8buck Posted September 30, 2005 Report Posted September 30, 2005 Not bad for stock bore and stroke! Does the power curve look normal or do I need to tweek things a little to smooth it out? What is with the dip at the 6000rpm area and the smaller one at 8500rpm? Quote
super88_banshee Posted September 30, 2005 Report Posted September 30, 2005 What are you mods?? It doesn't look too bad but then again im no expert! Quote
8buck Posted September 30, 2005 Author Report Posted September 30, 2005 What are you mods?? It doesn't look too bad but then again im no expert! 421386[/snapback] Built by K&T PERFORMANCE, ported and polished, True and Weld Crank, K&N Filters, Mikuni Flat Side Carburetors 35.5mm, Lighten flywheel & Advance Timing, Reed Spacer, Cool Head w/18CCDomes, Power Jets installed in Carburetor. Quote
Ruko Posted September 30, 2005 Report Posted September 30, 2005 Built by K&T PERFORMANCE, ported and polished, True and Weld Crank, K&N Filters, Mikuni Flat Side Carburetors 35.5mm, Lighten flywheel & Advance Timing, Reed Spacer, Cool Head w/18CCDomes, Power Jets installed in Carburetor. 421391[/snapback] I got my Cheetah from K&T... it rocks... those guys are great Quote
BigRed350x Posted September 30, 2005 Report Posted September 30, 2005 Looks nice. Not sure about what caused the dip though. Maybe the kinda pipe you have? Have you tried a different pipe to see if it does the same thing with a different pipe. Quote
8buck Posted September 30, 2005 Author Report Posted September 30, 2005 what pipes are on it? 421440[/snapback] T-5 s Quote
rocketboy Posted September 30, 2005 Report Posted September 30, 2005 (edited) oh no... not the dreaded dyno dip everyone used to talk about it ..its back looks pretty decent though i wouldve expected a little bit higher, but all dyno's can read different too Edited September 30, 2005 by rocketboy Quote
madkaw Posted October 1, 2005 Report Posted October 1, 2005 your numbers would be significantly better with some CPI or RDZ pipes and it would rev much higher Quote
broke Posted October 1, 2005 Report Posted October 1, 2005 your numbers would be significantly better with some CPI or RDZ pipes and it would rev much higher 421640[/snapback] How much would revving higher help if his jugs were cut to work with the T-5s? If you have some more along the lines of a mid range port, wouldn't a high revving pipe hurt most of the way across the board until the RPMs get in the range the pipes would work best? The graph looks pretty good to me, Banshee's just seem to have that dip right before they come on the pipe. Numbers on a dyno are useless, it's the shape that really matters. Put it on a dyno that reads 10hp higher, would it make you happier even though you know it made 10 less on another dyno? Probably not, a 63hp quad is a good running quad to me. Now a 73hp quad that isn't any faster than the 63hp quad is still a good running quad, just not a better running quad. Quote
madkaw Posted October 1, 2005 Report Posted October 1, 2005 How much would revving higher help if his jugs were cut to work with the T-5s? If you have some more along the lines of a mid range port, wouldn't a high revving pipe hurt most of the way across the board until the RPMs get in the range the pipes would work best? The graph looks pretty good to me, Banshee's just seem to have that dip right before they come on the pipe. Numbers on a dyno are useless, it's the shape that really matters. Put it on a dyno that reads 10hp higher, would it make you happier even though you know it made 10 less on another dyno? Probably not, a 63hp quad is a good running quad to me. Now a 73hp quad that isn't any faster than the 63hp quad is still a good running quad, just not a better running quad. 421645[/snapback] I had a ported banshee that started with t-5's thought it was good till the RDZ pipes made the same line all the way up the dyno with plus 5hp at the top and rev out another 1000rpms, my point is if you have a 63hp quad that could be a 68hp quad with better pipes why wouldn't you want this, your right the dyno #'s don't matter its in the seat of your pants when you hit the gas, but this post was about dyno #'s Quote
broke Posted October 1, 2005 Report Posted October 1, 2005 I had a ported banshee that started with t-5's thought it was good till the RDZ pipes made the same line all the way up the dyno with plus 5hp at the top and rev out another 1000rpms, my point is if you have a 63hp quad that could be a 68hp quad with better pipes why wouldn't you want this, your right the dyno #'s don't matter its in the seat of your pants when you hit the gas, but this post was about dyno #'s 421646[/snapback] Now what if your 68 "peak" hp motor made ten less hp every where else but a 1000rpm spread on top because you put a high end pipe on a mid range cutting. I had a mildly ported stock jug motor and it was faster with a set of PTR mids than with my CPIs. The motor just wasn't built to run with kind of exhaust duration that the CPIs needed. I then went to a set of MX ported RZ jugs with 196 degrees of ex. dur. that was faster on top with a set of Rockets, but lost HP everywhere under 8500rpms. The PTRs in turn pulled better everywhere but above that point. I then went to a set of 12 port RZ jugs with a +4 crank with around 200 degrees that severly over matched the PTRs, but run like a scolded dog with the Rockets. I didn't want this to trun into an aguement and I hope it still hasn't. I just wanted to explain why his motor "might" be slower with a set of high end pipes. Quote
madkaw Posted October 1, 2005 Report Posted October 1, 2005 Now what if your 68 "peak" hp motor made ten less hp every where else but a 1000rpm spread on top because you put a high end pipe on a mid range cutting. I had a mildly ported stock jug motor and it was faster with a set of PTR mids than with my CPIs. The motor just wasn't built to run with kind of exhaust duration that the CPIs needed. I then went to a set of MX ported RZ jugs with 196 degrees of ex. dur. that was faster on top with a set of Rockets, but lost HP everywhere under 8500rpms. The PTRs in turn pulled better everywhere but above that point. I then went to a set of 12 port RZ jugs with a +4 crank with around 200 degrees that severly over matched the PTRs, but run like a scolded dog with the Rockets. I didn't want this to trun into an aguement and I hope it still hasn't. I just wanted to explain why his motor "might" be slower with a set of high end pipes. 421651[/snapback] What if everyone that wanted to ride in the mid range of the power band bought 4-strokes, last time I checked a ported banshee always wants to be on the high end of the revs, but hey it just sounded like it was a similar set up to what I had when I switched pipes and I loved the change from toomeys to RDZ Racing pipes. just my .02 Quote
8buck Posted October 1, 2005 Author Report Posted October 1, 2005 QUOTE: The graph looks pretty good to me, Banshee's just seem to have that dip right before they come on the pipe. Numbers on a dyno are useless, it's the shape that really matters. Put it on a dyno that reads 10hp higher, would it make you happier even though you know it made 10 less on another dyno? Probably not, a 63hp quad is a good running quad to me. Now a 73hp quad that isn't any faster than the 63hp quad is still a good running quad, just not a better running quad. I also would like to know how sprocket and tire size would affect the numbers. Would a smaller front sprocket and smaller tires read a lot higher numbers on the dyno which would make one motor look a lot more powerfull than an identical motor with taller gearing? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.