SpeedTherapy
Thanks Dood... this build is just about breaking me...
SpeedTherapy
Guess the BHP
Hi Guys
Saw an interesting post a month or two ago on guessing the rear wheel bhp.
Thought it'd be interesting to get some experienced guesses on the SP3...
This is what it is:
1992 SP3 with 16k miles on it.
Engine rebuild with just mild cleaning up on the head and reliability, reliability, reliability. 0.95 squish. Balanced crank and vernier pullies for the cam setup. Standard pipes (new link and carbon cans are same size/dimensions as original so shouldn't make any difference. Custom open air-area.
On Friday she'll get the P8 ECU plugged in and setup on the dyno with a 916 chip.
She's basically somewhere between a standard and superstock tune. Nothing fancy here. 😎
Any guesses on the rwhp 😳
Hint: in 2001 when she was imported, she was making 106bhp at the rear wheel. I'll be happy with 106bhp 😁
Pompey
Looser engine, p8 ecu, cleaned head ... 109 bhp?
brad black
the later ss and monster use a large washer/plate under the lower steering head bearing to shield them, which is a good idea as it stops crap being thrown up from the front wheel going into the bearings. 85210961A.
the 916 eprom will be very different in terms of spark map (lots less part throttle and less wot adv) and the fuel mapping will be quite a bit different profile wise. and it will be quite lean given the smaller injectors the sp have (if it is still running reds). how is it being tuned?
Mr.R
You can now buy taper rollers for the steering head with a plate that has a rubber seal on it, now they do keep the crap out.
I'd be very disappointed if a fresh, blueprinted (Squish set, cams properly timed etc) and mapped motor only made 106 rwbhp. My guess would be around 114-116 rwbhp, providing it gets enough fuel.
Why are you using a 916 chip, are you not telling us something here?
At 22 years old I'd be looking to change the oil and re-gassing the shock at least.
Steve R
P.S. The SP3 was a '91 model, '92 model(s) was the SP4 and SP(4)S.
Pompey
Engine isn't blue printed is it? Maybe it will hit between but as the exhausts and intake have not been altered would there be much difference? But if I had to put money on it I would go with your knowledge!😁
griff851
I'm going long again at 124 again. For the same reason as last time.😄
griff851
And just for laughs, I got one on the go and should be finished on the dyno in a week or two.
851 with 888 bore , possably high comp pistons (wont know until I see the compression figures after the cam fit is finished) ,dialed in st4s cams and exh(ceramic coated), and mit power comander. Previous format 95hp. As its a sweepstake only one figure allowed and it must have a decimal place. 😄 the winner gets a chocolate frog. Bob has already told me what he reckons so I can't use his number, nor can I disclose it. But as I'm tuneing I'm going .5 above his best guess. Or 124hp. 😄
brad black
if it were on the same dyno it was on years ago, and if the dyno roller is still in the same condition, i'd say 109 or so. mainly due to the squish change. it hasn't had any port work I take it?
Mr.R
brad black wroteif it were on the same dyno it was on years ago, and if the dyno roller is still in the same condition, i'd say 109 or so. mainly due to the squish change. it hasn't had any port work I take it?
I don't think it's had any port work Brad but...
It has had the cams dialed into what they should have been in the 1st place, (or somewhere the builder thinks is better?) crank, rods, pistons balanced, squish set at sub 1mm, heads decoked, valves lapped and shimmed to better than "as left the factory" etc.
SP2, 3 and 4's with standard 33/29mm valved heads are capable of making 114-116 rwbhp without any port boring or gas flowing, with a good map/dyno set up.
109 rwbhp is pretty poor for a 888cc SP IMHO.
Steve R
brad black
I can only comment on the 3 that I have dynod. on the previous dynojet I was using, two made 103 and 106. quite low km sp3 and sp4 with cam timing changed, but otherwise unopened. on the later dynojet I now use, which reads lower, 1 made 97, a touch less than the couple of 853'd 748 I've done recently.
I don't believe they are a powerful engine at all, i'd say a well built and (in particular) exhausted 888 strada can make as much peak and with more area under the curve in the midrange. as mine did, it made 104 on the same dyno as the first two. put 748 heads on your 888 strada and i'm sure it'd make more.
but, that is just my experience with the model. other experience may vary.
SpeedTherapy
Hi Steve
I'm learning about these bikes... so don't know the trick with the 916 chip... all I know is that its a programmable FIM one and my engine man is going to plug it into a yellow box with a digital screen and buttons on it to set it up.
Will get the shocker and forks back from a service/respring/setup today 😄
My import papers say that the approximate year of manufacture is 1992... that's why I have it down as a '92. The Classic TT rules are based on year of manufacture rather than year of homologation.
Ciao
Paul
brad black
it's a 1991 year model bike, so would have been built between 09/90 and 08/91.
Mr.R
Hi Paul,
The SP3's were sold to the public/hit the shops in '91, they were probably made in late '90.
If you look at the casting dating marks on the top of the heads, I'll lay good money that they say late '90.
The '91 Strada heads I have are marked like this.
Brad,
Steve Hillary who's doing the engine build and mapping, mapped my '92 851/916cc motor using a FIM chip when I 1st built the motor several years ago now, it made 110 rwbhp on the dyno he used.
I asked him how it compared to the 888 SP's that he'd done?
His answer was a good one makes around 114 rwbhp. (I suppose I should declare inside info' in the guess my power game here?)
I wasn't happy with the results and told him, he said bring it back and he'd have another go and try to correct the parts I didn't like, it was waaay to lean low down with a hair trigger delivery that was so abrupt it upset the handling exiting corners.
Any way it was a 400+ mile round trip to his shop, to save me another day off work and the trip I got hold of a PC3 usb and a baseline chip from John Hackett.
Took it along to a local dyno where it made 111 rwbhp on the 1st run and finally 116 rwbhp with more torque everywhere after mapping, the delivery was now smooth, controllable and the bike was noticeably faster.
A few years down the line I tuned/developed the motor a bit further, this time I took it up to Chris Steedman (300 mile round trip) who created a complete map (without using the PC3) for it.
Of all the people/chips/maps/systems I've used Chris aka CJS provided the best results by far...
Which is why I recommended that Paul take his finished motor/bike along to him earlier in this thread.
This was before Paul posted who his "engine man" was.
I still stand by that recommendation, Chris's service is worth the trip and every penny that he charges.
edit...Paul's bike is also now fitted with a Corse airbox and "X" shaped air runners, I still run a small 851 airbox with the top removed and free flowing ITG foam filter.
Steve R
griff851
Ah the dyno scores. So many variables yet so important to quote. All ways with the big numbers. All I can conclude is that UK dyno's look like they give 10% higher readings. And as the air is generally colder and wetter, that doesn't surprise me. Also that by pissing around one day Steve found 5HP.
I can bet my left testicle that if I dyno a bike here in Brisbane, then shot off to Melbourne (2000km) the dyno results will be different, let alone the other side of the planet. So 116=103. It works for me.
As for the FIM/ Hackett bit, lets not get too carried away, as there is a cloud of doubt hanging around about where John got his maps from and why all of sudden FIM chips had extra security devices fitted.
Ps I've used Brads suggestions and my bike's got raw aggressive grunt compared to the pussy standard format.
mikesps
Any dyno figures should be corrected to one if several standards. These take into account environmental factors air temp, pressure and humidity and correct power figures to a reading that would occur in a standard environment. That means that you should be able to compare bikes run on dynos round the world provided you are comparing corrected values. Dynojet prinouts usually show the correction factor CF= x.xx and the various parameters at the time which resulted in that factor.
The various correction factors are different, so give different results fir the same run. SAE and STD (or STP) use different standard temps and pressures and apply a mechanical efficiency factor of 85%. DIN uses different standards again, and dies not correct for mechanical efficiency.
It may be that the correction factor in the UK is different to what is used in Australia.
Mike
SpeedTherapy
Mr.R wroteI still stand by that recommendation, Chris's service is worth the trip and every penny that he charges.
edit...Paul's bike is also now fitted with a Corse airbox and "X" shaped air runners, I still run a small 851 airbox with the top removed and free flowing ITG foam filter.
Steve is doing a bit of sponsorship for me (and is a mate) 😄
"Corse airbox" - lol... more like a home-brew experiment 😉
I'll have a look if I can see date stamps on the heads... good to know it's earlier than '92. I guess being #507 it was 1991.
Ciao
Paul
SpeedTherapy
mikesps wroteAny dyno figures should be corrected to one if several standards. These take into account environmental factors air temp, pressure and humidity and correct power figures to a reading that would occur in a standard environment. That means that you should be able to compare bikes run on dynos round the world provided you are comparing corrected values. Dynojet prinouts usually show the correction factor CF= x.xx and the various parameters at the time which resulted in that factor.
The various correction factors are different, so give different results fir the same run. SAE and STD (or STP) use different standard temps and pressures and apply a mechanical efficiency factor of 85%. DIN uses different standards again, and dies not correct for mechanical efficiency.
It may be that the correction factor in the UK is different to what is used in Australia.
Mike
Yep... dyno numbers are a bit of a minefield... What's more important is how it goes and feels on the track/road. But the numbers can be fun and are a great topic of conversation!
😯
I like looking at the curves... being a twin devotee... I like a consistent, fat middle with a long peak 😎
Mr.R
The dyno is a very good tool/almost a short cut for setting up the fueling/ignition on a bike.
It can (and does) save you hours of trial and error at the track/on the road.
It's also a very good way of seeing how your tuning/project has progressed, as in has it improved or got worse.
Dyno figures can also be used as a willy waving tool in the bar bragging stakes, but those who do this have missed the point and most likely haven't a clue what they talking about in the 1st place.
Paul,
As a devotee of twins looking for/liking a fat middle range and a loooong peak...
You're barking at the wrong tree mate starting with a 888 SP, they're gutless below 7K IME.
I saw the parts supplied to you by Pete/SP2boy/Oro Nero earlier in this thread and the carbon 3 piece airbox and "X" shaped air runners are copies of Pukka Corse parts chap.
Here's another thought (I might be completely wrong here? but I smell a rat...) your motors been apart before (early SP's were prone to cracking crank cases and snapping cranks if used in anger) we could all see that because of the Corse roller main bearings, now Steve Hillary has decided to use a 916 FIM chip, are you sure your 888 still has a 64mm stroke crank and 94mm bore for 888cc's?
Since the 1st rule of racing is "Never fall behind on your cheating" and the 2nd is "Never get caught".
Feel free to PM me your answer, I'll keep it to myself chap. 😏
Steve R
SpeedTherapy
Mr.R wroteAs a devotee of twins looking for/liking a fat middle range and a loooong peak...
You're barking at the wrong tree mate starting with a 888 SP, they're gutless below 7K IME.
On road tests, I wouldn't say gutless. Compared to a 996 it may be a bit down in the middle... but compared to an inline 4... different story. That's the basis of my comparison.
Mr.R wroteI saw the parts supplied to you by Pete/SP2boy/Oro Nero earlier in this thread and the carbon 3 piece airbox and "X" shaped air runners are copies of Pukka Corse parts chap.
Yes, "X" runner is a work of art and pure Corse. I landed up making my own 'air-box' so that the HRC air 'filters' would fit. That's the home-brew part I'm referring to. I have had mixed reaction to whether it'll work. I'm quietly confident.
Mr.R wroteHere's another thought (I might be completely wrong here? but I smell a rat...) your motors been apart before (early SP's were prone to cracking crank cases and snapping cranks if used in anger) we could all see that because of the Corse roller main bearings, now Steve Hillary has decided to use a 916 FIM chip, are you sure your 888 still has a 64mm stroke crank and 94mm bore for 888cc's?
Since the 1st rule of racing is "Never fall behind on your cheating" and the 2nd is "Never get caught".
Feel free to PM me your answer, I'll keep it to myself chap. 😏
Steve R
😁 - I'm pretty sure it's a 888. Steve would have known if it weren't. Don't why he's using a 916 chip... every tuner has his tricks I guess. 😎
Regards to bigger capacity and cheating... in the rules, if it was being done in 1992, you can do it. So stroked and/or big bores are allowed. Maximum is 1000cc.
