Road Glide banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,058 Posts
Congrats and welcome to the 100club....Noice
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
Nice congrats on the results. Something is a little astray. Your horse power shows 100 in the box as a comparison, but in the actual graph it shows roughly 108, so you did much better than stated/shown
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,070 Posts
Nice congrats on the results. Something is a little astray. Your horse power shows 100 in the box as a comparison, but in the actual graph it shows roughly 108, so you did much better than stated/shown
The Hp numbers are the ones on the right. The numbers on the left are the Tq numbers. The one thing that is weird though is at the bottom, it shows the rpms but the Hp and Tq lines cross at 4125rpm instead of 5252. Must be how they formatted all the numbers on one sheet and it didn't come out to scale. Still a nice pull for a stage II. Congrats!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
RGKen,

Yup I should of paid more attention to the missing forced scaling numbers. Thanks for keeping me honest. :). Phones are handy, but not helpful or big enough with these old eyes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
I have just had a stage 2 fitted to my 2019 114 RGS and I have not matched these numbers so prone to call this BS

Of course you will say this cam is the reason, I had the HD torque cam fitted to keep my warranty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,376 Posts
yes I did do a few runs with the tuner hooked up to the bike
It would take more then a tune to make 89hp out of a stock 103. They just don't breath well enough.

If it really matters, then you might want to pull on another dyno. If not, then just enjoy it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,070 Posts
It would take more then a tune to make 89hp out of a stock 103. They just don't breath well enough.



If it really matters, then you might want to pull on another dyno. If not, then just enjoy it.


He never said it was stock before. It could have been a Stage I and that would make more sense. 89hp for a Stage I is still a little high but not that much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
That's right RGKEN it was a stage 1 before I put the cams in. It's all in the tune my friend! A good tune makes a world of difference
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,070 Posts
That's right RGKEN it was a stage 1 before I put the cams in. It's all in the tune my friend! A good tune makes a world of difference
Yes it is but a good tune is still relative to the dyno and conditions. Even with the best possible tune for a stage I 89hp is higher than what you typically see on most dyno's. That is why @Thermodyne said you could do a pull on a different dyno to see how different the peak number might be. In the end it is the percentage of overall increase you get from your upgrades and not really about the peak numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,376 Posts
That's right RGKEN it was a stage 1 before I put the cams in. It's all in the tune my friend! A good tune makes a world of difference
There ain't that much tune in the world, not even if you loaded it up on polyfuel.

I'm going to call bullshit on the sheet.

The first pull is 100 pounds foot at about 3600rpm. That's 68.5 HP. Correct for a 103 with cans and a breather.

The second pull is 108 pounds foot and about 3750rpm. Which is 77.1 HP. Way low for those cams.

With a good tune and a decent pipe and cans that 103 should make close to 100HP with those cams. So the end result printed on the face of the sheet is what it should be, it just isn't reported properly on the graph.

But the first pull is reporting HP way high for a stage 1 103.

This is what it should look like.



I have no idea as to whats up with that dyno. But based on where the rpm and torque meet, its calibrated wrong or using some non standard formula to calculate HP. Remember, the dyno only measures torque. The HP is calculated with a formula that is subject to user control. I would get a pull on another dyno.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top