Went back to the dyno today...

[PowerDubs_imp]

First pic is today compared to last time in 2018 before my accident.

Change is now no longer on the stock ECU- Don Guhl advanced ign timing and raised rev limiter.

I’m still controlling fueling myself with power commander and auto tune.

I also removed the TSR airbox inlet plate (which I did prove on the dyno to make more power than the stock inlet boots).

Instead I put the stock boot back on, but added couple filtered holes - one on boot side and 3 on other airbox side. Reason? The TSR plate made an induction noise I didn’t like.

Reference- http://cb1100forum.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=15762


So here is today’s dyno- modified ign, and removed TSR air holes as shown

And here is today’s dyno compared the the first dyno I did on this bike- Inhad already installed the Staintune muffler, so no totally ‘stock’ run- sorry.

I still need to add a little fuel up top.

Funny thing- the WBO2 sensor for the auto tune takes up a good portion of the exhaust pipe. Once I remove it and put in the block off plug- it will flow more air and make more power.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ninemeister_imp]

Impressive final result, well done.

How does the engine perform otherwise? Same silky smooth response as the standard bike?

 

[PowerDubs_imp]

Better... much better...

There is no downside to what I have done- as long as you don't consider cost and work as a negative.

Everything I do to the bike has to be an improvement. If it takes something away- I start over.

Example is that TSR plate- gave more power but didn't like the sound- so off it comes, and I found another way.

 

[E11even_Hunnit]

Nice!

Are you doing away with the DJ Autotune?
Also, were you able to determine which airbox setup yielded more power between the TSR & the modified box?

 

[PowerDubs_imp]

Eventually I will turn off the autotune and just run the locked map in the power commander like most people do.

Again- the removal of the sensor itself may be beneficial.

I did not retest the TSR plate. It still may help over the box mods...but since I didn't like the sound, there is no point to me.

 

[Roper_imp]

A gain of 14 hp and 7 lb torque. That's pretty impressive for this motor. In all, what would your estimated cost be to arrive at the gains?

 

[PowerDubs_imp]

Remember the difference shown is from already having the staintune muffler which gives a pretty good gain by itself.

I’d have to look back as it has been a couple years, but I imagine it probably cost me somewhere between 2500-3k.

I can resell the auto tune box when done with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[teamvisegrip_imp]

Hey PowerDubs I have the TSR Intake Funnel in place of the Stock Snorkel. Maybe after being in the ship's engine room for so long I am def! LOL! But I do not hear the difference. I also have the TSR Funnels at the Throttle Bodies. I wonder if that makes any difference?

Either way your numbers are impressive.

If I remember right you cut the Cams so that everything is even and added a little extra to it also. Curious if you can tell if the engine runs smoother or not.

Again great Posts and glad you are getting back at it.

Be safe and be well in this crazy world not.

 

[Roper_imp]

I just want to say I really like the aesthetics of your bike. The modifications you have made on the engine cooling fins and the wheel rims add a subtle touch of class, and the changes with the grab rail, seat, custom side covers, fork, engine guards, and square mirrors all enhance the look of a "proper" motorcycle. Nothing appears frivolous or gaudy. Nicely done!

 

[PowerDubs_imp]

Roper- thank you.

Everything I did was trying to make it old. Removing anything new looking I could... no, won’t put drum brakes or carbs back on.


Vice grip- no, my cams still have staggered timing.

Actual #’s put down were a bit higher uncorrected- but SAE is the best way to compare different days, temp, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PowerDubs_imp]

Dynojet was nice enough to send me a run from a stock 2017 to compare-

As you can see- the difference ramps up and you get more the longer you hold on!

Not that an additional 7.25wtq and 4.52whp at 3,2000 RPM are bad.

The shop is used to doing sportbikes- I forgot to tell him the start the pulls low.

Ah, next time- I’ll be back!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cormanus]

Josh, does your bike really have 'custom Web cams'? Am I displaying my ignorance?

 

[PowerDubs_imp]

Yea- http://cb1100forum.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=9608&highlight=cams

They didn't do much- but I also picked a mild grind because I didn't want to loose power down low.

I try to look at everything as a package- even bigger, more aggressive cams could ultimately make more power- but in my opinion right now, the cams aren't the bottle neck...and making power is all about removing bottlenecks.

Which makes this all interesting- remove a bottleneck and other 'mods' could make more gains than initially thought.

My guess is next limitation is the throttle bodies. 32mm is small, especially for 1140cc.

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

Yea- http://cb1100forum.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=9608&highlight=cams

They didn't do much- but I also picked a mild grind because I didn't want to loose power down low.

I try to look at everything as a package- even bigger, more aggressive cams could ultimately make more power- but in my opinion right now, the cams aren't the bottle neck...and making power is all about removing bottlenecks.

Which makes this all interesting- remove a bottleneck and other 'mods' could make more gains than initially thought.

My guess is next limitation is the throttle bodies. 32mm is small, especially for 1140cc.

Honda design spec likely targeted using 32 mm to meet the performance behaviour they were seeking as well as salvaging some economy. The stock CB1100 is surprisingly good on fuel consumption.

Honda knows how to make a 140 hp 1140 cc inline-4 (recall early 1980s). I reckon that wasn't the spec for these CB1100s.

 

[PowerDubs_imp]

Yea- http://cb1100forum.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=9608&highlight=cams

They didn't do much- but I also picked a mild grind because I didn't want to loose power down low.

I try to look at everything as a package- even bigger, more aggressive cams could ultimately make more power- but in my opinion right now, the cams aren't the bottle neck...and making power is all about removing bottlenecks.

Which makes this all interesting- remove a bottleneck and other 'mods' could make more gains than initially thought.

My guess is next limitation is the throttle bodies. 32mm is small, especially for 1140cc.

Honda design spec likely targeted using 32 mm to meet the performance behaviour they were seeking as well as salvaging some economy. The stock CB1100 is surprisingly good on fuel consumption.

Honda knows how to make a 140 hp 1140 cc inline-4 (recall early 1980s). I reckon that wasn't the spec for these CB1100s.

Oh- I agree 1000%.

I'm not doing anything Honda couldn't do- they just had to contend with EPA for emissions and noise.

 

[the Ferret]

The 83 CB 1100F put out a reported 108 hp out of an 1062cc mill. That's a far cry from 140

 

[PowerDubs_imp]

The 83 CB 1100F put out a reported 108 hp out of an 1062cc mill. That's a far cry from 140

Crank or wheel?

My bike 'uncorrected' (true hp) put down a little over 106 so depending on what a person believes for drivetrain loss-

10% loss would be 118 crank.

15% loss would be 125 crank.

 

[Cormanus]

Dubs, I knew about your cams modification. I was just intrigued by the dynojet chart which referred to them as 'Web cams'.

 

[PowerDubs_imp]

webcamshafts.com

 

[the Ferret]

The 83 CB 1100F put out a reported 108 hp out of an 1062cc mill. That's a far cry from 140

Crank or wheel?

My bike 'uncorrected' (true hp) put down a little over 106 so depending on what a person believes for drivetrain loss-

10% loss would be 118 crank.

15% loss would be 125 crank.

Crank or wheel?

My bike 'uncorrected' (true hp) put down a little over 106 so depending on what a person believes for drivetrain loss-

10% loss would be 118 crank.

15% loss would be 125 crank.
I assume it was rated at the crank back in 83 and not dyno's. Maybe I can find a dyno chart for one.

Well couldn't find a dyno chart but found other sites listing the hp at 99 and 104.

Found these figures for the mighty 6 cylinder CBX which was faster than the CB 1100F

105 hp (78 kW)@ 9,000 rpm (claimed)
1978-1980 100–103 hp (75–77 kW) (claimed)
1981-1982 98 hp (73 kW) (rear wheel)

the V65 V4 Honda Sabre put out 121 hp (I imagine also measured at the crank)

There were no 140 HP inline 4's from Honda