max horsepower out of a 1397?

[enginetuna]

You know that bob down by the water has the same air as us, so thats why he gets them big hp numbers........On a big motor you can see 15hp from good air............

Are you referring to ramming air into the airbox?
Or are you seeing big bhp fluctuations based on weather conditions?
Reason i ask is the only times i've ever seen that kind of jump is when the dynojet weather station goes south (of which i have one fail per year on average so far).  When its running tight and accurate then the corrections in SAE don't vary much all year round.
Just curious here, not trying to start another weather station debate.

[whtrthanu]

"E" i am refering to weather conditions. There isnt a problem with my stack, I have check my sae numbers with other dynos in the area several times. AS far as actual hp we live at sea level so the barometer has been as high as 30.8 several times and the humidity as low as 10%. Now these are mine shaft conditions, but none the less they are real.Bobs shop is near Atco, thay are below sea level i believe. This is why the track is know for being very fast. With my dyno, it actually reads a few hp lower on SAE than the other dyno i compared it too, Example, a stock busa, early year, makes anywhere from 148hp to 153 sae on mine. I compare my runs to my buddies dyno in another state and we are within 1 hp of each other on builds or stock bikes comparisons.....anothjer example is a 02 GSXR 1000 i just did, 3mm pistons cams and brock pipe, 1mm over intakes, on pump gas it made so far 176hp sae, i put mrxo1 and in real good air the other day it made 192hp!!! Even SAE with fuel it still made 182 hp, so the air was so good it was giving 10 hp.....

[JDookie]

has anyone used web 415/395 or 445/415 on a high compression 1397,say compression was around 15 to 1? what ones would you use?

My engine builder used 415/395's in my 1397 and they worked great. The added displacement of the 1397 makes up for the loss of low end you would normally get from the big cams, but the gain in high end is quite dramatic all the way to redline. The 445/415's might be overkill, imo, for a 1397.

[show2ime2000]

I used that setup before. 427/410 cams, high comp domes at 15.5.1 comp. It ran like a 1507. you won't be disappointed. 8.40's at 164 fully dressed at 65 inches. Stock bodywork and wheels, Lockup clutch.

[Adrnlnjunky]

I had a 1397 that I built w/ Wiseco's from APE, WEB .395I/.378E cams, mild ported head(by me), small box mod with short stacks. It made 208 hp/120 tq on 93. Considering I did all the work, I was happy with it. Some of these other guys are getting stupid numbers out of theirs. Stupid as in GOOD!  I Just don't have their skills.

[crazybill]

Most Ive ever seen out of a 1397 (REAL NUMBERS ANYWAYS) was 236 on nutec fuel . That was an Eric Canada built motor several years ago . havent seen one pull that since . Even eric was floored   
  That was on the same dyno we allways use so it wasnt a happy dyno factor . Erics good !
The motor didnt live a long time but the bike had big electrical issues and the electronics didnt work right so im sure that was a factor in its ultimate demise .   

 That nutec was some nasty stuff too...

[Spaz Racing]

I have seen 235hp out of a dome piston 1397cc
and 229hp out of flat tops @ .039" piston to head. I run my about .041"-.042" with stock rods.
I know Eric likes to run his tight.

[Stocker64]

just got it off the dyno with 415/395 flat top je,s hand ported by me with cooper valve job with mrx01 205hp110tq,I think it may still have more in the tune,it has small air box mod with stock stacks?I am now going to change stacks and mess around wit intake track lenghts and put back on dyno.

[PetriK]

Just to understand what you guys are referring to, are you talking dynojet rwhp or real crank hp like factorypro real rwhp ? I am locally here seeing a big difference between dynos. Rwhp by dj250 djhp is almost the same as real calibrated crank hp ???

http://www.factorypro.com/dyno/true1.html

[Stocker64]

petrik,mine was measured on dynojet250i,been haveing small problems with combo,I had to get injectors cleaned that put me down for a day!I had to put a standalone fuel system also,going to spray 100 progressively as soon as i get it sorted out.I have been having problems with editor so i cannot try some different high rpm things  :lol:I will put it back on dyno next week and try them then

[enginetuna]

Here are my views that may or may not help towards the ongoing dynojet and varying horsepower question:-

Yamaha claims for crank horsepower.

2006 R6 - 133bhp.  My 250i - 106bhp
2004 R1 - 172bhp.  My 250i - 152bhp


Stock busa is around 152-155 on my machine, not 175+ as suzuki claim.

I've checked airbox pressure readings on the dyno versus track data and it doesn't account for the percentage increase some of these manufacturers claim.

I know 2 main brands of dyno that read much higher than dynojet.

250i is measuring rear wheel horsepower and what some of these articles claim is not true of a current dynojet 250i.

My machine is regularly compared with dynojet uk's machine at the BSB meetings.  That matches to within 1bhp and that also matches to within 1bhp of all 3 of their dynos.  So at worst you could see a 2bhp difference but that can be accounted for in changing weather and/or heat in the dyno process.  But compare it to the dynojet machine on the Arrow truck at WSB meetings and they have, how shall we say, a slightly optimistic view on the numbers ......
There are a few shops i have compared against who run their machines with pressurised rooms and faulty weather stations who are regularly way way over our numbers.  One recently got rumbled by one of the biggest magazines here where they found a 21bhp on a k7 1000.  There are also those shops who mess with tyre pressures, strap tension, changing rear tire and also have scant regard for tire slip.  Poor understanding and crooked methods are often the reason for such a varying range of numbers.  Numbers sell, so many people take advantage of this.

Just curious.  But who says that factory pro is rear wheel horsepower?  Not saying they are wrong but if i stand here and tell you this is a real Van Gogh painting, would you believe me just because i say it is and then hand over your money?  Hey maybe dynojet are wrong.  I didn't design either.  But i do know a 250i can be very consistent with another 250i if used and maintained by a keen operator.

Just my 2 cents on the ongoing dyno debate.

[PetriK]

Stock busa is around 152-155 on my machine, not 175+ as suzuki claim.

So that old stock busa 152-155 is crank hp? I have seen a figure of about 158hp @ crank with a recently calibrated Dynostar dyno.

[enginetuna]

No, rear wheel according to dynojet.  Its a bit more than you said your different brand of machine shows but less than an engine dyno.  I know someone who has a superflow 902 engine dyno and he reads more with that than his old dynoket 150 which was higher than the new 250's read.  I have also seen variation between several different brands of so-called "real bhp" dynos.  So i guess we are all wrong maybe????

[DarkFalcon]

Suzuki typically uses Brake / net / crankshaft horsepower (power delivered directly to and measured at the engine's crankshaft) .......which is what the 175HP is. In the States a stock Busa usually comes in around in the low 150's RWHP on pump and using SAE. For all of the obvious reasons, builders are now advertising power using STD reference while using an oxygenated fuel which adds an easy 10 HP or so over the same engine being tested on pump gas using SAE reference conditions. So the magic 220 is more like 210 on pump gas using SAE.

[mike46]

Stock busa is around 152-155 on my machine, not 175+ as suzuki claim.

That is exactly what I have always seen for stock,first gen busa's

[enginetuna]

Hey Mike, just reading your signature.  Cosworth made pistons for the virgin yamaha superbike team last year, i'm pretty sure.  I mapped a bike for one of the engine designers at cosworth a few weeks back so if you really want some i can maybe put you in contact with him.  He said they may be open to further production.  Failing that i could put you onto someone else who has built me F1 quality bike stuff before.

PS.  I'm not trying to trade here, just in case the mods are wondering.  Merely trying to help out and make nothing out of it myself.

[PetriK]

Suzuki typically uses Brake / net / crankshaft horsepower (power delivered directly to and measured at the engine's crankshaft) .......which is what the 175HP is. In the States a stock Busa usually comes in around in the low 150's RWHP on pump and using SAE. For all of the obvious reasons, builders are now advertising power using STD reference while using an oxygenated fuel which adds an easy 10 HP or so over the same engine being tested on pump gas using SAE reference conditions. So the magic 220 is more like 210 on pump gas using SAE.

OK - that starts to paint the picture about the numbers advertised.

On the current dyno we use the stock busas are only 160hp @ crank, zzr1400 around 170 and K8 busas around 180@crank. I am starting to think that there still is a calibration issue between few manufacturers, in US factorypro vs dynojet and in europe Dynostar vs dynojet. The various dyno standards like DIN/SAE/STD explains other differences, but not this one...

[Steve S]

On a Dynojet a stock Busa makes, say, 152 while FactoryPro says "real" RWHP is 135 or so. Assuming Suzuki knows how to measure power, implied driveline losses under the Dynojet regime would be 13.1% while under FactoryPro it would be 22.8%. I think Dynojet is closer.

[PetriK]

On a Dynojet a stock Busa makes, say, 152 while FactoryPro says "real" RWHP is 135 or so. Assuming Suzuki knows how to measure power, implied driveline losses under the Dynojet regime would be 13.1% while under FactoryPro it would be 22.8%. I think Dynojet is closer.

Your guess is as good as mine - can we find facts ?

One way to confirm horsepower is trap speed on quarter mile if weight is known. Any statistics avail of the topic ?

[Steve S]

Or, top speed at WOT.

[DarkFalcon]

Or, top speed at WOT.

About 160 RWHP to go 189 MPH.........153 HP plus a dash of ram air.

[enginetuna]

On the current dyno we use the stock busas are only 160hp @ crank, zzr1400 around 170 and K8 busas around 180@crank.

How are you measuring crank hp on a busa?  There is the obvious problem of a gearbox being permanently attached.  Just wondering how you got around this.

I'm quite excited, been asking for some real crank dyno data for ages on this motor but nobody seems to have any.  What is the actual VE?

[PetriK]

How are you measuring crank hp on a busa?  There is the obvious problem of a gearbox being permanently attached.  Just wondering how you got around this.
I'm quite excited, been asking for some real crank dyno data for ages on this motor but nobody seems to have any.  What is the actual VE?

Unfortunately you are right - what I call @crank is rather negative losses added to rwhp and gearbox losses can not be fully added. Usually its only losses up to clutch. So for std engine we get 160hp and suzuki advertises 172hp meaning that 12hp is still lost inside transmission - hard to believe? Often the losses measured are in average about 9%, but an average can not be used as the losses are non linear.

With TOP speed I see the effect of air density becoming an issue. Quarter mile trap speed is a bit lower and hence better indication of the power if weight is known and we use only alike engines to compare with.

Anyway I am still puzzled why Dynostar and Factorypro have a completely different set of figures when measuring power than Dynojet ?

[enginetuna]

Ah ok, its estimated then.  I have measured coast down losses but even then i don't think its accurate enough.  You can show the same coast down loss but have a rear tyre you know reads 15bhp less than the next one.  Doesn't show up on losses how it saps power on acceleration - at least not on my dyno it doesn't!
No idea on the figures.  Obviously factory pro is well down on dynojet and in my experience, dynostar is well up on dynojet.  Very strange.  Somebody must have their calcs wrong somewhere.  I do know a shop who measured output power on an engine dyno for a 2007 R1.  The figures they got from gearbox sprocket do not tie in with manufacturers claims minus accepted transmission loss %'s.  So the question is still, does anyone really know who is right or wrong?

[DarkFalcon]

Air density is not an issue as it is fundamental to drag and part of the calculation.