Banks PowerPack for 97 Ford 460 Motorhomes?
Merlin Hatch
on the Ford 460 engine.
wi...@epix.net
In Article<6tpgqc$h...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
<merlin...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Any positive or negative feedback on installing the Banks PowerPack
>system on the Ford 460 engine.
This issue has been done to death. If you want a few hours'
entertainment, review posts from a year back.
The consensus seems to be that the Ford 460 WILL realize some
perceptible improvement in power but not in mileage, contrary to ad
hype. There are other suppliers of aftermarket pipes that don't cost
as much that will do as well.
Most other engines in current/recent production will NOT realize
significant gains.
Will KD3XR
Dick Campagna
improved the power, but his fuel mileage was reduced . . . probably 'cause
his right foot became "heavier" <G>.
--
Dick (& Geri) Campagna, Mt Laurel NJ mailto:camp...@nothinbut.net
25' Shadow Cruiser 5W & Dodge Ram ("SLOLANE")
RV Club (RV-CHAR-00226); SKP; GS Club (Life); RVCG; CW Pres Club
ICQ 5620040 "Life in the Slow Lane" RVing since Expo '67!
'95 Ram 1500/CC/SB/5.9gas/auto/3.5/RhinoLiner/5W hitch, etc.
Gary - KJ6Q
while at the SAME time, we *magically* also increase fuel mileage....
Ain't NO such thing as a free lunch...
--
Gary - KJ6Q
====================
The fable,"The grasshopper & the ant", reveals the
existance of socialist attitudes - even in Greek times...
"Play today - live off your neighbor tomorrow..."
Bricknan wrote in message
<19980923205446...@ng100.aol.com>...
>
>I put a Banks system on my 97 Ford this summer. It works great ,much
>improvement in hill climbing, pick-up and overal performance. Have not
noticed
>any improvement in gas milage. I think we hear more noise then before
but not
>bad. Very glad i spent the money as it is much more enjoyable to
drive.
>Ralph
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>ford
Bricknan
wi...@epix.net
> We need to find a way to kill the notion that *power* can be
> increased, while at the SAME time, we *magically* also increase fuel
> mileage....
Dream on, Gary. P T Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every
minute, and firms like J C Whitney, Camping World, etc are getting
rich proving it.
Look at the bright side. These people are a wonderful boon to the
economy, keeping money in circulation. Just think of all the families
that depend on paychecks from Banks Engineering, K&N, and thousands of
other firms selling "performance" sizzle!!
Will KD3XR
John J. Stafford
> We need to find a way to kill the notion that *power* can be
> increased, while at the SAME time, we *magically* also increase fuel
> mileage....
But at the same time, let's not generalize and say that
a larger, more powerful engine cannot get better gas
mileage than a smaller engine - for our purposes. Look
at Will's Cummins, for example. Or my '56 Harley Davidson
which gets over 50mph with a 74" engine while my BMW
61" engine gets 24!
Gilbert Blevins
increase the available power, and at the same time allow an increase in
mpg,(if you can keep your foot out it). I have a '97 F 250 4x4 460
auto.that in stock trim got 5mpg pulling a 35'Alfa, and got a whopping 7mpg
on it's own. With the addition of the complete Banks power pack and trans
command unit it now gets 7mpg pulling and 10 empty. There was a definite
seat of the pants increase in off the line performance. Sorry I did not
take any before and after speed test.
wi...@epix.net
In Article<stafford-240...@jstafford.winona.msus.edu>,
<staf...@wind.winona.msus.edu> writes:
> . . . my '56 Harley Davidson which gets over 50mph with a 74" engine
> while my BMW 61" engine gets 24!
Hey, my neighbor can do 70mph with his stock AMC Gremlin!
8-)
Will KD3XR
Gary - KJ6Q
Gerald Schmitt wrote in message <6uer13$a...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <6uc8fg$q...@enews4.newsguy.com> "Gary - KJ6Q" <davi...@gte.net>
>writes:
>>
>>We need to find a way to kill the notion that *power* can be
>increased,
>>while at the SAME time, we *magically* also increase fuel mileage....
>>
>>
>>--
>
>reap benifits both in power and mileage with and increase in efficiency
Wouldn't BEGIN to challenge what can be done in theory -- only what usually
occurs in the REAL world!
>but Not being interested in being flamed and insulted by the ignorant
>I gave it up. It isn't magic Gary it simply retuning the engine to
>better suit the application.
<SNIP>
I am very well aware of the theory that improved efficiency and better
designing of engines and their components have the *POTENTIAL* of reducing
fuel consumption, OR improving performance... BUT any here who would propose
that BOTH will occur at the same time with any of the popular add-ons
currently available are most likely deluding themselves!
I am quite familiar with the Banks stuff, as it applies to the Cummins and
Ford diesels - and can personally testify that their stuff DOES deliver
great performance gains, since I have it installed on my own '91
Dodge/Cummins... BUT, I can ALSO assure all reading this, that I can't say
my fuel consumption has improved a bit, under ANY driving conditions! I
really doubt my experience is unique - and have seen MANY posts like the
fellow I was commenting to in this thread, who apparently shares my own
experience.
I am content that I got a significant portion of the increased performance
Banks promised, and am happy to just leave it at that...
Gary - KJ6Q
Gary - KJ6Q
Bored wrote in message <01bde83b$c5683fa0$45c6...@GGSToshiba.lanl.gov>...
>>
>> Wouldn't BEGIN to challenge what can be done in theory -- only what
>usually
>> occurs in the REAL world!
>>
>On this point you may be correct since the new found power can be quite
>narcotic. But if drive much the same as you did before the modifications
>you
>can easily see both improved performance and economy.
Just not at the same time...
>But you had to get the free lunch comment in, some people may get fuel
>savings, just because you didn't does not make it impossible. I'll leave it
>
>at that...
>
> Jerry
>
(yawn) Ace, I couldn't care LESS what you, or other miracle seekers think -
and am quite willing to let you win - I strongly recommend that all who want
20% more power AND economy to rush right out and buy their chosen
miracle-working apparatus... Then the rest of us can merely wait to hear the
reports of leaping tall mountains in a single bound - and having to add fuel
only to prevent the old stuff in the tank from going stale...
I surrender...
>>
>> Gary - KJ6Q
>>
>>
>>
Gerald Schmitt
Gerald Schmitt
writes:
>
>We need to find a way to kill the notion that *power* can be
increased,
>while at the SAME time, we *magically* also increase fuel mileage....
>
>Ain't NO such thing as a free lunch...
>
>--
>====================
>The fable,"The grasshopper & the ant", reveals the
>existance of socialist attitudes - even in Greek times...
>"Play today - live off your neighbor tomorrow..."
Gary are Will's straight man? I once tried to explain how you could
reap benifits both in power and mileage with and increase in efficiency
but Not being interested in being flamed and insulted by the ignorant
I gave it up. It isn't magic Gary it simply retuning the engine to
better suit the application. Most owner don't realize fuel savings
because they fall in love with increased performance. It isn't a free
lunch it's reducing the food (fuel) wasted.
Perhaps an example you can relate to. You have a shortened 1/2 wave
dipole which is fed with a tuner, the tuner gets warm.
I have a resonant dipole with no tuner. We both have the same output
and 1-1 SWR at the tranmitter.
Who is putting out more signal?
If effect a properly tuned intake/exhaust system is much like a
resonant antenna. Since you change engine speed the system will be
benifit from being "broad banded" rather than high "Q". Thus RV systems
are not designed for peak horsepower but increased broadened torque
curves. This is rather obvious if you look at the size tubing used as
well as the length of the individual tubes. People who yell about
"valve float and screaming RPMs" apparently have not figured this out.
Most of the design characteristics of found in the Banks system I
looked at remind me alot things I saw when I worked for a heavy
equipment manufacturer. Not suprising since pulling a heavy RV is much
the same as moving freight or dirt.
A little free food for thought consider it lunch,
Jerry
>Bricknan wrote in message
><19980923205446...@ng100.aol.com>...
>>
>>I put a Banks system on my 97 Ford this summer. It works great ,much
>>improvement in hill climbing, pick-up and overal performance. Have
not
>noticed
>>any improvement in gas milage. I think we hear more noise then
before
>but not
>>bad. Very glad i spent the money as it is much more enjoyable to
>drive.
>>Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>ford
>
Bored
Gary - KJ6Q <davi...@gte.net> wrote in article
<6uetd7$l...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>
> Gerald Schmitt wrote in message <6uer13$a...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
> >In <6uc8fg$q...@enews4.newsguy.com> "Gary - KJ6Q" <davi...@gte.net>
> >writes:
> >>
> >>We need to find a way to kill the notion that *power* can be
> >increased,
> >>while at the SAME time, we *magically* also increase fuel mileage....
> >>
> >>Ain't NO such thing as a free lunch...
> >>
> >>--
> >
> >Gary are Will's straight man? I once tried to explain how you could
> >reap benifits both in power and mileage with and increase in efficiency
>
> Wouldn't BEGIN to challenge what can be done in theory -- only what
usually
> occurs in the REAL world!
>
On this point you may be correct since the new found power can be quite
narcotic. But if drive much the same as you did before the modifications
you
can easily see both improved performance and economy. If the engine is
running more efficiently and producing more power you do less lugging less
down shifting and less acceleration back up to cruise after a grade.
>
> >but Not being interested in being flamed and insulted by the ignorant
> >I gave it up. It isn't magic Gary it simply retuning the engine to
> >better suit the application.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> I am very well aware of the theory that improved efficiency and better
> designing of engines and their components have the *POTENTIAL* of
reducing
> fuel consumption, OR improving performance... BUT any here who would
propose
> that BOTH will occur at the same time with any of the popular add-ons
> currently available are most likely deluding themselves!
>
Since you admit one OR the other is possible then why pray tell is a mix
of
both not possible. Agreed you will not maximize performance and mileage
at the same time but you certainly can have a bit of both.
> I am quite familiar with the Banks stuff, as it applies to the Cummins
and
> Ford diesels - and can personally testify that their stuff DOES deliver
> great performance gains, since I have it installed on my own '91
> Dodge/Cummins...
Here is becomes clear why you have not seen fuel usage go down you have
opted for "great performance" A fellow posted some time ago that in his
experience
over a long familiar route he did less down shifting maintained a higher
speed
on grades AND improved fuel economy.
>BUT, I can ALSO assure all reading this, that I can't say
> my fuel consumption has improved a bit, under ANY driving conditions! I
> really doubt my experience is unique - and have seen MANY posts like the
> fellow I was commenting to in this thread, who apparently shares my own
> experience.
>
Some do better some do not. When I dyno tuned my old 73 Chevy 4X4
years ago I not only got much better performance(and HP) measured
on the chassis dyno but also 3 MPG on average. Some of that was headers
some recurving the distributor and some fuel mixture. Todays vehicles are
better out of the factory so I wouldn't expect to do as well now.
> I am content that I got a significant portion of the increased
performance
> Banks promised, and am happy to just leave it at that...
But you had to get the free lunch comment in, some people may get fuel
savings, just because you didn't does not make it impossible. I'll leave it
at that...
Jerry
>
> Gary - KJ6Q
>
>
>
wi...@epix.net
In Article<360AF0E4...@ix.netcom.com>, <GBle...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
> It is possible to increase both [power and economy] to a limited
> degree. Free breathing will increase the available power, and at the
> same time allow an increase in mpg, (if you can keep your foot out
> it)
There's an old Jewish proverb that sez half a truth is a lie.
It is certainly true that some aftermarket modifications will
(depending on the engine & application details) allow for better
economy OR better power. BUT NOT BOTH. You can indeed, as he says,
increase AVAILABLE power, but if you use it you consume more, not
less, fuel.
Also, IMO the dramatic improvement implied by this author's numbers is
simply not possible as a result of efficiency improvement UNLESS the
rig had serious problems before the shiny pipes were added. He writes
that he has more perceived power and reports:
> I have a '97 F 250 4x4 460 auto.that in stock trim got 5mpg pulling
> a 35'Alfa, and got a whopping 7mpg on it's own. With the addition of
> the complete Banks power pack and trans command unit it now gets
> 7mpg pulling and 10 empty.
He adds:
> Sorry I did not take any before and after speed test.
I am sure this party is reporting what he believes is the truth, but I
don't buy it. I have commented many times that these testimonials
need to be taken with a generous helping of salt! Why? Not because
the party is being deliberately deceptive, but because he does not
realize that his measurement methods are inaccurate. Most people
don't realize, for example, that speed alone makes a HUGE difference
in fuel consumption. And there are at LEAST a dozen other variables
that, if not monitored and taken into account, can skew the results.
I have a brother-in-law who sincerely believes that his 34' Winnebago
with a 454 Chevy consistently gives him 10 mpg. I don't doubt for a
moment that he thinks he's being honest, but the number makes no sense
whatever in the context of where and how he drives. What's he's done
is to check it a couple of times. Who knows whether he got a complete
fill, whether his odometer is anywhere near accurate, what the wind
was that day, etc, etc ???
Make no mistake: Banks has some good quality products. And some
engines in some applications will run better with them. But you will
NOT get 42.8% better fuel mileage unless all your driving is downhill.
Will KD3XR
wi...@epix.net
The ever courteous & professional (!) Gerald Schmidt
<kc5...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> I once tried to explain how you could reap benifits both in power
> and mileage with and increase in efficiency but Not being interested
> in being flamed and insulted by the ignorant I gave it up.
Does this mean the author approached the big 3 with his ideas and was
rebuffed by the engineering staffs?
Sez he:
> It isn't magic Gary it simply retuning the engine to better suit the
> application. Most owner don't realize fuel savings because they fall
> in love with increased performance. It isn't a free lunch it's
> reducing the food (fuel) wasted.
The concept of reducing the amount of wasted fuel is certainly valid,
and if you REALLY fine tune an engine you can in fact get small
increments of both power and economy improvement. BUT -- even with
the most PRECISE tuning, the improvements will be a tiny fraction of
what is advertised by unscrupulous peddlers, and claimed by gullible
buyers. And you CANNOT get any large changes by bolting on
aftermarket parts unless you ALSO make fundamental changes to the
entire induction and exhaust system, including mixture control, cam
profile, etc etc.
As I have noted many times, you can get enormous amounts of horsepower
out of an engine if you don't care how much it costs, how long it
lasts, or how much fuel it burns. Watch a NASCAR race, and track how
many engines blow in the course of an event, and note the calculations
the crew chiefs make on how many more laps they can make under the
green if they get a few laps of yellow.
This is not rocket science, Gerald. . . if you pay enough money you
can beat me to the top of Monarch pass.
He makes a radio example which proves my point:
> Perhaps an example you can relate to. You have a shortened 1/2 wave
> dipole which is fed with a tuner, the tuner gets warm.
>
> I have a resonant dipole with no tuner. We both have the same output
> and 1-1 SWR at the tranmitter.
>
> Who is putting out more signal?
The difference is there, but it is almost inaudible in the real world.
(And BTW of you are REALLY getting 1:1 SWR, bless you!)
Which is the objection knowledgeable people have to exaggerated
claims about aftermarket stuff. There is a huge difference between
what's promised and what's delivered. The bottom line is that if you
are planning to buy a set of shiny pipes to save money, don't.
Will KD3XR
Donald J Dickson
<> In Article<360AF0E4...@ix.netcom.com>, <GBle...@ix.netcom.com>
<> writes:
<>
<> > It is possible to increase both [power and economy] to a limited
<> > degree. Free breathing will increase the available power, and at the
<> > same time allow an increase in mpg, (if you can keep your foot out
<> > it)
<>
<> There's an old Jewish proverb that sez half a truth is a lie.
<>
<> It is certainly true that some aftermarket modifications will
<> (depending on the engine & application details) allow for better
<> economy OR better power. BUT NOT BOTH. You can indeed, as he says,
<> increase AVAILABLE power, but if you use it you consume more, not
<> less, fuel.
<>
I really don't know why Banks is just fooling around with automotive
aftermarket products. We should have them running the termal/electric
generating stations in North America. The amount of coal/oil/natural gas
consumed would decrease dramatically and the amount of electricity
produced would probably double. This is a real win-win situation.
Pollution from generating plants is reduced and electricity would be so
cheap we could all drive electric cars and RV's and really screw those bad
old oil companies.
;-)
--
Don Dickson
Remove first "x" from xcx666 when replying by e-mail.
R & A
wi...@epix.net wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>The ever courteous & professional (!) Gerald Schmidt
><kc5...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>> I once tried to explain how you could reap benifits both in power
>> and mileage with and increase in efficiency but Not being interested
>> in being flamed and insulted by the ignorant I gave it up.
>
>Does this mean the author approached the big 3 with his ideas and was
>rebuffed by the engineering staffs?
<snip>
>The concept of reducing the amount of wasted fuel is certainly valid,
>and if you REALLY fine tune an engine you can in fact get small
>increments of both power and economy improvement. BUT -- even with
>the most PRECISE tuning, the improvements will be a tiny fraction of
>what is advertised by unscrupulous peddlers, and claimed by gullible
>buyers. And you CANNOT get any large changes by bolting on
>aftermarket parts unless you ALSO make fundamental changes to the
>entire induction and exhaust system, including mixture control, cam
>profile, etc etc.
>
>As I have noted many times, you can get enormous amounts of horsepower
>out of an engine if you don't care how much it costs, how long it
>lasts, or how much fuel it burns. Watch a NASCAR race, and track how
>many engines blow in the course of an event, and note the calculations
>the crew chiefs make on how many more laps they can make under the
>green if they get a few laps of yellow.
>
<snip>
>Which is the objection knowledgeable people have to exaggerated
>claims about aftermarket stuff. There is a huge difference between
>what's promised and what's delivered. The bottom line is that if you
>are planning to buy a set of shiny pipes to save money, don't.
>
>Will KD3XR
>
>
I'm not one to dispute "facts", Will, but I do have a question for you.
I've got a 79 Harley Super Glide. When the bike was stock (80 cu. in.), I
was developing 52 horsepower (on the dyno). I was also getting 34 - 36 MPG
(with my wife on the back).
Since that time, I've increased the displacement to 88 cubic inches, put
dual plugs in each cylinder, and added straight pipes. Sure, they're loud,
but the engine does breathe better at higher RPM ranges.
Now, my horsepower is 72 with 72 foot-pounds of torque (on the dyno), my
fuel mileage has increased to 51 MPG (a significant gain and my wife is
still on the back).
So, I guess you could say that I've added hotter ignition and shiny smoke
pipes. I've gained horsepower and economy both while improving performance
considerably. Wouldn't the same basics apply to any engine?
Ram
wi...@epix.net
In Article<OuEUb3I69GA.398@upnetnews03>, <rama...@email.msn.com>
writes (most of story intact):
> I'm not one to dispute "facts", Will, but I do have a question for
> you. I've got a 79 Harley Super Glide. When the bike was stock (80
> cu. in.), I was developing 52 horsepower (on the dyno). I was also
> getting 34 - 36 MPG (with my wife on the back).
>
> Since that time, I've increased the displacement to 88 cubic inches,
> put dual plugs in each cylinder, and added straight pipes. <snip>
> Now, my horsepower is 72 with 72 foot-pounds of torque (on the
> dyno)
('scuse the interruption, but the new power figure is at a
higher rpm, right?)
> . . . my fuel mileage has increased to 51 MPG (a significant gain
> and my wife is still on the back).
>
> So, I guess you could say that I've added hotter ignition and shiny
> smoke pipes. I've gained horsepower and economy both while
> improving performance considerably. Wouldn't the same basics apply
> to any engine?
This is a case of apples and oranges, so it would NOT apply to any
engine. But you raise an EXCELLENT question which beautifully
illustrates the tradeoffs. You have proved that the mods gave you
more horsepower, and you have also proved that you get better economy.
(forgive me if I am a little dubious about the reported EXTENT of the
improvement). But what you've not proved is that you get them at the
same time!
Did yer Hawg stay with the traffic before the changes? Were you able
to maintain legal speeds everywhere you went? The answer is obvious:
yes. Do you now travel a lot faster than the traffic and exceed the
speed limits habitually?? I think not.
What has happened here is that you've taken a bike that was fully
competent 99% of the time, and you've improved it's efficiency and
power capability. But you are USING that power only 1% of the time -
or less --- otherwise you'd be in jail or dead!
People spend money to modify motorhomes in order to stay with the
traffic, and when they DO boogie up the Grapevine at 65 they are
suckin' fuel big time. You don't go up any faster than you ever did,
else the CHP would have you for lunch - but the changes have improved
engine breathing so you burn less fuel for the same speeds you ran
before. You use that extra punch rarely - an RV will use it
frequently. Thus the reports about not saving fuel!
Will KD3XR
Gary - KJ6Q
wi...@epix.net wrote in message ...
>
>In Article<360AF0E4...@ix.netcom.com>, <GBle...@ix.netcom.com>
>writes:
>
>> It is possible to increase both [power and economy] to a limited
>> degree. Free breathing will increase the available power, and at the
>> same time allow an increase in mpg, (if you can keep your foot out
>> it)
I believe that has been my clear observation as well - but with the clear
proposal that MOST making these mods USE the new power levels - which
negates any mileage increases. But why buy a system whose greatest promoted
feature is POWER increases - only to continue to "keep your foot out of it"?
>
>There's an old Jewish proverb that sez half a truth is a lie.
>
>It is certainly true that some aftermarket modifications will
>(depending on the engine & application details) allow for better
>economy OR better power. BUT NOT BOTH. You can indeed, as he says,
>increase AVAILABLE power, but if you use it you consume more, not
>less, fuel.
Which has STEADILY been MY observation!
It gets REAL irritating when folks seem so determined to
misrepresent/misinterpret what their chosen opponent is clearly attempting
to point out. The first thing required after installing the Banks mods, is
to open up the injector pump settings in order to permit MORE fuel
delivery - WHY is that necessary, if REDUCED fuel consumption is a main
promise/goal of that modification? Even in gas engines, prior to
computerized fuel management, it was often required to go one or two
settings larger on carb jetting to prevent lean burn that might damage
pistons. If the primary function of these mods is to REDUCE fuel
consumption, WHY the need to provide MORE fuel delivery? The answer is
simple - it requires MORE fuel delivery to realize the power gains that are
the REAL reason for those mods for MOST people - and when those users take
advantage of that added horsepower, they WILL conume more fuel to do so,
PERIOD!
If an RV owner first drives his stock, loaded rig up a nearby 10 mile 7%
grade, topping out at 50 MPH - and then carefully measures his mileage, THEN
adds enough mods to next top that SAME hill with the SAME load - but NOW
maintains that route at 60 MPH, Are there any here who REALLY will go on
record as claiming the higher speed run will consume LESS fuel? We're
talking "real life" here, not lab theory!
This has been *my* approach to this issue from the beginning - I know full
well that mods can be made that will improve fuel mileage, and other -
sometimes similar - mods can improve power, but the notion that these can
both be made to occur at the SAME TIME in real world situations is quite
unlikely. I have liberally decorated my post on the issue with statements
like "usually", "normally", and by clearly stating that most posters I have
observed on this subject with actual experience state that while they DO
observe more power, their mileage either declines slightly or little overall
improvement is seen. And for most, that's OK, since it was the power
increase that was most sought after to begin with - after all, in view of
the cost of the mods, it would be a LONG time (if ever!) before these
systems would pay for themselves on fuel savings alone.
BUT, if some here STILL want to claim that their full-load power has
increased, while their fuel consumption has reduced significantly at the
SAME TIME - well... at least they have *one* person fooled...
--
Gary - KJ6Q
=========================
Newsgroup flames - fueling the inner fires
tormenting the minds of the mentally disturbed...
All in the name of "technology..."
R & A
>writes (most of story intact):
>
>> I'm not one to dispute "facts", Will, but I do have a question for
>> you. I've got a 79 Harley Super Glide. When the bike was stock (80
>> cu. in.), I was developing 52 horsepower (on the dyno). I was also
>> getting 34 - 36 MPG (with my wife on the back).
>>
>> Since that time, I've increased the displacement to 88 cubic inches,
>> put dual plugs in each cylinder, and added straight pipes. <snip>
>> Now, my horsepower is 72 with 72 foot-pounds of torque (on the
>> dyno)
>
> ('scuse the interruption, but the new power figure is at a
> higher rpm, right?)
>
he did testing at all RPMs up to & including "red line" both before and
after the mods were done.
>> . . . my fuel mileage has increased to 51 MPG (a significant gain
>> and my wife is still on the back).
>>
>> So, I guess you could say that I've added hotter ignition and shiny
>> smoke pipes. I've gained horsepower and economy both while
>> improving performance considerably. Wouldn't the same basics apply
>> to any engine?
>
>This is a case of apples and oranges, so it would NOT apply to any
>engine. But you raise an EXCELLENT question which beautifully
>illustrates the tradeoffs. You have proved that the mods gave you
>more horsepower, and you have also proved that you get better economy.
>(forgive me if I am a little dubious about the reported EXTENT of the
>improvement). But what you've not proved is that you get them at the
>same time!
Trust me on the fuel economy figures. They are accurate. I've checked them
several times to be certain and always at 60 MPH. They never vary.
>
>Did yer Hawg stay with the traffic before the changes?
Ohhhhhh, yeah!
Were you able
>to maintain legal speeds everywhere you went?
Absolutely - most often I ride a little below the posted limits.
The answer is obvious:
>yes. Do you now travel a lot faster than the traffic and exceed the
>speed limits habitually?? I think not.
You're absolutely correct in this. However, I DO get up to speed a hell of
lot quicker now, and if I do decide than I need to pass someone for whatever
reason, I can get around him and back to my lane a damn sight faster now
than I ever could, even with my wife on the back. However, I never exceed
the speed limits, even when passing.
>
>What has happened here is that you've taken a bike that was fully
>competent 99% of the time, and you've improved it's efficiency and
>power capability. But you are USING that power only 1% of the time -
>or less --- otherwise you'd be in jail or dead!
Neither of those are acceptable alternatives. ;-)
>
>People spend money to modify motorhomes in order to stay with the
>traffic, and when they DO boogie up the Grapevine at 65 they are
>suckin' fuel big time. You don't go up any faster than you ever did,
>else the CHP would have you for lunch - but the changes have improved
>engine breathing so you burn less fuel for the same speeds you ran
>before.
Don't forget the "dual ignition". I strongly believe that those dual plugs
give me a much cleaner burn and allow me to use the fuel much more
efficiently in order to develop more power.
You use that extra punch rarely - an RV will use it
>frequently. Thus the reports about not saving fuel!
>
>Will KD3XR
Just wanted a little clarification. Thanks, Will
Ram
79 FXEF
>
wi...@epix.net
In Article<uqegdMF89GA.282@upnetnews05>, <rama...@email.msn.com>
writes concerning his questions about the comparison between hopping
up a motorcycle and an RV:
Sez me:
>> . . . the new power figure is at a higher rpm, right?)
Sez he:
> I'm not completely sure, Will. The technician that rode the dyno
> said that he did testing at all RPMs up to & including "red line"
> both before and after the mods were done.
It would be customary for big horsepower gains to appear at higher
engine speeds, because horsepower is *calculated* from a torque x
speed formula, and torque is measured directly.
Queries Will:
>>Did yer Hawg stay with the traffic before the changes?
And he sez predictably:
> Ohhhhhh, yeah!
> . . . I DO get up to speed a hell of lot quicker now, and if I do
> decide than I need to pass someone for whatever reason, I can get
> around him and back to my lane a damn sight faster now
Yup, this is consistent with what I wrote, which included:
>> . . .you are USING that power only 1% of the time - or less ---
>> otherwise you'd be in jail or dead!
When you ARE using the extra power, you are using more fuel - but
since you operate in that mode infrequently you are getting the
benefits of the mods in the form of better efficiency. While this
*does* mean you are getting BOTH economy and power benefits, you are
not getting them at the same instant. RV power enhancements cannot be
expected to work out the same way. As I wrote:
>>People spend money to modify motorhomes in order to stay with the
>>traffic, and when they DO boogie up the Grapevine at 65 they are
>>suckin' fuel big time.
> Don't forget the "dual ignition". I strongly believe that those
> dual plugs give me a much cleaner burn and allow me to use the fuel
> much more efficiently in order to develop more power.
I don't feel qualified to comment on the dual plug issue, but I
don't see any reason to doubt the fact that the whole package of
modifications you've done has increased efficiency; i.e. you are
getting better use of fuel most of the time.
> Just wanted a little clarification. Thanks, Will
You're welcome - pleasure to discuss issues with someone who does not
approach a question with a chip on their shoulder!
Will KD3XR