Gstom
The Revenant
Well the bike has,its been sorted by hilltop, 96bhp up to 112 bhp.........more importantly it feels smoother through the rev range. Thanks to the guys at Hilltop and John for arranging it and the discount.2018 R1200GS
I’ve been Hilltopped
- Thread starter Gstom
- Start date
Well the bike has,its been sorted by hilltop, 96bhp up to 112 bhp.........more importantly it feels smoother through the rev range. Thanks to the guys at Hilltop and John for arranging it and the discount.2018 R1200GS
FlyingPanda
Registered user
And I have a feeling that I was there the same day!
Yes - firstly, I would like to second(?) the thanks to John for arranging it.
For some reason it doesn't seem to be 'the done thing' to talk about the power gains that anyone got because some people here [AFAIK, those that have never had it done] get all upset about it. However, I would like to make the point that I also saw a very similar power gain, but for me, my greatest benefit was far smoother fuelling and a much nicer low speed throttle progression. I could feel this from the moment I pulled away from Hilltop's premises. The graphs bear this out (nearly 25 ft/lb more torque at 2,000 rpm) which is the really noticeable part for me. I did give it quite a spanking on the way home and although I apparently do have more power and torque everywhere, it was the increase in low down torque (and smoother fuelling) that were most noticeable for me.
So, was it worth it? For me, yes, without a doubt. YMMV.
Yes - firstly, I would like to second(?) the thanks to John for arranging it.
For some reason it doesn't seem to be 'the done thing' to talk about the power gains that anyone got because some people here [AFAIK, those that have never had it done] get all upset about it. However, I would like to make the point that I also saw a very similar power gain, but for me, my greatest benefit was far smoother fuelling and a much nicer low speed throttle progression. I could feel this from the moment I pulled away from Hilltop's premises. The graphs bear this out (nearly 25 ft/lb more torque at 2,000 rpm) which is the really noticeable part for me. I did give it quite a spanking on the way home and although I apparently do have more power and torque everywhere, it was the increase in low down torque (and smoother fuelling) that were most noticeable for me.
So, was it worth it? For me, yes, without a doubt. YMMV.
Sorry GStom but 16 hp with a different fuel map is not happening...that is just a fairytale.
And only 112 rwhp after being hilltopped ? Stock 1200 LC's make 115 rwhp !
Just think about the following..why would a manufacturer like BMW that knows a thing or two about making engines would go through all the cost & effort of designing new heads with 2 intake cam lobes that switch under load and/or rpm,a 2 mm bigger piston and new crankshaft with 3 mm more stroke to gain only 11 hp if it was so simple that a new fuel map would have given them 16 hp...
Get real !
And only 112 rwhp after being hilltopped ? Stock 1200 LC's make 115 rwhp !
Just think about the following..why would a manufacturer like BMW that knows a thing or two about making engines would go through all the cost & effort of designing new heads with 2 intake cam lobes that switch under load and/or rpm,a 2 mm bigger piston and new crankshaft with 3 mm more stroke to gain only 11 hp if it was so simple that a new fuel map would have given them 16 hp...
Get real !Here we go again 
Sorry GStom but 16 hp with a different fuel map is not happening...that is just a fairytale.
And only 112 rwhp after being hilltopped ? Stock 1200 LC's make 115 rwhp !
Just think about the following..why would a manufacturer like BMW that knows a thing or two about making engines would go through all the cost & effort of designing new heads with 2 intake cam lobes that switch under load and/or rpm,a 2 mm bigger piston and new crankshaft with 3 mm more stroke to gain only 11 hp if it was so simple that a new fuel map would have given them 16 hp...
You really do live in a dream world. Are there pixies and fairies there too?
Here we go again
exactly and the septic has been poked ffs
Sorry GStom but 16 hp with a different fuel map is not happening...that is just a fairytale.
And only 112 rwhp after being hilltopped ? Stock 1200 LC's make 115 rwhp !
Just think about the following..why would a manufacturer like BMW that knows a thing or two about making engines would go through all the cost & effort of designing new heads with 2 intake cam lobes that switch under load and/or rpm,a 2 mm bigger piston and new crankshaft with 3 mm more stroke to gain only 11 hp if it was so simple that a new fuel map would have given them 16 hp...
Jeeez..has no one shot this idiot yet?
Mine had 97 rwhp prior and now has 114 after hilltop. Hilltop also did my Yamaha 1200 Tenere which, lets be honest was really underpowered at 78rwhp, but improved enormously after a set up..and measured 91rwhp.
115 stock? Give over you buffoon.
Of course...
16 hp more by giving a liitle more or less fuel...won't happen !
The wonder-dyno tells the truth... putting the brakes on by making a miserly 96 hp where old TC boxers already made around 100 rwhp...at least after the remap it made 112 rwhp which is believable as stock LC boxers broken in properly make around 115 rwhp !
You guys have been hilltopped alright...
Enough said but just keep it real because otherwise it get's embarrassing if someone should read here that knows a thing or two about engines...especially about modern a highly sophisticated ones like the LC boxers....the days are long over where you could throw a pipe and dynojet kit on a 1100 Bandid and ended up with 20 hp more...look at BMW's new 1250 and all the hardware changes to end up with only 11 hp more !
I'm sure on the hilltop dyno it will make 107 rwhp before and 123 hp afterwards while stock 1250's will already make around 126 rwhp...
The wonder-dyno tells the truth...
putting the brakes on by making a miserly 96 hp where old TC boxers already made around 100 rwhp...at least after the remap it made 112 rwhp which is believable as stock LC boxers broken in properly make around 115 rwhp !You guys have been hilltopped alright...
Enough said but just keep it real because otherwise it get's embarrassing if someone should read here that knows a thing or two about engines...especially about modern a highly sophisticated ones like the LC boxers....the days are long over where you could throw a pipe and dynojet kit on a 1100 Bandid and ended up with 20 hp more...look at BMW's new 1250 and all the hardware changes to end up with only 11 hp more !
I'm sure on the hilltop dyno it will make 107 rwhp before and 123 hp afterwards while stock 1250's will already make around 126 rwhp...
16 hp more by giving a liitle more or less fuel...won't happen !
The wonder-dyno tells the truth...
You guys have been hilltopped alright...
Enough said but just keep it real because otherwise it get's embarrassing if someone should read here that knows a thing or two about engines...especially about modern a highly sophisticated ones like the LC boxers....the days are long over where you could throw a pipe and dynojet kit on a 1100 Bandid and ended up with 20 hp more...look at BMW's new 1250 and all the hardware changes to end up with only 11 hp more !
I'm sure on the hilltop dyno it will make 107 rwhp before and 123 hp afterwards while stock 1250's will already make around 126 rwhp...
You do realise that there are a lot of American GS owners on AdvRider that have taken their bikes to the dyno, in the States, and have had similar pre remap figures, don’t you?
THey have some dynos in Stuttgart at PS and the last R Nine T they tested made 103 rwhp while the R1200 LC made 115 hp on the same dyno...the S1000RR made 198 hp at the rear wheel...only bike stronger was 1100 Panigale with 202 rwhp while a 2018 Fireblade made 174 hp.
Believe what you want but if a LC makes only 96 hp there is something seriously wrong with either the bike or dyno because 2010 on TC boxers make already 100 hp at the wheel...enough said !
Believe what you want but if a LC makes only 96 hp there is something seriously wrong with either the bike or dyno because 2010 on TC boxers make already 100 hp at the wheel...enough said !
Some bikes are poorly run in and never fully perform to their best, others are stronger and just better overall.
Down to manufacturing differences, possibly.
However, manufacturers also have to factor in the stupid fuckwit owner, who doesn't bother servicing the vehicle, uses shit fuel etc, then there is also environmental factors like more dust around town, or what height it is at.
Ford detuned the original Cosworth from 300bhp, to 205 at the behest of marketing who were terrified of warranty claims damaging the halo effect on their primary sales.
It was easy to get another 140bhp on top of the standard, with relatively small modifications.
Now to my gsa, with decat/akra, k&n and a hilltop it produces 104bhp at the back wheel. Not bad and can certainly frighten a standard LC.
My rr has full race system, different air filter/box remapped and now has 218bhp.
So for close to £1800 I've gained almost 20bhp or 10%.
I've been looking at a new bike, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is, compare the before and after then pay the bill ???
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
FlyingPanda
Registered user
What, the S1000RR that makes 199hp at the crank only loses 1 hp at the rear wheel?? No wonder the LC made 115 on the same dyno!
I dont no why BMW went with the shiftcam for more power they should have just sent them all to Hilltop
FlyingPanda
Registered user
But then they'd have fallen foul of the emissions regs, or wasn't that clear from the 1,000,000 other posts explaining this?
Perhaps it wasn't a good rr.
Ducati offered £20K (from memory) if a standard TL1000 made more than 120bhp.
I think PB magazine bought one, ran it in and it made 120+nip.
Ducati didn't pay up.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Ducati offered £20K (from memory) if a standard TL1000 made more than 120bhp.
I think PB magazine bought one, ran it in and it made 120+nip.
Ducati didn't pay up.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
They may well have, but how do you explain the dozens of dynos all across America also reporting similar figures to Hilltop?
FlyingPanda
Registered user
...and the 198bhp RWP from a S1000RR?
fred_jb
Registered user
If Hilltop deliberately give a low readout on the first Dyno run, then they wouldn't have registered mine at 105.85 and would not have told me that my bike was making above average power and I should not expect a big increase. This did not bother me as I wasn't after a max power increase but was more interested in a better and smoother low rev response. My peak figures ended up as follows:
Before: 105.85 bhp, 77.17 ft/lb
After: 111.27 bhp, 84.50 ft/lb
However, the biggest improvement was to torque between 2000-4000 rpm, which has translated into better, more controllable starts from stationary, especially with pillion and luggage, and less need for high revs to avoid stalls.
Before: 105.85 bhp, 77.17 ft/lb
After: 111.27 bhp, 84.50 ft/lb
However, the biggest improvement was to torque between 2000-4000 rpm, which has translated into better, more controllable starts from stationary, especially with pillion and luggage, and less need for high revs to avoid stalls.
Similar threads
