858 on the dyno at Dynotech

[Tommcat]

1 minute ago, ZR6000RR said:

Am I wrong? Who is to say whose Dyno is correct? Pipe temp, air temp? There is no winner on this. Unless you are mental, or Krom.

You just answered every question i had about you, thank you.

Conversation over

[Tommcat]

3 minutes ago, mnstang said:

Zero people here can utilize the power on a trail.  The sled comes down to handling, ergos, chassis, weight, suspension, and power delivery.  And color of course.  I'm sure a couple magazine chasers care alot about exact dyno numbers but nobody serious does.

Cant utilize 165 horse on a trail? I respectfully disagree as i use twice that

[ZR6000RR]

Just now, Tommcat said:

You just answered every question i had about you, thank you.

Conversation over

No it is not. You pick and choose a dyno. No proof of which one is accurate. Useless tool to the average sledder. Just a feel good to idiots like you, and kROMMER.

[Deephaven]

They are actually very repeatable.  Right or wrong was never the concern.  Comparing runs of different things on one dyno though tells a huge story.

Story here is Textron oversold the 858 and it is not a home run.

[krom]

3 minutes ago, mnstang said:

Zero people here can utilize the power on a trail.  The sled comes down to handling, ergos, chassis, weight, suspension, and power delivery.  And color of course.  I'm sure a couple magazine chasers care alot about exact dyno numbers but nobody serious does.

going to have to disagree with you.

I've had 3 or 4 600's

'06 xf 600, bought it with rebates so I could put on f7 cylinders bored to 800 cc.  rode it once stock, was disapointed

'09 SX race sled, bought it new, rode it once, was cool and fun, but not fast, someone paid me $1500 more than I had into it, because they had to have it

09 SX race sled, #2 used practice sled, bought it to put a 1000 twin in.  Ended up going with an F9ss that made 185 hp at Dynotec.  That was a fun sled after the mods.

15 or 16 rxc, (year before the cutout seat) was a total pig.  hit the wall in the 70's creeped to the low 80s fortunatly I was able to send the ecu to the race dept a couple of times and get it straightened out, don't think it would ever do 90, dumped it after one season.

Even the girls I ride with are on 850's

[ZR6000RR]

6 minutes ago, krom said:

going to have to disagree with you.

I've had 3 or 4 600's

'06 xf 600, bought it with rebates so I could put on f7 cylinders bored to 800 cc.  rode it once stock, was disapointed

'09 SX race sled, bought it new, rode it once, was cool and fun, but not fast, someone paid me $1500 more than I had into it, because they had to have it

09 SX race sled, #2 used practice sled, bought it to put a 1000 twin in.  Ended up going with an F9ss that made 185 hp at Dynotec.  That was a fun sled after the mods.

15 or 16 rxc, (year before the cutout seat) was a total pig.  hit the wall in the 70's creeped to the low 80s fortunatly I was able to send the ecu to the race dept a couple of times and get it straightened out, don't think it would ever do 90, dumped it after one season.

Even the girls I ride with are on 850's

Guys claiming to be girls? 

[mnstang]

Dynos aren't the end all, be all.  I know DTR guy does a pretty good job with trying to be consistent but it still doesn't replicate real world and correction factors are very limiting also and don't tell the whole story whatsoever.

Two different dynos can load a motor differently.  A motor will respond to different loads differently.  Two different motors will respond to the same loads differently.

Correction factors don't take into account the variables of different engines, they can't.  Engine x might run better at a certain altitude/pressure/temperature/humidity both from a calibration standpoint and design of engine itself and the PIPE.  Engine y might not run in it's sweet spot in those same conditions.  But they are both "corrected" from this spot.  

But then in the real world in different altitude/temp/etc from the dyno, engine y might have ideal conditions that are more suited for it's calibration, engine design, pipe design.

Correction factors only account for the air difference in percents but they have no possible way to account for how that difference will make that particular engine react.  Especially with things like a two stroke where you have an expansion chamber.  One sled could have a good running pipe at altitude but it is maybe "tight" at low altitude when you're moving more air and heat.  And vice versa.  

This is why you don't race dynos.  They can be tuning tools but even then you'd still have to field test because that's the only thing that actually matters.  

I'm sure on cats dyno it was 11% or whatever they said.  That doesn't mean it's going to be 11% on every dyno for all the reasons I listed.

[mnstang]

16 minutes ago, krom said:

going to have to disagree with you.

I've had 3 or 4 600's

'06 xf 600, bought it with rebates so I could put on f7 cylinders bored to 800 cc.  rode it once stock, was disapointed

'09 SX race sled, bought it new, rode it once, was cool and fun, but not fast, someone paid me $1500 more than I had into it, because they had to have it

09 SX race sled, #2 used practice sled, bought it to put a 1000 twin in.  Ended up going with an F9ss that made 185 hp at Dynotec.  That was a fun sled after the mods.

15 or 16 rxc, (year before the cutout seat) was a total pig.  hit the wall in the 70's creeped to the low 80s fortunatly I was able to send the ecu to the race dept a couple of times and get it straightened out, don't think it would ever do 90, dumped it after one season.

Even the girls I ride with are on 850's

Anyone can ride an 850.  That is not what I was saying.

[Palu49]

Anyone else notice how lean the thing is being ran too? I don’t know if that’s normal AFR with sleds now with epa shit but if I’m tuning a vehicle and see 13.anything we’re shutting that pull down and piling fuel into the tune. 

[racinfarmer]

23 minutes ago, krom said:

going to have to disagree with you.

I've had 3 or 4 600's

'06 xf 600, bought it with rebates so I could put on f7 cylinders bored to 800 cc.  rode it once stock, was disapointed

'09 SX race sled, bought it new, rode it once, was cool and fun, but not fast, someone paid me $1500 more than I had into it, because they had to have it

09 SX race sled, #2 used practice sled, bought it to put a 1000 twin in.  Ended up going with an F9ss that made 185 hp at Dynotec.  That was a fun sled after the mods.

15 or 16 rxc, (year before the cutout seat) was a total pig.  hit the wall in the 70's creeped to the low 80s fortunatly I was able to send the ecu to the race dept a couple of times and get it straightened out, don't think it would ever do 90, dumped it after one season.

Even the girls I ride with are on 850's

Probably a 16 RXC.  My 15 was fast, both 16's I had were dogs.  The 17 was great.

[Tommcat]

32 minutes ago, Palu49 said:

Anyone else notice how lean the thing is being ran too? I don’t know if that’s normal AFR with sleds now with epa shit but if I’m tuning a vehicle and see 13.anything we’re shutting that pull down and piling fuel into the tune. 

Thats not terrible for an na motor. Would i like to see the peak  power at 12.6 though? Absolutely. And peak torque around 12.2

Edited March 1 by Tommcat

[jonlafon1]

42 minutes ago, ZR6000RR said:

Guys claiming to be girls? 

WTF are you saying?   Crown royal was distilled by a guy claiming to be a girl?  
 

[ZR6000RR]

5 minutes ago, jonlafon1 said:

WTF are you saying?   Crown royal was distilled by a guy claiming to be a girl?  
 

You are a girl, claiming to be a guy?

[ZR6000RR]

Also, new crank on production spec motors, compared to pre-production. Yowser!

[Crnr2Crnr]

7 hours ago, Tommcat said:

I don't think you understand anything about dynos, or facts.

this one is 'special' Tom... he'll set you straight eventually. 

7 hours ago, ZR6000RR said:

No it is not. You pick and choose a dyno. No proof of which one is accurate.

pretty clear you don't know him or the kind of stuff he builds...

based upon history, it's not Bikemans dyno...

 

 

167hp... ?

 

[Deephaven]

7 hours ago, ZR6000RR said:

Also, new crank on production spec motors, compared to pre-production. Yowser!

One more untried thing to fail.  No way I want a first year unit.

[shimxtr1]

9 hours ago, ZR6000RR said:

Horsepower is theoretical. ((Calculated) torque is real. Dyno an engine one day then another two days later, the numbers will change. Were they chilling the air? This year? Probably not. Continue being a New York Brain dead idiot. You are what you are. Pure stupidity!

Horsepower is not theoretical it directly correlates to torque.  Mathematically horsepower is equal to torque multiplied by RPM divided by the constant 5252.  Hp=TqxRPM/5252

[jonlafon1]

42 minutes ago, shimxtr1 said:

Horsepower is not theoretical it directly correlates to torque.  Mathematically horsepower is equal to torque multiplied by RPM divided by the constant 5252.  Hp=TqxRPM/5252

You just went way the hell over his IQ level.  

[Premium]

Would I have liked to see 170+ HP? Absolutely.

Is it a deal breaker for my sno check? No.

Is it enough to convince guys on other brands? In most cases probably a resounding NO.

 

Now, if the whole chassis and engine package is is truly greater than the sum of its parts, and the engine proves durable, that could convince some guys to jump ship, but it ain't gonna happen overnight.

[Palu49]

9 hours ago, Tommcat said:

Thats not terrible for an na motor. Would i like to see the peak  power at 12.6 though? Absolutely. And peak torque around 12.2

I misread it at first I thought it carried the 13.6 all the way through so it’s a little better than I thought. Where it’s at stoich I’m assuming they were just running the motor pretty flat before he whacked it for the pull.

[jonlafon1]

17 minutes ago, Premium said:

Now, if the whole chassis and engine package is is truly greater than the sum of its parts, and the engine proves durable, that could convince some guys to jump ship, but it ain't gonna happen overnight.

Good post here. Durability is a HUGE factor for me, and for others IMO. How long before the motor starts loosing compression? Is it a disposable motor like others. Not hating any brand but some have known issues with longevity for sure. 

[Palu49]

25 minutes ago, Premium said:

Would I have liked to see 170+ HP? Absolutely.

Is it a deal breaker for my sno check? No.

Is it enough to convince guys on other brands? In most cases probably a resounding NO.

 

Now, if the whole chassis and engine package is is truly greater than the sum of its parts, and the engine proves durable, that could convince some guys to jump ship, but it ain't gonna happen overnight.

The bold is the problem

[Crnr2Crnr]

who needs more than an average stock 600 anyways... or this new fangled shassis?

the Procross and old 800 were fine... change was not necessary. 

[jonlafon1]

13 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

who needs more than an average stock 600 anyways... or this new fangled shassis?

the Procross and old 800 were fine... change was not necessary. 

You on the Crown early today?  The "new crank" will change all of this. Matter fact I bet it will pull 10-20 HP MORE with the crank alone.. Now we throw the "racer gear set" in and the super secret helix and belt? Holly mother of god! This fucker will beat turbos and pretty much anything with skis on it.

Included ANY 500 from cat?    

Edited March 1 by jonlafon1

[Crnr2Crnr]

51 minutes ago, jonlafon1 said:

You on the Crown early today?  The "new crank" will change all of this. Matter fact I bet it will pull 10-20 HP MORE with the crank alone.. Now we throw the "racer gear set" in and the super secret helix and belt? Holly mother of god! This fucker will beat turbos and pretty much anything with skis on it.

Included ANY 500 from cat?    

if they'd have gone with the 870 they'd have gotten 171hp