Hilltop - is it worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There has been numerous discussions about HT (on this forum and others) since methusal was a teenager, if anyone cannot consider the options and make a decision, then they shouldn't be allowed crayons, let alone a motorbike.

blueranger said:
Its quite odd people are willing to handover £350 quid on recommendation alone but wont spend 400/450 to have independant verification. I don't actually think its about the engineering its about having a trinket/farkle or what ever.

On the track when your chasing 10ths /100ths of a second fair enough. But take that 150k mile hexhead i dont recall burnt valves and holed pistons being amongst the failed parts from lean running.
Click to expand...

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Engineer said:
If the GS was dangerously lean then where is the evidence of large numbers of damaged engines?
Click to expand...

I've no doubt that on the S1000RR superbikes they may have tuned that regularly run pinned at W.O.T. on a hot summers day there is a real risk of proglonged lean running that could compromise the engine as the basemap for the bike when it rolls of the production line was intended for road use....but seriously the average UK rider trundling around....hmmm.
Going rountinely from W.O.T to shutting the throttle suddenly and frequently would foreseeably cause the ECU to shift the AFR leaner due to the increase in HC's in the exhaust from over-run.

If folks are happy to handover their cash for the feel good factor...great for them....each to their own.

Tractors are go said:
There has been numerous discussions about HT (on this forum and others) since methusal was a teenager, if anyone cannot consider the options and make a decision, then they shouldn't be allowed crayons, let alone a motorbike.
Click to expand...

True. Yet it rumbles on again, again, again, and again. I suppose that tells you something.
 
As my rr has been tuned, I can comment that the extra 16bhp in the midrange is of more importance than the additional 7bhp at the top end.

I can say that comparing mine to a standard (courtesy) bike, it picks up better, is happier to pull a higher gear at a constant speed and feels livlier.

But, is it worth the extra £2•15K spent on the full race system and setup ?

To me it was.

Then again, I don't drink, smoke, socialise (that's for those that know me) or other such things. Instead I waste my money on camera's, guitar's, guns and motor vehicles.

Even swmbo, accepts I'm almost adult now.



Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Tractors are go said:
I can say that comparing mine to a standard (courtesy) bike, it picks up better, is happier to pull a higher gear at a constant speed and feels livlier.
But, is it worth the extra £2•15K spent on the full race system and setup ?
To me it was.
Click to expand...

And there is the rationale for everyone that's ever done it for road use, personal satisfaction. Pure and simple. Quite frankly I don't blame you....to some bikes are there to be cherished.
Which is why this question will never go away, its about what it feels like and whether an individual thinks it will feel better enough to justify the cost.

I'd rather ride an 1100 rather than an 1150 as I think the engine feels nicer and runs bit richer, though the XIED helped with this a bit.
The LC does feel a bit lean and coarse in its engine note to be honest and I've no doubt it would feel better post remap...but I just don't think it's worth it. It wont make me enjoy the bike anymore than I already do but then my bikes more of a workhorse than 'toy'. Each to their own.
 
Exactly;

Worst most unreliable heap of shite I ever owned 750ss roundcase and yet according to this month's bike, a basket case sold for £106,750.

Fools and their money.

Yet, hopefully they enjoy the ownership and get pleasure from it.

We buy and ride what we can afford, that it brings you fun, enjoyment and happiness and good memories.

Life is too short, unless you're a dwarf !

blueranger said:
And there is the rationale for everyone that's ever done it for road use, personal satisfaction. Pure and simple. Quite frankly I don't blame you....to some bikes are there to be cherished.
Which is why this question will never go away, its about what it feels like and whether an individual thinks it will feel better enough to justify the cost.

I'd rather ride an 1100 rather than an 1150 as I think the engine feels nicer and runs bit richer, though the XIED helped with this a bit.
The LC does feel a bit lean and coarse in its engine note to be honest and I've no doubt it would feel better post remap...but I just don't think it's worth it. It wont make me enjoy the bike anymore than I already do but then my bikes more of a workhorse than 'toy'. Each to their own.
Click to expand...

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Oh boy...;)
Fuel injection keeps the mixture right no matter what elevation but when the air gets thin at high altitude then you loose power and only forced induction will do.Turbocharging or supercharging while turbos are much better than superchargers as the do not create parasitic losses.
This is why a stock Kawasaki H2 is slower than a BMW S1000RR...:D
As for R1200-LC boxers running dangerously lean that is another false believe as they go to open loop running rich at higher rpm for people who run full throttle/high speeds and put Akra headers and aftermarket pipes on it.Doyu think any manufacturer would take he risk of expensive warranty claims or bad publicity by engines blowing up ?
LIke I mentioned before before going to a vetenarian and spending a lot of money for medicine you don't know what is is or how/if it works ty the latest SW-update.

I think you will be very happy with the results as it will be quite an improvement that really leaves nothing to be desired short of a 1300-1400 cc boxer with 150-170 hp...:thumb
Otherwise no chain driven or slow(er) steering KTM 1290 or MS1260 will touch the GS as it is on twisty and or bumpy roads !
Or if you want real power and that superbike feeling get the S1000XR...That is how I see it.
 
Boxerlust said:
Oh boy...;)
Fuel injection keeps the mixture right no matter what elevation but when the air gets thin at high altitude then you loose power and only forced induction will do.Turbocharging or supercharging while turbos are much better than superchargers as the do not create parasitic losses.
This is why a stock Kawasaki H2 is slower than a BMW S1000RR...:D
As for R1200-LC boxers running dangerously lean that is another false believe as they go to open loop running rich at higher rpm for people who run full throttle/high speeds and put Akra headers and aftermarket pipes on it.Doyu think any manufacturer would take he risk of expensive warranty claims or bad publicity by engines blowing up ?
LIke I mentioned before before going to a vetenarian and spending a lot of money for medicine you don't know what is is or how/if it works ty the latest SW-update.

I think you will be very happy with the results as it will be quite an improvement that really leaves nothing to be desired short of a 1300-1400 cc boxer with 150-170 hp...:thumb
Otherwise no chain driven or slow(er) steering KTM 1290 or MS1260 will touch the GS as it is on twisty and or bumpy roads !
Or if you want real power and that superbike feeling get the S1000XR...That is how I see it.
Click to expand...

We all need to justify to ourselves what we spent our hard earned on. God forbid that it was a waste of money; you, the not inconsiderable amount you spent on putting big pistons in your GS and me the relative pennies having new code put in my KTM's black box.

Result is we're both happy :beerjug:

Andres
 
Don't get me wrong I wast(ed) a lot of hard earned money...:(
That is why I like honesty about products/services because it is not about spending money (I'm not a jew...;)) but the time spend to earn it which you never get back or can fill with better things than being a wage-slave...
The sw-update was free and worked real well !
 
Life would be awfully boring if we were all the same.

Apart from the conspiracy numpty fuckwits they can bugger off back to whatever planet they're inhabiting today.
Boxerlust said:
Don't get me wrong I wast(ed) a lot of hard earned money...:(
That is why I like honesty about products/services because it is not about spending money (I'm not a jew...;)) but the time spend to earn it which you never get back or can fill with better things than being a wage-slave...
The sw-update was free and worked real well !
Click to expand...

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Boxerlust said:
Don't get me wrong I wast(ed) a lot of hard earned money...:(
That is why I like honesty about products/services because it is not about spending money (I'm not a jew...;)) but the time spend to earn it which you never get back or can fill with better things than being a wage-slave...
The sw-update was free and worked real well !
Click to expand...

Agreed, I was only teasing :)

I've just bought myself a shitter of an old bike for what a restored one would cost. It's gonna cost the same again to restore it :rolleyes: Sometimes it ain't about the money, it's about the fun of doing it.......

Andres
 
Outtomunch said:
Agreed, I was only teasing :)

I've just bought myself a shitter of an old bike for what a restored one would cost. It's gonna cost the same again to restore it :rolleyes: Sometimes it ain't about the money, it's about the fun of doing it.......

Andres
Click to expand...
The enjoyment of making it your own, the solitude and peace that you will have as you fettle.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
I will try to be serious for a minute.

No matter how good the new OEM BMS update is, it needs to comply with Euro-4. This means fueling close to AFR 14,7. And like any other engine, a bit more fuel will do well.
But we are talking small amounts of fuel, and as long as it's a case of adding fuel only, the power increase will be limited.

According to HT, their statement are:
-- Improves drivability
-- Keeps the adaption capability
-- No remapping, it's a rewrite og fuel management, and the software is immune to upgrades.

I don't know what HT are doing, but their claim is doable.

And why they spoil the picture with pre-dyno runs that are way lower than anything else published and the final result is par with Dyno runs from other sources, and this talk about engine running excessively lean, beats me.

The OEM fueling is kept on track by continuous feedback from the O2 sensors, and the sensors are active at all steady rpms. This adjusts the trim-map, so even in Open Loop conditions, the long term trim is considered.

Making the engine run at a richer AFR does not take much extra fuel, and when O2 switching, the difference in consumption is negligibel, and thus, change in power will not be much either.

The O2 switching contributes to getting the engine more fuel, so whatever you do to the BMS, as long as the engine gets more fuel, the purpose have been served.

However, using a Catalytic converter, the Cat. needs some extra oxygen in order to convert CO to CO2, and hence the OEM switching between lean/rich. And some people claim this varying in rich/lean in 1 sec intervals is part of the nervousness that is felt at easy powersettings.

People are weird creatures. You may be happy with the way things are, not noticing quirks. Then, someone points it out to you, and all of a sudden you start looking for it, and what didn't use to bother you at all now turns into a major annoyment.


Speaking for myself, I was quite happy with the way my LC GSA run, but did notice some very tiny vibrations when loading the engine below 3K.

When i built my O2 manipulator, I made the prototype in such a way that I could switch between richening and standard AFR as I was driving. I could also adjust the AFR while driving and compare settings. This of course only affect the closed loop running, but the LC engine allows closed loop even when accelerating. When you "gun" it, it goes open loop for less than a second.

I tried different levels, from 0 correction to AFR 13,3. ( using the narrowband O2, the AFR value is not exact, but numbers are close enough for government-work).


I learned the following:


-- At no point did I experience a "Wow" moment.
-- The almost un-noticeable vibrations disappeared at around AFR 13,9, and any further richening did not make a difference to my Ass-Dyno.

So I set my final version to run at 13,9 setting (but kept the adjustment capability). Now, 3K km later, the FEELING is that the engine has improved further as the adaptive map has had time to build up, and fuel consumption has not increased. The soot at the end of the mufler is still negligible.

And, last, but not least, I am happy about it....


My point is:

A bit of extra fuel, as compared to the Euro-4 norm, will make the engine run smoother, even if it is already pretty smooth.

The amount of added fuel is tiny, and the poweroutput accordingly. You will not get a hole lot for next to nothing.


--

To the critics of O2 switching:

O2 switching is not just a case of adding fuel in a casual manner. It's a way of close monitoring the O2 output at all RPMs, and feed the BMS with signals that makes the BMS adjust fuel accordingly. The O2 value is read typically 500 times pr seconds.

BMS still knows how much fuel is being supplied, and sets the ignition accordingly, so no need to interfere as it's already taken care of.


O2 switching as well as HT-job cost money.

Is it worth it?

It's up to you.
If it annoys you the way the engine runs and the cost is within your budget, go for it, either HT or O2 switching (AF-XIED). If not, don't bother.
 
knutk said:
I will try to be serious for a minute.

No matter how good the new OEM BMS update is, it needs to comply with Euro-4. This means fueling close to AFR 14,7. And like any other engine, a bit more fuel will do well.
But we are talking small amounts of fuel, and as long as it's a case of adding fuel only, the power increase will be limited.

According to HT, their statement are:
-- Improves drivability
-- Keeps the adaption capability
-- No remapping, it's a rewrite og fuel management, and the software is immune to upgrades.

I don't know what HT are doing, but their claim is doable.

And why they spoil the picture with pre-dyno runs that are way lower than anything else published and the final result is par with Dyno runs from other sources, and this talk about engine running excessively lean, beats me.

The OEM fueling is kept on track by continuous feedback from the O2 sensors, and the sensors are active at all steady rpms. This adjusts the trim-map, so even in Open Loop conditions, the long term trim is considered.

Making the engine run at a richer AFR does not take much extra fuel, and when O2 switching, the difference in consumption is negligibel, and thus, change in power will not be much either.

The O2 switching contributes to getting the engine more fuel, so whatever you do to the BMS, as long as the engine gets more fuel, the purpose have been served.

However, using a Catalytic converter, the Cat. needs some extra oxygen in order to convert CO to CO2, and hence the OEM switching between lean/rich. And some people claim this varying in rich/lean in 1 sec intervals is part of the nervousness that is felt at easy powersettings.

People are weird creatures. You may be happy with the way things are, not noticing quirks. Then, someone points it out to you, and all of a sudden you start looking for it, and what didn't use to bother you at all now turns into a major annoyment.


Speaking for myself, I was quite happy with the way my LC GSA run, but did notice some very tiny vibrations when loading the engine below 3K.

When i built my O2 manipulator, I made the prototype in such a way that I could switch between richening and standard AFR as I was driving. I could also adjust the AFR while driving and compare settings. This of course only affect the closed loop running, but the LC engine allows closed loop even when accelerating. When you "gun" it, it goes open loop for less than a second.

I tried different levels, from 0 correction to AFR 13,3. ( using the narrowband O2, the AFR value is not exact, but numbers are close enough for government-work).


I learned the following:


-- At no point did I experience a "Wow" moment.
-- The almost un-noticeable vibrations disappeared at around AFR 13,9, and any further richening did not make a difference to my Ass-Dyno.

So I set my final version to run at 13,9 setting (but kept the adjustment capability). Now, 3K km later, the FEELING is that the engine has improved further as the adaptive map has had time to build up, and fuel consumption has not increased. The soot at the end of the mufler is still negligible.

And, last, but not least, I am happy about it....


My point is:

A bit of extra fuel, as compared to the Euro-4 norm, will make the engine run smoother, even if it is already pretty smooth.

The amount of added fuel is tiny, and the poweroutput accordingly. You will not get a hole lot for next to nothing.


--

To the critics of O2 switching:

O2 switching is not just a case of adding fuel in a casual manner. It's a way of close monitoring the O2 output at all RPMs, and feed the BMS with signals that makes the BMS adjust fuel accordingly. The O2 value is read typically 500 times pr seconds.

BMS still knows how much fuel is being supplied, and sets the ignition accordingly, so no need to interfere as it's already taken care of.


O2 switching as well as HT-job cost money.

Is it worth it?

It's up to you.
If it annoys you the way the engine runs and the cost is within your budget, go for it, either HT or O2 switching (AF-XIED). If not, don't bother.
Click to expand...
It's an arsOmeter not an ass dyno, that was pre Brexit.

HT makes a bigger difference IF you've decatted, but then so will others too.

Pays your money, makes your choice.


Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Tractors are go said:
It's an arsOmeter not an ass dyno, that was pre Brexit.

HT makes a bigger difference IF you've decatted, but then so will others too.

Pays your money, makes your choice.


Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


You are probably right. And it makes sense.


But honestly, when I bought the bike it came with a full kit Acra, headers and no cat.

Yes, I might notice a difference.

But I don't run tracks nor race, and I drive for fun, on public roads with other traffic and other people around. I hardly ever feel the need to run WOT. So, the extra noise that came with the Acra system bothered me much more than the minor gain in power that I did not feel the need for in the first place, so I put the OEM system back on and now have a complete Acra system decorating my shelf.
 
I wanted a black exhaust colour more than I wanted noise or performance.

I wonder how many people swapped out for a Carbon Can just for a colour change?

I paid £20 to powdercoat OEM, refitted, happy days
 
knutk said:
-- No remapping, it's a rewrite of fuel management, and the software is immune to upgrades.
Click to expand...

This is the part I struggle with,

Apart from them them somehow intercepting the O2 sensor signal adding a correction and I suppose they cold intercept the injector circuit and apply a correction factor to spray more fuel. This would explain the instantaneous improvement that you get without the running in period and this would leave the base maps in tact and would mitigate the dealer / manufacturer seeing values outside of normal range.

With O2 switching are you surely not at risk of the ECU learning adjusting the maps if they "shift the O2 reading".

If they have found a way to circumvent a remap then I stand corrected.
 
Nippy Normans supply Touratech, Wunderlich, Desert Fox and many other makes of accessories.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

landmarkjohn
BMSPK ECU fail. R1200GS 2008. What are my options?
Replies
3
Views
188
botus
Buying a new 1250 TE
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
4,645
GSMarky
Russgas
No power to fuel pump?
Replies
0
Views
45
Russgas
Russgas
How easy is it to steal a big GS by lifting it into a van?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3,504
GSian
GSian
jasext
Travel insurance trail riding Portugal
Replies
12
Views
309
Berin
Berin


Back
Top Bottom