll look out the exact set up we used with the -80 box and let you have it tomorrow - tired and full of cold just now -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

wullie3XV9 Wullie3XV9 Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: June 2008 Posted: Oct. 09 2008,00:14 Thanks for clarifying needle clip position Daz. -------------- Just when I'm about to make ends meet, someone moves the ends !! Back to top

Mr stinkwheels Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: May 2006 Posted: Oct. 09 2008,00:44 Interesting, you seem to be haveing the same problem with your -80 box as I have had with my -70 box. The blue line is the -70 box the red line is the std -00 box. This is on a stan stephens stage 2 tune with JL pipes everything else was standard. I have not tried the -70 box with Martin77 SP spec ports yet. I tried several things, following the sugo guide on Froos site for the wire loomb, but this made no difference. If you manage to get it to work let me know and I will try out what you have done on my one. Hope this helps Martin. Back to top

martin77 martin77 Group: Members Posts: 453 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 09 2008,11:21 Wullie.... Unfortunately you do lose a bit of the bottom end and midrange with the porting and pipes, it's just that you get alot more at the topend. It's still smooth, useable and progressive though....rather than going flat at 9k (ish) it surges forwards.... But yeah, I can do a slightly lower spec tune initially, and if you decide to go the whole way I can uprate it to SP spec later. Back to top

skinuthbilly Group: Members Posts: 209 Joined: April 2007 Posted: Oct. 09 2008,17:35 makes my 49.65 bhp look a bit shit really!! be interesting to compare runs on the same graph though,if warwick,or someone can do that? martin,i'm still interested in a set of your pipes,and a FULL sp spec on my top-end,prob be bit nearer to xmas? i'm still using the bike at the mo'!!   FYI,i'm running stock 28's,220/270 mains,though i think it's running slightly rich, stock pilots,middle clip on both needles,2 turns out on both air screws,gen air filters,modded airboxes,nikon pipes......   Back to top

martin77 martin77 Group: Members Posts: 453 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 09 2008,18:26 Ian's in green, Stinkwheels in black (although his was a bit of a guess as his graph doesn't have an rpm axis ) I suspect Daz would find another 2-3hp with perfect jetting.... It seems like a common theme to have a slight rough patch between 9-10k with the 00 cdi and SP porting. Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 09 2008,18:28 I'd think the main thing holding yours back at the top end is the pipes, Ian. But, conversly, they are also likely to be the primary cause of your beefy midrange. I can certainly put different dyno-jet runs together on the same chart though if I have the raw run file data - should be a little more accurate than Martin's cut and paste job above (handsome and informative though it is of course). So if you want to mail it accross then feel free. -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 09 2008,20:00 martin (mr stinkwheels) i had seen that dyno run of yours in an eariler thread, a year or two back, it is interesting that i'm having the same issue with my 80 cdi. i have tried all the froo's mods in the past myself and found they didnt make any difference. i do have a sugo loom for my track bike, i'm thinking of maybe hooking that up to bypass the clocks etc and see how it goes then with the 80 box fitted? i have sent warwick and martin77 all the data from my runs, if you can plot mine along with any others you have  it will make interesting viewing Back to top

wullie3XV9 Wullie3XV9 Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: June 2008 Posted: Oct. 09 2008,20:14 Martin (77). Thanks for your input again. I like the look of SkinuthBillys power curve for a quick/fast road bike. Porting, & pipes to match, peaking at an actual 11,000 ish rpm,  ( 50-55 rear wheel hp ) would do for me.  I'd be sticking with the stock -40 CDI thats fitted to mine. Is there a slight mismatch between the Nikkons & porting on Ians bike, or was it ported to work with the Nikkons ?. Can you remember if it was ported to produce peak power slightly higher than it actualy did ?. Just curious. Don't want an engine thats too highly strung / high maintenance!!     P.S. Warwick, hows your "man flu", any better ? Get well soon. -------------- Just when I'm about to make ends meet, someone moves the ends !! Back to top

martin77 martin77 Group: Members Posts: 453 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 09 2008,21:23 A selection showing the various stages... (sorry, I've not got the raw data for a bog standard 3XV) Red is stock apart from Lomas pipes Dark blue is Daz's best run Blue is Warwick's bike with the same porting and pipes as Daz, but with the 80cdi Green is Erin's very healthy late model with sugo parts (not sure of the details) Wullie....the Nikon's on Ian's bike are basically lightweight copies of the standard pipes, which aren't designed to make good power at high speed. Therefore I ported the cylinders halfway to the SP spec so they still all worked together OK, rather than have the porting aimed at high speed and the pipes restricting it.   If you want to keep the midrange useability then I suggest you could just keep the stock pipes and the go with the halfway porting spec. That should see a similar curve to Ian's bike...(saving you money..and saving from me making more pipes ) and retain the basic character of the standard 3XV. Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 09 2008,22:25 Thanks for your sincere concern, Wullie . I'm at bleedin' death's door here mate! Not like anyone cares, etc, etc,... . Even my Voice has gone completely now, and I can barely see for the snot and tears pouring forth from my cold ridden bonce. Truly 'orrible... Yep that'll be a bad dose of man-flu alright. My missus has just slipped some ear plugs in Been trying to think of reasons why Daz's -80 Cdi didn't work as anticipated, but without directly comparing set-ups it's pretty difficult. Though mine was effectively just a stock 91 R with Martin's fettled top end and pipes really. There were/are a few other little motor mods, but none that I can see having any impact on the operation of the Cdi - lightened flywheel, flowed reed cages etc. Electronically and carb-wise the bike was entirely stock in it's earlier incarnation (as in the trace Martin's posted above). The traces below show the difference between the -00 and the -80 on the same day, same dyno, same settings (about 3 sizes rich on the mains - hence the lower overall output than the run in Martin's post) On mine it was just a case of plugging in the -80 (on top of the porting and pipes of course) and hey presto: A very road-noticeable increase in power. That extra 10 brake at 10k is felt pretty keenly. Though my set-up is down over most others in teh midrange with the -00 box. Perhaps this was the very tired top end we were using for the experiments, or perhaps it was set-up or something else? I'm really not sure... Probably impossible to ever find out as the bike now runs 38mm TZ carbs and has a been 'treated' to a bit more experimental 'porting' and cylinder base work courtesy of myself, but I haven't had it on the dyno in it's most recent incarnation. I'd like to think it would be getting towards Erin's fabulous fig's at the very top, but until I get it on the dyno at some point it's an unknown. Certainly goes well enough in it's current guise though. Anyway, back to the Cdi's... What we really need is to book a day or half day at a suitable dyno, roll up with all our various pipes, Cdis and etc., and figure it all out on the rig. Difficult to organise though of course, but I'd certainly be up for it . It's good fun, and allows for much more productive cross-fertilisation and exchange of ideas - and of course the direct back to back testing of various set-ups etc. Any mileage in it do you think, fella's? On one of mine and Martin's previous dyno jaunts we took Mr Stinkwheels' -70 box along. Run on my set up (as above) it gave pretty much exactly the same power curve as a stock SP (3XV-10) box as shown below: In view of how closely it mimiced the 3XV-10 (a properly restricted box it would seem) and the fact that the Id sticker looked to have been lifted a bit I wondered whether it was a 're-badged' -10 box? Time limitations meant that we only gave it the one run though, so it may well have been something else. And I'm currently at a loss to explain why daz's -80 isn't doing the business either. This is why a dyno day would be great: flinging the different boxes on a set-up that clearly works well with a sugo box would allow us to 'backwards engineer' to hopefully find the problem on the other bikes. Or at least figuire out if the boxes themselves are the root of the problem or whatever. That's about the best I can come up with currently really. But it's worth noting that I'm packed to the gunwhales with paracetamol and on my second hot toddie of the evening, so I may be either missing something fundamental - or just generally losing the plot... Now please excuse me while I go blow what's left of my nose...   -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

wullie3XV9 Wullie3XV9 Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: June 2008 Posted: Oct. 09 2008,22:46 Martin 77 I'm liking the idea of saving money, being Scottish.    As you suggested, I could give the "half way house" porting a try with the stock pipes & see if I like it. Maybe SkinuthBilly will let me have first refusal on his Nikkons, (please !!), if he's after a set of your pipes & SP porting,  ( that's a BIG hint Ian ),    "If you don't ask, you don't get" I'm always told.     Warwick, I do genuinly sympathise with you. Last year I took 4 weeks holiday off work over Dec./Jan. & spent 3 of those weeks fighting a full blown chest infection. Was coughing up blood before our glorious NHS put me on a course of Amoxacillin !! I certainly did NOT have a Merry Christmas OR a Happy New Year.   -------------- Just when I'm about to make ends meet, someone moves the ends !! Back to top

Mr stinkwheels Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: May 2006 Posted: Oct. 10 2008,00:42 Quote (daz3xv @ Oct. 09 2008,19:00) martin (mr stinkwheels) i had seen that dyno run of yours in an eariler thread, a year or two back, it is interesting that i'm having the same issue with my 80 cdi. i have tried all the froo's mods in the past myself and found they didnt make any difference. i do have a sugo loom for my track bike, i'm thinking of maybe hooking that up to bypass the clocks etc and see how it goes then with the 80 box fitted? i have sent warwick and martin77 all the data from my runs, if you can plot mine along with any others you have  it will make interesting viewing Hi daz3xv. Today i put my -70 box on my bike and had a blast down the road, this is the first time I have tried that box since Martin77 ported my barrels to Sp spec, and it is noticable now that the -70 box I have, does not produce the power in the top revs, I will take the bike to the dyno when I can and do a run with it and also the -00 box for comparison. It feels real nice in the lower revs, probably better than the -00 box is. I wonder if anyone has a dyno run of a std SP and a std R model to see what the curve is like between them. Anyway let us know if the sugo loomb makes a difference. Out of interest where did you get your -80 cdi from? Regards Martin. Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 10 2008,11:10 OK, here's another hopefully useful comparison (all raw data fed into the same chart): Red is a mate's running a pukka SP top end, but R carbs and a -00 CDi (pipes unknown, but seem to work well) Blue is Daz's (which is intersting in that his -00 box doesn't seem to 'shut off' at about 11,300 unlike pretty much all others I've seen - no idea why this is?) Greeny-brown is Mr Stinkwheels' Purple is mine - effectively the same set up as Daz has but with the -80 box.   Intersting the way that the pukka SP and the SP copies all perform remarkably similarly with the -00 box. It also shows what the Sugo boxes should be doing I'd say. What we need to figure out is why Mr Stinkwheels' and Daz's boxes aren't playing ball, as a working sugo Cdi setup really makes a quite noticeable difference - even with the little 28mm carbs. Erin's run that Martin posted earlier uses 32mm SP carbs and Sugo Pipes as I recall, which is probably what explains the higher peak RPM and better power at the top. I've added it into the chart below. You can see how his set up and mine are pretty similar through most of the range til his roars off to a higher peak at the top end (must be a joy to ride, Erin ) . As I said, this is perhaps the effect of the bigger carbs and the higher peaking Sugo Pipes Erin uses? But it again shows what a fully-functioning Sugo Cdi set-up should do. Note particularly the beefier torque curves - in the fun zone in any case. My own experiments with Bigger carbs certainly seems to suggest that they allow more revs at the top - esp if the pipes (Martin's) are wrapped at the headers to help them rev a little higher at the top too.  This is only based on feel and tacho RPM though - I haven't had this set-up on the dyno yet, so it might all be in my 'ead? Dunno, but like I said, a combined dyno day would be the way to really make some progress on this I'd think. The main difficulty is in organising (and paying for) it of course -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

cyclenut Group: Members Posts: 192 Joined: Oct. 2005 Posted: Oct. 10 2008,14:03 Erin here....been kinda quiet lately, too much working I suppose.  I've been endurance racing an SV650 this summer and not doing much with my TZR       Just to confirm my setup: 1)  93 SP engine (-20 cylinders, squish at .8 mm) 2)  32 mm SP carbs (not sure if they're the same as the SPR) 3)  Sugo pipes 4)  -9A Sugo CDI 5)  Sugo carb kit(needles look a little shagged, wondering how much more life is in them) 6)  TPS removed Dyno pulls were with Motul 8002T and VP C12 fuel.  Has been reliable and a joy to ride.   I recommend the SUGO kit, but installing it wasn't nearly as much fun as the dual CDI, offset key, bigger carbs, etc. experimenting that I did for 3 years. Back to top

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 10 2008,18:48 hi guys, i have had problems getting on to the net, bloody virgin!, so i have been unable to respond  to any of your posts. ok had the bike out today doing back to back runs with the different cdi's. like martins (mr stinkwheels) 70 cdi it definatley does'nt make power at the top end and even feels as if its lacking down low as well, compared to the std cdi, it does feel stronger between 9-10 thou as the dyno run suggests but then makes no power after that really. what is interesting is that my sugo 9a box is also not playing ball either. yes i was expecting a big flat spot around the 8 grand mark but again clearly isnt making the power it should. the chart below shows both 80 and 9a boxes on the dyno martin, i think i got my sugo 80 box of okshon and payed top dollar aswell for it, so i hope its not a ringer but sayin that the 9a box also aint playing ball, but surely it cant be a ringer ie rebadged 00 or 10 box because of its behaviour in the lower revs   i would be up for a dyno day warwick, where and when would be the problem though as i'm up here in the sunny northwest of england, but i would consider travelling down to your neck of the woods with enough notice. does anyone wanna try my sugo 80 box on there bike? Back to top

Mr stinkwheels Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: May 2006 Posted: Oct. 10 2008,19:55 Hi. We have all been busy today. I went to the dyno too. This my -00 cdi and my -70 cdi, shame the -70 does not carry on as it should past 9250 rpm. Daz I am not sure what setup your bike has but, I would say the -9a box is probably what the label says it is, it just is not in harmony with your bike. As for your -80 box, it looks like its from the same place as my -70 box, I bought my -70 from Tom in Poland, he said he had tested it along side a -80 box it and it worked fine   Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 10 2008,20:06 Thanks for clarifying your set-up Erin. Shameful to be racing an SV when you have that monster 3XV in the shed though I know what I'd be riding . Daz, The 9a box is designed for the 93 SP which has a single guilotine PV (ie: there's effectively no pv operation on the auxiliaries unlike on the 91 and 92 'drum' set-up). The 93 cyl's porting is therefore a bit different so I wouldn't expect the 9a box to work at all well with the earlier cyls - even if ported to SP spec. I think that was the box I tried briefly on mine wasn't it, when you dropped by at Martins? Power curve didn't feel as dramatic as you dyno trace, but it certainly wasn't happy at all in the midrange, so I shouldn't worry too much about that one - it's just the wrong box for the job basically. You should perhaps flog it to someone with a 93 or 94 SP set-up really? Your trace with the 9a above is very similar to what you get with a TZ box on an early drum type PV set-up interstingly - TZs having teh same PV setup as the 93/4 SP(see Krazy Katt's site - we tried a few diff boxes - including a 4DP-10 on my stock R motor a couple of years ago) The -80 box not working for you is a bit more of a mystery though. Perhaps a bit of a longshot, but how have you modded the upper airbox lid? On mine any extra holes in the airboxes. really upset the 28mm carbs. I think we lost something like half of the power or something on a quick test. It just wouldn't run cleanly at all. Might be worth thinking about? Again this kind of stuff would be easy to test on the dyno if we had all our different bits and bobs in one place. But if you have an unmolested R lid (or can put yours back to more or less stock by the application of tape or whatever) I'd be very tempted to try that myself. Or maybe even order a new SP upper box lid (about 20 quid I think).  Lower box also preferred to be unmolested on my set-up too For what it's worth I have both an -80 and a -70 box and they both work pretty much the same on my set-up (road testing only), though again it'd be intersting to test them back to back on the dyno if we can get some kind of joint day set-up. Myself, Mr Stinkwheels and another local 3XV mate - who I suspect would be up for a bit of a 3XV dyno day - are all in the South West, so that would probably be the best for the majority... Bit of a stretch for you I realise, but it would certainly allow us to figure things out a bit better for everybody. Mr Stinkwheels has already sounded out his local Dyno place (In Poole I think?) and it looks like that would be a possible venue if you fancy it? In the meantime maybe give the airbox thing a go? I guess we often assume that simply getting more air into the box is always a good thing, but those little 28mm carbs (on my set-up at least) really didn't like drilled lids at all - though the SP upper box lid seemed to be worth a pony or so over a stock R one. My current TZ carb set-up on the other hand needs plenty of holes in the box and it doesn't upset anything at all... Failing the dyno thing I'd be quite happy to test your -80 on mine, Daz. Though the motor's got it's guts hanging out currently - awaiting a bit of a service when I get the time. I guess I'd better show it some love and button it back together sharpish then...     Onwards and upwards - I think my stinking cold is even shifting a bit -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 10 2008,20:14 martin, i have 3 sugo boxes one 80 and two 9a cdi's, i bought one of okshon, one from the states and also one from tom in poland. to tell you the truth i'm not 100% sure were i got the 80 box from? tom also said he had tested the box he sold me! i know the 9a box is for the later guillotine powervalves, so i didnt expect that box to work perfectly on my r model road bike, i bought them for my sp/tz engined track bike i have only done the mod to the upper air box intake warwick, no holes drills or anything like that. i do have another r air box i could try but i think its a bit of a long shot. i only took the one 9a cdi to the dyno not both! i think you tested the other one warwick on your bike Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 10 2008,20:24 Lol. Yeah, but pretty much everything we do with these loony bikes is a long shot... . It certainly floored me that such a little difference to the airboxes could have such a profound effect on mine when we were on the dyno in any case. I'll try to dig the runo out later if i get the chance. -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 10 2008,23:01 Ok. here it is, and it's even worse than I remembered, lol. Exact same set-up (with jackals rather than Martin's pipes). Only difference between the runs was we pulled the tape off the airbox lids revealing revealing multiple small holes to increase overall airbox intake area: Interstringly the very same airbox lids are an absolute requirement when I'm running the TZ 38mm carbs. Very possibly not your problem at all Daz - especially as the box mods are quite different to yours - but it's pretty interesting all the same I reckon. It may well have been possible to jet for the changes, but I don't really think the 28mm carbs need much more intake area than the stock boxes give really. Though, as noted, the SP top box lid does seem to be good for about 1Bhp at the top. Cheers Wb -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 10 2008,23:40 bonkers indeed! how many holes did you have in the air box warwick? surely must have been quite a few to affect performance so much??? does the air boxes restrict the 3xv 's performance at all? i think its member red and blue with the very nice sp/tz hybrid, hes running the sp air boxes isnt he? and his machine putting out 76bhp  so surely the air boxes as std dont restrict power? what about erins bike? now thats making some very good power. does he run the air boxes or open carbs? and good yourself warwick? are you still running the air boxes with the tz carbs? daz Back to top

Mr stinkwheels Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: May 2006 Posted: Oct. 10 2008,23:54 Hi Daz. A mate of mine down here in Dorset has a pukka 1995 SPR, he is rebuilding it at the mo, he posts on here sometimes called Rusty, Im pretty sure he would be interested in one of your 9a boxes if you want to sell it. I know he has the sugo or simular pipes for it, and was asking about the sugo cdi a while back. Let me know and I will give him a call ok. Back to top

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 11 2008,01:00 martin, can you send me the data from your day at the dyno? i have been trying to plot your graph on top of my run with the 80 box, but not having much success it would be interesting to see all the data, and i will post up the graph with the two runs on. not selling any of the cdi's just yet, but maybe sometime in the future, as i only really need the one 9a unit daz Back to top

cyclenut Group: Members Posts: 192 Joined: Oct. 2005 Posted: Oct. 11 2008,04:25 I'm running the airboxes with some flimsy foam filter.  I don't think you're actually supposed to run the airbox with the Sugo kit, but I did so that my bike meets the class requirements (must have airbox).    Running the airbox really affects the main jets, I'm way under what is specified to use in the Sugo manual.   It has a really strong signal at the carb I suppose. Erin Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 11 2008,12:07 Lots of little (3mm or so) holes in those box lids, Daz. Very free flowing filter foams fitted. Yes still currently using the airboxes (with the holey lids fitted) with the TZ carbs, but keep meaning to experiment with pod filters or TZ/sugo style 'open' airboxes/carb shrouds - as much to remove the airbox clutter as anything else. Base main jet setting on this setup is around 310 lower and 320 upper with #50 powerjets in each so I'm guessing that the airboxes can flow quite a bit of air. Though as Erin notes, the actual signal through the venturi is probably the more relevant influence on main size.   The 38s certainly seem to need the greater air intake area on the boxes though as they really choke without the holes. I'm pretty convinced though that the 28s don't really need much more airbox intake area than stock - though as noted the SP upper airbox lid does seem good for a pony. With the 28s, the lower cyl was perfectly happy with the completely stock set-up, though I also ran it with a couple of half inch holes on the kickstart facing edge of the box too with no ill effects - but no more power either.   I suspect that the bigger carbs are only offering any real advantage over the 28s above about 11k though really - and there may well be some losses under that. Can't say for certain as I don't have any directly comparable dyno data yet. the 28s are thus surprisingly good I think - certainly good enough for a very hot 'road' 3XV in any case.  The bike with the TZ carbs is set-up (if you can call it that ) as a track bike so I'm much more interested in what it's doing above 9k than under -and am happy to sacrifice a bit lower down for more revs and a bigger dollop of GO right at the top. On the track it really doesn't spend that much time below 9 or 10k to be honest, so my aim is good power at the top, with much less concern about the midrange. For a road bike I would be more intersted in keeping the midrange very strong - even if it meant sacrificing a bit of ultimate top end. Having said that, the track bike is MOTed and does see a bit of road use and is perfectly useable through the rev range with the big carbs. Quite a laugh on the road in fact -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

Mr stinkwheels Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: May 2006 Posted: Oct. 11 2008,14:06 Quote (daz3xv @ Oct. 11 2008,00:00) martin, can you send me the data from your day at the dyno? i have been trying to plot your graph on top of my run with the 80 box, but not having much success it would be interesting to see all the data, and i will post up the graph with the two runs on. not selling any of the cdi's just yet, but maybe sometime in the future, as i only really need the one 9a unit daz ok Daz email sent to you Back to top

wullie3XV9 Wullie3XV9 Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: June 2008 Posted: Oct. 12 2008,21:54 Martin77 Just been looking at Dave Swarbricks web-site & see he lists alloy end cans for 3 XVs at £ 99.00 a pair. Would these help the standard chambers work a bit better at the top-end ?. I'm led to believe the standard end-cans are restrictive. Having just recently decoked my standard end cans with a caustic soda mix, would the Swarbrick ones be a waste of money ?, or will they help the engine "breath" better with the "half-way house" porting work I'd like you to do for me ?. They'll certainly be noisier !!                       Your honest expert opinion please.                  Thanks, Wullie.     -------------- Just when I'm about to make ends meet, someone moves the ends !! Back to top

jools Group: Members Posts: 1221 Joined: Oct. 2005 Posted: Oct. 13 2008,04:09 I have some of his Carbon silencers and they sound real nice.....I think i fitted them to my stock pipes once but can't say there was a noticeable difference in performance. -------------- "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about...." oscar Wilde Back to top

Mr stinkwheels Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: May 2006 Posted: Oct. 13 2008,12:26 I have swarbrick end cans on my std pipes and I also have std end cans, there is no noticeable difference in performance, and I cant say they made the bike any louder either, the weight difference between the swarbrick cans and std is a fair bit tho. Best off getting a good set of spannies to unleash the restricted power Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 13 2008,13:58 Yup. That'd be my take on it too. The stock pipes have absolutely nothing to recommend them as far as I'm concerned; they cap power horribly (this is down to the actual pipe design itself, not the silencers) - and they weigh a ton while doing it too! Ugh! 'orrible great anchors (whip them off  and feel the weight of the things if you haven't already to see what I mean here). You might get a few more measured ponies with the stockers (or Nikons) lower in the range, but in practice you wouldn't really notice the difference in use with better - higher revving - pipes as you will simply find that you use slightly higher revs to get the same power. And because you have a considerably extended range where it's producing increasing power it kind of feels as though you are pushing the motor less. Sounds odd, but that's certainly what I've found in practice. -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

martin77 martin77 Group: Members Posts: 453 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 13 2008,14:16 It's actually an interesting point about the stock silencers....whislt they are slightly 'restrictive' to gas flow, this actually helps at high rpm by keeping heat in the chamber. It's a complex issue I can't be arsed to go into, but if you fit Swarbrick cans I would expect it to accentuate the midrange and lose power at peak rpm. In other words, they look nicer (subjectively) weigh less and sound crisper, but won't really do much. As the others have said already... Back to top

wullie3XV9 Wullie3XV9 Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: June 2008 Posted: Oct. 13 2008,17:45 Hi Gents. Just got back in from a blast round the twistier local roads, ( had to be done, the sun came out & the roads were dry, Hoorah !! ),    Thanks for all your opinions on the Swarbrick cans, I want bother with them then. Warwick, I have had the standard chambers off, ( to flush them out with fuel ), so know how heavy they are.    And after my thrash around this after', I get your point about revs. Bog stock there's only a 2,500-3,000 power band to play with, but with decent porting & pipes, would increase it to 4,000- 4,500 ??, making it easier to keep it in the "fun-zone". Martin, looks like I'll be after a set of your chambers. Sorry to be giving you more work, but think of the money !!  You don't want Warwick giving you more grief about being a lazy git, do you ?                    Thanks again guys, regards, Wullie.   -------------- Just when I'm about to make ends meet, someone moves the ends !! Back to top

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 13 2008,17:59 just an update about the 80 sugo box, i think we can safely say its nothing to with the clocks i hooked up the sugo loom i have, and taped the cdi and sp tacho to the tank, performace wise no change Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 13 2008,19:42 Yeah, the sugo loom has no voodoo within. It's just a stripped down, minimalist race loom with the CDi conector etc. to the fore so that you can more easily locate the CDi up front rather than at the rear. I'm at a bit of a loss about what to suggest though as I didn't have any probs whatsoever with mine - It was just a case of plug and play, hence the suggestion about getting the bikes together so we could easily see if there were any differences and try the diff boxes on the diff bikes to see if the problem was with the box itself. The fact that it produces the expected curve with the -00 box though would suggest that there isn;t anything obviously amiss in the general set-up so I do wonder whether the problem is with the CDi itself. Seems really weird though that yourself and Mr. Stinkwheels are having effectively the same problem though... And for what it's worth my -80 box came from Tom too - a few years ago now, but he's always seemed really straight to me in the couple of deals I've done with him so I really find it very hard to imagine that he'd be punting out dodgy 're-badged' boxes . -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

martin77 martin77 Group: Members Posts: 453 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 13 2008,20:00 Quote (wullie3XV9 @ Oct. 13 2008,16:45)  You don't want Warwick giving you more grief about being a lazy git, do you ? I'm used to it by now...   OK wullie...I'll pencil your name down for a set, but don't hold your breath because they won't be ready for a while. (although I do have one set here ready to go if you want them?) You will need some silencers for my pipes, as I don't supply them. The swarbricks would be perfect... As for the cdi issue..my own thoughts are that Stinkwheel's cdi is definately a rebadged -10 (as demonstrated by the absolutely identical performance), and Daz's is a legit -80 (shown by the way the power comes in at 7500),  however prehaps not functioning correctly....possibly over advancing? (you're not running with an advancing flywheel key are you?) Maybe Wb could lend you his own 70 or 80 cdi as a test? Back to top

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 13 2008,21:05 [QUOTE]As for the cdi issue..my own thoughts are that Stinkwheel's cdi is definately a rebadged -10 (as demonstrated by the absolutely identical performance), and Daz's is a legit -80 (shown by the way the power comes in at 7500),  however prehaps not functioning correctly....possibly over advancing? (you're not running with an advancing flywheel key are you?) martin, i've been thinking along those lines, that maybe the flywheel aint the correct one? afaik the woodruff key is'nt stepped, but i remember i could'nt get my std woodruff key to fit in the sp crank, seemed tight?, so i put the one in that came with the crank, when i was rebuilding the engine. warwick might be able to put me straight on this one, later sp cranks are different to the earlier ones? are the later sp/spr flywheels different to the earlier ones? so maybe i have a later sp crank and flywheel, that wont work with the earlier 80 sugo box? i am also running the std 'r' stator plate, surely this should'nt be an issue as thats only for the charging system? before the last rebuild i was running the std 'r' crank and flywheel, and i was under the impression that the 80 box worked?? but i could be wrong Back to top

jools Group: Members Posts: 1221 Joined: Oct. 2005 Posted: Oct. 13 2008,21:50 There is a difference in the flywheels, Warwick will probably confirm that. Don't forget the Sugo loom has no provision for the air compensators solenoids so make sure they are gone and the carb stubs blanked off. -------------- "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about...." oscar Wilde Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 13 2008,22:49 That's why I wouldn't use the sugo loom with the set-up Daz is running myself. If you are running the 28's they work perfectly well all left as standard in terms of the carburation - even with the Sugo CDi. Capping off the air solenoids at the carb intake would mean having to start from scractch in terms of needles and needle jets/nozzles I expect, and Gawd alone knows where you'd get alternative sizes of the right types to fit the oem 3XV TM28s (on the SP carbs you have to run diff needles and 'primary' rather than 'bleeder' type needle jets/nozzles with the Sugo stuff - and they are murder to get hold of - another reason for sticking with the 28s on a hotted up 'R' road bike Id say)   Yes, there are different flywheels so maybe this is your problem? Do you have a '91 R flywheel you can fit? If so, slap it on. If not, I'll look around and see if I can find one for you. The R flywheel is about 80 grams heavier than a 91/92 SP jobbie, so there's not that much in it - and they can be skimmed quite effectively in any case if you want to lighten it. The flywheels have numbers on them. I can't remember off hand the number of the 91 R type that I use, but I can relatively easily check it for you if need be. the woodruff keys can be a little awkward to fit, but AFAIK there's no differnce in actual flywheel fitment (I've used 2 or 3 SP cranks that I don't even know what year they were from but have never had problems fitting early R flywheels). It should be feasible to send up my 70 or 80 box for testing I'd think, so mail me direct if you want to try that route (I'm behind with comm's having been a bit out of sorts, so forgive my slow response to your earlier mail), but in the meantime it might well be worth checking that the problem isn't a flywheel incompatibility issue - post up the number of the one you have fitted and i'll check against mine. Or check against your own if you have a 91 R 'wheel to hand. Certainly sounds like it could be a possible cause of yoru prob's with teh -80. I'm sure with the colective application of brain power (the best thing about these forums) well get it cracked... -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 13 2008,23:30 just to clarify that the only reason for trying the sugo loom was to eliminate any problems i may have been having with the clocks, etc, i will be reverting back to the std set-up, as riding around without lights aint good warwick, with the std r flywheel fitted i had a really bad misfire all the way through the rev range, it was almost impossible to ride, with the sp flywheel fitted, no misfire! i can try the std flywheel again tomorrow, but i won't hold my breath. you are aware that the pick-up strips on the r and the sp flywheels are different?  on the sp flywheel i have its much longer than the std r flywheel, which suggests  it fires differently. my std r fly wheel is LKZ19 and the sp LKZ24 maybe if i could get hold of an early sp flywheel that might do the biz? if i cant suss things out,  i will take you up warwick on that offer to borrow one of your sugo boxes, and your more than welcome to try my 80 box. cheers for all your input guys Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 13 2008,23:51 I think there are a range of different pick up lengths from diff years/ models in fact. I wonder which year SP flywheel you have there, Daz. Do you know? Or can anyone else confirm which model the LKZ24 is from (I'll try to check against my 91 SPs if I can, but one of them doesn't live here currently - and the other one is buried behind another couple of bikes at the back of the shed, so it may not be til the weekend - it might be that that one is the early SP flywheel? Dunno...) On the track bike (giving the dyno runs posted) I run an SP crank and a 91 R flywheel and it's always been no problem (no idea which year crank as it's a used one, but I've also used another SP crank in that motor too and similarly had none of the issues you describe - misfires or the problem with it not revving at the top, so all this is new to me I'm afraid).  I suspect the problem (if it does lie here) is with the flywheel rather than the crank itself though). I'll check the flywheel number of the one fitted tomorrow if I get home before dark (no leccy in the shed) and let you know. Could the misfire have been anything else do you think? -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 14 2008,00:12 i'm almost 100 percent sure the misfire was down to the flywheel, as i said i will try the std r tomorrow to confirm this. it had me stumped for a week or so, i had the carbs in bits several times, changed the reed stops back to std after fitting a spare set with the extra lift, tried different std cdi's, i tried everything. i'm not sure what year the crank and flywheel are as again they are used, infact, they are from china steve's old engine i'm thinking that the engine was a late model with the 3 holes to oil the middle main bearing? Back to top

jools Group: Members Posts: 1221 Joined: Oct. 2005 Posted: Oct. 14 2008,11:19 Quote (daz3xv @ Oct. 13 2008,23:12) i'm not sure what year the crank and flywheel are as again they are used, infact, they are from china steve's old engine i'm thinking that the engine was a late model with the 3 holes to oil the middle main bearing? 3 hole oiling for centre bearing is a mod and as far as I am aware was never available on the stock models. Flywheels are: (Model years may not be accurate) 3XV1  R    LKZ 19 1991 3XV2 SP   LKZ 14 1991 3XV4 R     LKZ 20 1992 3XV5 SP   LKZ 14 1992 3XV6 R     LKZ 20 1993 3XV7 SP   LKZ 14 1993 3XV8 RS   LKZ 20 1992 3XV9 RS   LKZ 20 1993 3XVA RS   LKZ 20 1994 3XVB SP   LKZ 14 1994 3XVC SPR LKZ 14 1995 -------------- "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about...." oscar Wilde Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 14 2008,11:29 Thanks for the overview list, Jools. V. useful. Sure yours is a -24, Daz? I guess it's possible that later cranks (which yours could possibly be?) have the keyway in a slightly diff position of course, but as I mentioned I've not had any problem running early R model flywheels on two different SP cranks - the origin of which I am uncertain of as they were both bought as 'used' and simply described as SP cranks - no year or model data. Stuff like this is really frustrating though isn't it, because just when you think you have a handle on these bikes you are presented with a new problem with a host of further unknown variables... All I can really say with any certainty is that the R 'wheel works fine with the two diff SP cranks I have run that set-up with. If you have the kit, you could perhaps try checking the general ignition timing. If it's out with the R flywheel (depending how far),  - or the SP one for that matter, it might be possible to correct it by adjustement to the pick-up plates or by using a stepped key? -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

Mr stinkwheels Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: May 2006 Posted: Oct. 14 2008,12:56 Been looking through the parts books, this is what I found. The Generator 1991 3XV-1 R     3XV-81410-00 1991 3XV-2 SP   3XV-81410-00 1992 3XV-4 R     3XV-81410-40       The 3XV-6,8,9,and A use this. 1992 3XV-5 SP   3XV-81410-00 1993 3XV-7 SP   3XV-81410-40 1994 3XV-B SP  3XV-81410-40 The rotor 1991 3XV-1 R     3XV-81450-00 1991 3XV-2 SP   3XV-81450-10 1992 3XV-4 R     3XV-81450-40       The 3XV-6, and 8 use this. The 9, and A use another different rotor ending -90 1992 3XV-5 SP   3XV-81450-10 1993 3XV-7 SP   3XV-81450-50 1994 3XV-B SP   3XV-81450-50 From what I can see in my parts books covering all models there are 6 different rotors and 3 different generators, the 3XV-C 1995 SPR triple valve, has a different type again to the ones I have listed. Interesting thing is the 91 R and SP and the 92 SP have the same generator, the R has a different rotor to both the SP. Hope this helps. Martin. Back to top

daz3xv Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: Feb. 2007 Posted: Oct. 14 2008,13:33 thanks for all the info jools and martin, but as you can see from the pic below this flywheel is clearly marked LKZ24 so, which year can this flywheel be from? maybe steve, (china racer) can shed some light on this issue? i,m taking the bike for a run with the std 'r' flywheel on later when the rain stops! Back to top

Mr stinkwheels Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: May 2006 Posted: Oct. 14 2008,15:17 I am guessing you have the rotor from the 1995 3XV-C SPR. I am waiting confirmation from a friend that has this model, and hopefully will find out tonight Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 14 2008,19:41 Daz, Just quick confirmation that it is an LKZ19 I'm using with my set-up. I'm guessing that Martin's hunch is correct and that you have a 94 SP or 95 on SPR flywheel (or perhaps the other wildcard identified in Martin's list? - I can't recall ever seeing an LKZ24 in any case. If it does turn out to be the 94 Sp or the SPR there may be a chance that the crank is from an SPR too, which IIRC has a different part no for the crank than all the other SPs a -12 suffix rather than a -10. No idea if this different number has any bearing on the position of the rotor key cut out though? Hopefully not or that complicates things yet further. Incidentally, Jools, have you checked what flywheel/crank you're running on that motor you are having the misfire problem with?  All of this is throwing up some useful new data and ideas even if it's not providing a quick and easy resolution to Daz's prob's unfortunately. -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

Warwickb Group: Members Posts: 1911 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: Oct. 14 2008,20:19 Just been doing a bit of poking through the parts books. The 94 SP 3XV-B has a diff part No for the woodruff key compared to the earlier models, which all share the same key part No' with the SPR.  Weird? But it might offer some insight into the key fitment problem you mentioned? That said, the 3XV-B crank is the same part no as the early SP Crank (3XV2, 5 & 7) so if it's a 3XVB crank at least we can assume that the crank itself isn't the problem... What's the differnce between the two keys you have? I'm assuming it must be height or something, as if the width were greater it'd require a wider cut out in the crank and thus would likely be that the crank was a diff part number?   Also, according to the parts books I have the SPR flywheel has the suffix -51 not -50 (which is the 3XV-B 94SP part)     Bloody 'ell, It's all a bit murky, innit? -------------- A garage overflowing with old stinkers... Back to top

jools Group: Members Posts: 1221 Joined: Oct. 2005 Posted: Oct. 14 2008,21:30 Quote (Warwickb @ Oct. 14 2008,18:41) Incidentally, Jools, have you checked what flywheel/crank you're running on that motor you are having the misfire problem with?  All of this is throwing up some useful new data and ideas even if it's not providing a quick and easy resolution to Daz's prob's unfortunately. I'm running a modified TZ rotor & stator, can't fit the TZR stator any longer as I had the mount boss machined down. The flywheel data was taken from the workshop manuals and there is always the chance that a later revision was fitted that would never have appeared in the data listing. the -50 / -51 differences are generally updates to the same part, could be hardness or anything and quite often they will supercede the other number and be compatible, where as if it where -50 / -60 this would signify an incompatible part. Some where I have a paper on how the part numbers are applied and what each number means. I will post it up here when I find it. -------------- "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about...." oscar Wilde Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ] Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >

TZR » Tech » 3XV » Dyno day!

© nobody in particular Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.2a © 2003 Ikonboard