performance modificatios

[rt1100]

I recently purchased a 2001 rt 1100 with a techlusion FIC. I began looking for after market exhausts, air filters, etc. After much research, I have come to the conclusion that there is almost nothing an owner can do to this bike to gain horsepower and make it a little more macho without spending 2 grand and then some and taking it to a dyno. From what I have read, despite the absurd air box plumbing, there is nothing that can be done to improve its performance for normal street riding. The bike is not air starved at all, despite the absurd plumbing.. K/N filters add nothing. Aftermarket exhausts apparently make it louder, period. Forget the European, titanium nonsense...there seems to be no data to PROVE they are worth the cost. The only affordable exhaust, the 2 brothers cat. eliminator kit, gets bad reviews for being annoying. The dyno graphs show no improvement in HP and torque until damn near red line, and who rides an RT like that? Then the fiberglass packing blows out of the damn thing, and it gets even nastier.The one thing I have found that looks promising is to purchase two GS throttle body intake tubes... velocity stacks ...and put them into the RT airbox.

Am I wrong to conclude that the airbox and entire exhaust system of my RT is enginneered to the max, a whole bunch of tuning is built in..like the resonnance of the air box, etc...and that I should ride tha e damn thing stock and spend the money on food and gas?

Or, is it possible to get a little more manly noise and performance out of the beast without owning a BMW R and D company yourself? Does anyone have any recommendations on how to unleash the beast just a little bit? Thanks.

[AndyS]

Have you got the wrong bike for your needs?

 

Andy

[rt1100]

Good question. I have ridden a venture and loved it, I have a st1100 honda, and a harley chopper.

I must plead guilty to liking a bit of motorcycle sound coming out of my pipes.

Not a lot, just a little growl. I read thet the GS tubes do indeed make a bit of a howl. I dont listen to music when I ride, just the bike.

My first thought was that the RT was the wrong bike for me, I had all kinds of bad luck with it, surging, blew an alternator belt and took the hall sensors out, etc.

The darn thing has grown on me, and I am starting to appreciate the engineering. I have never ridden a turn key stock bike, and I will confess to wanting to hike my leg on it a wee bit. Do I just need to get over that sort of thinking to be a BMW guy from now on or what?

[oldyam]

I would suggest that you've covered most of the options there.

 

I went along the line of the GS intake mod and am happy with the results, nothing major in the performance department, but a definite improvement in midrange where the original flatspot was and a noticeable difference in low speed pickup.

 

Just makes the bike more "rideable" as I run two up most of the time.

 

By the sounds of it you're in the US so yours may be slightly different ( O2 sensor etc ) in results.

 

It may be an idea to fill in the profile as the RT varies around the world as to build etc, might make helping you with info easier ( eg mine has no O2 sensor and a CO pot instead )

 

[breyfogle]

If all you want is a bit more noise, some people drill three 3/8" holes (120 degrees apart) in the back of the stock muffler around the exhaust hole. Adds a nice mellow tone. A little Googling should turn up some pictures.

[Ken H.]

Just to keep things in perspective a bit, you’re talking about a 9-yr old bike that is two generations of boxer designs old. I don’t think it’s realistic to consider much more than ride it. It is what it is. Want to get more performance from a BMW R bike platform? Save your several grand contemplated spending on a R1100 series toward a down payment on a R1200 series boxer would be my suggestion.

[dirtrider]

Hi rt1100

 

You can gain a little up top by increasing the air intake snorkel inlet size slightly, gutting the cat, adding a low restriction muffler and adding some fuel with a Power Commander or Techlusion. Not a lot but a few up top horsepower and a little upper middle range torque.

You might also have to diddle with the base ignition timing then go to premium fuel.

 

Is it worth it? Only you can decide that. It will definitely allow you to pull other like bikes on top end speed, and add a little middle range up upon exiting the corners.

 

The Techlusion itself won’t add much total power but can fill in some of the fueling lean spot dips to make the engine feel stronger and pull smoother.

 

On the 1100 a well set up Techlusion with the Ma 2.2 open loop mapping can make the engine feel torqier in the low to middle RPM band but I doubt it actually adds much to the measurable torque. If not done correctly it can also kill your fuel economy.

 

I made a fairly decent economy exhaust system on my old 1100 by buying a used stock exhaust off of E-By then gutting the cat and cutting the original muffler off. I then welded on a tapered stainless transition pipe then bolted on a Ducati TERMIGNONI muffler. It sounded pretty decent at part throttle and crusing but had a little too much bark at full throttle high RPM’s.

 

One good thing about starting the project with an E-Bay exhaust is if you don’t like the results you always have the option of re-installing the original unmolested exhaust system.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Just pick up a stock muffler from a Gen 5 VFR. A few $ at a muffler shop for a little adapting and you will get a nice burble. WARNING!! At anything louder than a burble, the oil head motor sounds like a flatulent hippo.

[DavidEBSmith]

Cheap horsepower gain: go on a diet. 15 lbs = 1 hp?

[MAT2CHI]

 

Coming from a Harley I was also feeling my stock '04 RT was too quiet - but the more I rode it the more I liked the lack of noise it made. So I took a little of the Remus exhaust money I was saving up and took a riding/racing course instead. Now my bike and I are much faster and it's still nice and quiet.

 

[CoarsegoldKid]

is it possible to get a little more manly noise

Eat beans and drink beer

[MAT2CHI]

is it possible to get a little more manly noise

Eat beans and drink beer

 

[RGP]

I have a 2002 RT. I put on a K&N, Laser exhaust, headers, and a set of Omex cams and performance chip. The only things I did that made the bike run stronger/better was putting the cams and chip in. It really made a difference and totally got rid of the annoying surge problems this year had. It made such a difference that when I brought it to the dealer to have an FD leak fixed all the mechanics wanted to know what I did to made it run so well.

 

My 2 cents.

[japachap]

K&N is a waste on the boxer

Iridium plugs and an Accelerator IAT mod- cheapest way to improve general running/driveability.

 

Want more HPs? Buy a new bike.

[boatzo]

rt1100,

 

There are very few Beemers in the area where I live, mostly Harleys and a few Japs. My Harley friends are always talking about all the after market mods that have had to do to get performance. I just grin and say "on a BMW, you aint gotta do nuttin, just ride and enjoy." My 2 cents.

[Peter Parts]

Never read a thread with as much consistently wise original and reply posts as this one. But sad, eh.

 

Hard to make a dent in the performance an ECU bike in reasonable tune. My R1100S has a few more options, but not much.

 

For each ECU input (I think there are maybe 6 with altitude being inside the box) there is some kind of kludge.

 

Not discussed is spark timing. That is the one area where manufacturers always leave some HP on the table for safety. BMW historically left 3 degrees for safety. You can encroach on that safety zone and between some fuel enrichment and some timing tricks, gain some power. The spark map on the Motronics is very convoluted - don't try to build your own like we used to do by fooling with timing centrifugal weights and springs.

 

Unless you own your own part-load dyno, best move is a chip. Some (like Laser) don't touch timing. Some like Bernhard Bernd do. I think the Australian chips don't.

 

Also not mentioned was some craftwork like smoothing the atrocious welds in the exhaust headers, smoother exhaust pipe work, intake track alignment, etc.

 

Imprecise to say you can't sup' up these bikes. An old bike is a perfect test bench. Just very hard to do easily.

 

Ben

[NonComp]

What kind of mufflers did you put on your 1100 to achieve that mellow growl?

 

My 1100 came with the GS tubes when I bought it. I kinda wish I had the stock ones to compare against. The airbox sound is kinda boomy.

[outpost22]

The best racing advice I used to give guys who wanted more power from their bikes was to buy good tires and learn to ride better.

 

Go to a performance riding school and install grippy tires. You will ride faster than any modification you will do to an R1100 engine/exhaust/fueling system, and for a whole lot cheaper.

 

If you want to improve the sound on the RT, just whisper "Vroom Vroom" at a stoplight under your helmet like I do.

 

If you want more performance, get one of these :

 

 

[Paul De]

Dooood

 

Save your money.....maybe buy the GS tubes and play with your cat code plug. Inexpensive tweaks is the best appraoch to hopping up an RT

 

I have a friend who spent many multiple thousands of $$ to have his HD to make more HP. And after his 4 grand, he has a fast Harley, which is cool. But the reality is that some kid on a bone stock used Yamaha R6 will have his lunch for not too much more than he spent on the mods.

 

The same can be applied to our RT bikes (T as in Touring). A fast RT....even the newest 1200 is slow.

 

You want fast buy fast in the first place!!!

 

Sorry for raining on your dream,but I hate to see you blow your money and get so little in return.

[NonComp]

I do get that part of the deal for lots of bike owners is the customization of same. But you want something for more than flash for your cash. Personally, I like stock (aside from personal tweaks).

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Performance gains are simple in concept, difficult, with the boxer engine in execution.

 

The simple part, get the engine to breathe more air. The more air you can get the thing to pump, the more HP it will make.

 

A healthy R1100 motor will make about 75 RWHP, stock. Minor modifications like airbox, exhaust, chips, etc. will get it up into the 82-85 HP range. To get any real performance, cylinder heads and cams need modification. Quite expensive but dollar for dollar, the best bang for the buck.

[mrduck]

Coming from a Harley I was also feeling my stock '04 RT was too quiet - but the more I rode it the more I liked the lack of noise it made. So I took a little of the Remus exhaust money I was saving up and took a riding/racing course instead. Now my bike and I are much faster and it's still nice and quiet.

 

 

Yeah, what he said!

I haven't seen any thing mentioned about suspension, so a good set of aftermarket shocks will do wonders for your cornering speed. Take the time to get them set up right, and then you'll find out how much faster (and fun) that bike can be in the curvy stuff!

And stealth is good!

 

 

Don J

 

 

 

 

 

[rt1100]

Sometimes things are just best left alone....

like the rt1100 exhaust system.

 

I drilled the three holes in the muffler exit baffle and took my 2001 rt for a ride in the hills. The only sound difference from stock was some ...fffft ftttt fffttt ffftt noises,

nothing resembling a macho performance sound.

Not an improvement at all. Rats.

Coming down my first series of hills I got some backfiring...something the bike had never done before. Within a mile it started to feel loaded up, that nasty "RT wont go surging syndrome" (RTWGSS)....took it home. Pop riveted all three holes shut, changed the plugs...I am using Autolites...and took her out on the interstate. She still wasnt running right, felt like riding with the choke on, horsepower and response WAY below normal...

uggghhhh.Shouldnt have f___d with it.

Popped the seat, removed fuse #5 for a min,

put it back... and that did it.

 

My question: Did the EFI computer " learn some bad habits" from me messing with the exhaust?

 

Did my unplugging it "erase the blackboard" and reset it to default stock ?

 

One more minor thing. While cleaning the oil cooler, I noticed that the engine air intake scoop was routed too closely to the fairing.

The lip of the fairing was actually blocking maybe 15% of the outboard side of the air intake. I got a six inch piece of black 5/8 tubing and wedged it between the outboard lip if the air intake scoop and the inside lip of the fairing.

All better now.Huge increase in torque. Not.

[RTCHIEF]

Try this, keep the rpms above 5500 is you are looking for power. Dropping your final drive down to a lower ratio (R1100RS, or R1100RTP) will give you give you the most bang for the buck. Then it's a computer chip and an after market exhaust. Another cheap source of power on the R1100RT's is to put a set of large valve heads off a 96 RT on your bike.

[dirtrider]

Morning RT1100

 

Those 3 drilled holes didn’t change the exhaust enough to make your bike do what it did. About all you get from those muffler holes is a little more unpleasant noise and a little air in the back of the muffler to hasten afterburn popping. Something else happened at the same time.

 

The Ma 2.2 system on your 1100 has a little immediate fuel trim learn but not enough to hold the fuel trim block learn through an ignition off cycle. Same with removing the Motronic fuse. There is no TPS learn on that system.

 

Might have been a problem with your o2 sensor but even that should go away with just a simple key off then a restart.

See if your problem comes back after you ride it hard again, still might be you have an o2 sensor problem that only shows up after a hard flogging.

 

Might also be a partially plugging fuel filter that only causes problems after a hard run.

 

Do you get any hissing or vacuum noise when you open the gas tank cap after you ride it a while? If so maybe look into a mis-routed or plugged tank vent hose or plugged evap can. Kind of stretching on this one as the in-tank fuel pump can make way more pressure than any in-tank vacuum can hold back.

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

San Jose BMW used to offer a kit for adding a second spark plug to each cylinder head. You'd send in your existing heads, and they'd send you a replacement set that had been drilled/tapped for a second set of spark plugs, a new coil, etc. Dual flame fronts result in faster combustion events, which improves efficiency - ultimately, more power for the same fueling level, and better MPG to boot. I never did this mod to my 1100RT, but I can tell you it's not snake oil: the boxer has pretty big cylinders, and multiple ignition sites is a well-documented way to get a faster burn out of such a beast.

 

You might give them a call and see if they're still doing this, or know someone who is.

[cruisin]

I tinkered a bit with enhancing performance when I first bought the '98 in Nov. of '01. Did the GS tube mod; seat of the pants -- midrange torque felt smoother and stronger in throttle rolls from various speeds. Objective evidence; only a slight increase in fuel mileage by about 5mpg. Then I messed with fuel mapping chips (ccp) some; couldn't tell much difference except it was a b***h to tune up with one or two of them. Next just stuck with the blue ccp that provided middle of the road fuel mixture and got very meticulous about TPS voltage setting and TB sync along with very close tolerances on valve adjustments. She ran like she was designed to after all that. The only other thing I did was add Ohlins shocks, but mainly to lower it for my 27" inseam. They did tend to keep it firmly planted in cornering mode though.

 

Keep in mind the 1100 in its hey-day was named #1 sport-touring bike 4 years in a row, and for good reason -- it's a great machine. It does lean more toward the touring part of the name than to the sport side however. All that said, it is not any less of a great ST now than it was when new, there are just a lot of folks who think that faster, more powerful, and lighter weight make a bike better. I'm of the opinion that the 1100RT may very well be one of the best bikes ever built when used for its intended purpose. If you have another purpose in mind, then it may not deliver what you want and may not be the bike for you. As others have stated, only you can decide if you bought the bike you really need. If not, then buy a different bike to meet your needs rather than trying to make one bike into something it is not. That can apply to any bike, from heavy cruisers to ultra-light, super-powered sport bikes.

 

I like the RT so much that even though the '98 is now about 75% sold off in parts, I am on my way to Omaha this week to pick up a '00 with 12K miles on it and fully plan to drive the crap out of it with the same mods I had on the '98. (Ohlins shocks, GS tubes, precision tuning, single electrode Auto-lite plugs -- that's it). As for more sound; it may make you 'feel' like you are going faster, but in all likely-hood, it's just more sound -- nothing more. When I'm cookin' through the twisty roads on an RT, I like to recall a verse from the old Vickie Lawrence song The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia. "slippin' through the back-woods, quiet as a mouse"

[dirtrider]

Morning Cruisin

 

You might want to re-check your notes on the CCP used, the Blue (actually a bluish gray) CCP is a low octane CCP for use in countries where below 91 RON fuel is available. That takes a fair amount of engine performance away.

 

[cruisin]

Morning Cruisin

 

You might want to re-check your notes on the CCP used, the Blue (actually a bluish gray) CCP is a low octane CCP for use in countries where below 91 RON fuel is available. That takes a fair amount of engine performance away.

 

that may be true, but it worked well with the fuels most common around here (usually 90 or less) and I didn't notice any drop in fuel mileage or seat of the pants performance (no stuttering, no stalling)don't have a dyno nor access to one easily so no imperical data other than keeping a very close watch on fuel mileage.

[Jerry Duke]

Changing the cam sprockets moves the power band down, third gear really pulls now from 4500 on. At 6000 you should still feel the BMW torque kicking in.

But you really need to get the engine running right before you do anything else.

[dirtrider]

 

that may be true, but it worked well with the fuels most common around here (usually 90 or less) and I didn't notice any drop in fuel mileage or seat of the pants performance (no stuttering, no stalling)don't have a dyno nor access to one easily so no imperical data other than keeping a very close watch on fuel mileage.

 

Morning Cruisin

 

Where do you live? It must be a 3rd world country to have fuel with less that 91 RON octane. That is about 87 octane on an American pump.

90 RON is REALLY low octane.

 

 

[cruisin]

ok, guess I misunderstood your terminology (RON?); 90 octane is about the highest we see here in the Texas Panhandle, (a third-world country by some standards ) so I typically have to buy 89 or 88. All I know for sure is that it was easier to tune the '98 with that ccp than either the pink or the mustard. I had it set so that it was easy to start, and consistently got 47 to 48 mpg running 70mph or in the 42 to 43 range if I wicked it up a bit in the twisties.

[Boffin]

ok, guess I misunderstood your terminology (RON?); 90 octane is about the highest we see here in the Texas Panhandle, (a third-world country by some standards ) so I typically have to buy 89 or 88. All I know for sure is that it was easier to tune the '98 with that ccp than either the pink or the mustard. I had it set so that it was easy to start, and consistently got 47 to 48 mpg running 70mph or in the 42 to 43 range if I wicked it up a bit in the twisties.

 

RON is Research Octane Number - and is the standard normally used in Europe. The second standard often seen is Motor Octane Number (MON). These are both obtained using test engines but give differing values due to differences i ntest methods. For the normal range of road fuels, RON is 10 points higher than MON.

 

The third standard seen is the one used in the USA, whose name I forget, but is derrived from the other two - the USA octane rating is MON+RON/2, or to put it another way, 90 RON is 85 octane in the USA. 90 octane USA is 95 RON - which is the lowest normally seen here - our 'super' is 97 - 98 RON, 92 0r 93 USA octane.

 

 

[cruisin]

we commonly see up to 92 in south Texas but here in the Panhandle, 91 is extremely rare. A lot of stations (convenience store type) typically only have 89 and 87. I just learned not to rely on finding 90 or above and that's the way I tune the bikes. (to run their best on what's available, not what I wish I could get.)

[dirtrider]

Afternoon Cruisin

 

I guess I still don’t understand how installing a CPP that removes spark timing makes it run better or makes it get (5) that’s 5 miles per gallon better gas mileage?

That bike should run just fine on the stock CCP or with the CCP removed even on U.S. 87 or 89 octane gasoline.

Just what are you tuning? That bike has computer controlled fueling and computer controlled spark tables so you can’t do much.

 

[cruisin]

I had easy aaccess to the pink and blue ccps so gave them a try in conjunction with the GS tubes and precison settings of valves, TBs and TPS. The one that worked the best for smoothness and efficiency is the one I stuck with. The pink one was the worst, I could hardly keep the bike running at stops in neutral and it stuttered a lot. The original mustard colored ccp ran just OK, but mileage was bad at about 42 hwy and 38 city. No ccp was somewhere between the mustard and blue one with the blue delivering the best balance of all. Nothing scientific or theoretical, just used what worked the best. I'm guessing the other things had more to do with the fuel mileage than the ccp.

[dirtrider]

I had easy aaccess to the pink and blue ccps so gave them a try in conjunction with the GS tubes and precison settings of valves, TBs and TPS. The one that worked the best for smoothness and efficiency is the one I stuck with. The pink one was the worst, I could hardly keep the bike running at stops in neutral and it stuttered a lot. The original mustard colored ccp ran just OK, but mileage was bad at about 42 hwy and 38 city. No ccp was somewhere between the mustard and blue one with the blue delivering the best balance of all. Nothing scientific or theoretical, just used what worked the best. I'm guessing the other things had more to do with the fuel mileage than the ccp.

 

Afternoon again Cruisin

 

Well that flies right in the face of logic.

 

The only way I could ever understand using the low octane CCP and improving the miles per gallon or making it run better is if the base ignition timing was messed with and advanced way more than it should have been.

 

 

[cruisin]

sorry, but using what works best in real world applications is more logical to me than trying to use theorectical things that don't work in the real world. but that's just me.

 

[dirtrider]

sorry, but using what works best in real world applications is more logical to me than trying to use theorectical things that don't work in the real world. but that's just me.

 

Afternoon Cruisin

 

Yep, that’s just you.

 

[cruisin]

the late Rob Lintini had a slightly different experience with ccps on an RS a few years ago. He detailed it pretty thoroughly on IBMWR. I used a trial an error method similar to his to find what worked best for me; although his trial and error was likely based more on theory and science than mine. Once I had all other parameters set to my satisfaction (valves, TPS, TB sync) I did not change them during the course of testing the various ccps. I tested each ccp for about a week's worth of commuting (about 330 miles/week). I ran my numbers on fuel mileage and tried to remain accutely aware of performance, especially smoothness and throttle response in mid-range; like when running 70 and needing to pass a slower moving vehicle. I also went into to it completely unbiased, because I didn't have anything at stake other finding out what delivered what I was looking for. I didn't care what color plug I used or none at all, so long as the bike ran good and got good fuel mileage. And I'll approach the 2000 that way when I get it home. If it delivers what I want bone stock, I won't do anything, if I feel it could use a little tweaking, I may install the GS tubes again to start and go from there. Of course now that I have driven an RT for nearly 100K miles now,and was pretty satisfied with the performance, I will take that into consideration on my judgement of whether or not it needs tweaking. I have also come to rely very heavily on the shool of thought, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," since I first tackled better performance from an RT.

 

Here is a short exerpt from what he (Lintini) found on the RS (a '96 I think) (which may have different motronic coding than the '98 RT; I do not know);

 

In my opinion, removing the CCP is NOT the way to go, assuming of course that you are still running the stock catalytic converter/muffler. I measured CO readings that go from 0-2% CO (with CCP) to 6-8% (without CCP). Running open loop will eventually damage your converter. If you don't care, the cost is yours -- to both the environment and your fuel consumption. Some states, like AZ (mine), have emissions testing. Think about this!

Point 2):

If you have an aftermarket system installed, like my Staintune, your options expand.

Here's the bottom line: The STOCK "with CCP" configuration gives the best OVERALL performance/mileage combo. Although surging (prior to "Zero=Zero") could be detected, this stock combination is the BEST compromise, in my opinion. Without a doubt, it is also LEGAL and safe for a catalytic converter.

I evaluated seven (7) different map configurations on my R1100RS. GS and R folks might experience differences due to compression ratios and cam timing.

BTW: CCP connections were made to configure the Motronic unit in accordance with BMW data. I made up a four-wire jumper connector with spade terminals so I wouldn't have to buy all the different CCPs. Connection pins are related to the pin numbers you will observe on the pin-side of your CCP. Early "Beta" pre-production R1100RSs were "hard wired" for catalytic converters, and have no CCP socket.

1. R1100RS without cat, no CCP connections, CO pot installed:

• Best overall power

• No surging

• Significantly higher emissions

• Converter damage likely

• Poor fuel consumption

2. R1100RS with Golden Yellow CCP, 30-87 connections, no CO pot

• Performance very close to #1

• Very slight surging

• Low emissions

• Better fuel consumption than #1

3. R1100RS with CCP, 30-87 connections, with CO pot (to observe if pot can be coinstalled with O2 sensor)

• Performance same as #2

• Same emissions

• CO pot has no effect, appears to be ignored

4. R1100RS - CH (Switzerland) with cat, Dove Blue CCP, 30-86-87a connections, no CO pot

• Breaks up under hard throttle; won't full beyond 7000rpm

• More surging than #2

• Performance SUCKS!

5. R1100GS without cat, Beige CCP, 30-87a connections, no CO pot

• OK midrange power; relatively weak top end

• Defaulted to 1.8% (because of no CO pot)

• No surging

6. R1100GS with cat, Rose Pink CCP, 30-87-87a connections, no CO pot

• Weak mid range power, weaker than #5

• Significant surging

(Note: This CCP when matched with GS Intake Tubes (see http://www.ibmwr.org/r-tech/oilheads/R11pwmod.shtml) can significantly improve mid range torque on RTs and RSs)

7. R1100GS - CH (Switzerland) with cat, Mahogany Brown CCP, 30-86-87-87a connections, no CO pot

• Starts, but won't idle unless throttle is held open. I did not ride my bike in this configuration.

• UNRIDEABLE!

Conclusions:

• Config #1 is best for power, has high emissions, increases fuel consumption (O2 sensor seems ignored or overpowered--no closed loop) and will probably damage a catalytic converter. Use only with non-cat exhaust system.

• Config #2 is very close the #1 in performance, has some surging, low emissions, better fuel consumption, and will work with or without a converter.

• No other CCP configuration will work acceptably in an R1100RS. It would be interesting to observe the performance of an R1100GS with RS mapping.

• The CO pot, if installed with a "with cat CCP", is ignored. YOUR money is wasted!

• If the CCP is removed, and the CO pot is not installed, the "1111" CO pot fault is set, and the Motronic control unit defaults to 1.8% CO value.

• It is IMPERATIVE when making ANY Motronic changes to clear faults by removing and then reinstalling fuse #5, and to be safe, fuse #6.

[Peter Parts]

'Fraid I've never read an intelligent word on the details of how any CCP changes the ECU. (Exeption, pulling the CCP prolly puts you into limp-home mode and I can guess what that means for fueling and spark timing.) Sure wish somebody could tell me (not just with patronizing inspirational words, please).

 

So "experimenting" with CCPs is possible, if you have the patience working with unknowns and observing barely measurable outcomes. Can't say as I'm better informed after reading the mass of posted experiences relating colors to performance.

 

Low octane gas produces more HP (and more mileage) because it, in effect, advances the spark. But substituting a "low octane CCP" likely cancels that.

 

Ben

[cruisin]

I read all of Lintini's work on the subject and then did my own experimenting using his work as a general guide. Smoothness and roll-on acceleration are admittedly subjective unless you are in a shop equiped to measure those things. Miles per gallon, however, is very easy to calculate and I chose to run with the configuration that delivered what I percieved to be a smoother, stronger engine, that actually delivered the best fuel mileage. Now, the theories behind the different chips may say otherwise, but I'm not going to put a chip in and leave it in if it results in a less efficient engine. Lintini was in Phoenix I beleive, testing an RS. So there are are two variables that may or may not account for his conclusions being different than mine. Now, anyone who has followed R1100xx performance over the years will pretty much tell you Lintini was very well respected in getting the most out of the oil-head engines. I too respect what he did, but I'm still not going to set a bike up in a less efficient way just to to stick with theory; for me real world testing in my location with my bike, wins every time. I'm pretty sure that's the way he approached it too.

[dirtrider]

Afternoon Ben

 

Both the Motronic 2.2 and 2.4 have a series of base Alpha-N fueling/timing maps in them. The Different CCP’s are just a series of jumpers that force the Motronic to access a different base Alpha-N map. In any case they are ALL actively trimmed while in operation so most can work to some degree in just about all situations. The active trim also makes if difficult to compare apples to apples while on the road.

 

I don’t have any specifics on the individual base Alpha-N mapping other than what I have observed while riding with my test instruments hooked up and some limited Dyno work on the 1100. A little guessing also helps here as it’s obvious some CCP’s were only used on bikes without cats or with cats but no evap cans. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the maps are open loop, just not tailored specifically for cat protection.

 

The post 1995 Ma 2.2 on the 1100 has at least one open loop map that I have observed as it pays no attention to the o2 sensor. There seems to be some basic ignition timing differences that can be observed using a timing light while under load on the Dyno. The easiest thing to observe is the difference in when the o2 sensor is looked at and at what points it goes open loop. This does seem to differ slightly based on the specific base map chosen but due to active fuel/spark trim it is difficult to gather much data other than general trends. I haven’t ever been able to find an active open loop base map in the 1150 2.4. You can drive open loop by disconnecting the o2 sensor but as soon as a good o2 is re-connected it is found and used. This is also sort of proven out by not having a place to hook a Co pot. on the Ma 2.4. Even open loop fueling computers usually have some sort of idle Co adjustment if no o2 sensor is available or included.

 

Regardless of the forced base map the fueling is the same as long as the o2 is operational and it is actually looked at. In other words as long as the o2 is operational and looked at it ALWAYS rules all the steady throttle fueling. That can be determined when you have active cross counts. This doesn’t include spark mapping.

The biggest mapping differences seems to be the ignition timing tables and I have no actual data of what mapping has what curve other than what you can observe with a timing light on a chassis Dyno.

 

In any case any of the chosen fuel/spark maps are still trimmed about the same using the various engine sensors as the basis for the fuel and spark trim. Main trim influence here is engine temp and altitude. Also keep in mind the rich side is usually clipped pretty short for cat protection in the event of a sensor failure or system problem.

 

While I haven’t ever wired my meter to the purge control my best guess would be that different base maps also add, remove, or change the point or points that the purge solenoid is active. This would be easy enough to tell with a duty cycle meter, I just never cared enough to pursue it.

 

 

From my observations the problems seem to come in when someone tries to force a CCP jumper situation that forces a base map selection that isn’t in the Motronic or not defined for the engine/bike being worked on. The Ma 2.2 did have some base maps for the smaller 850 Boxer.

 

Then you have some of Lintini’s work that doesn’t seem to match what I have found. Not to take away from his early work but he only had a sample of one in a lot of cases. There might be some differences in the early vs late Ma 2.2 or RT vs GS vs RS also.

 

Wish I had more specifics to give you but without a heads up unit on the system while riding or fully instrumented on a chassis Dyno it is just general info.

 

[NonComp]

By the way, you don't need to collect the pretty colored CCPs to experiement. I made up my own four-way jumper out of some bits of wire, four solderless blade (male) connectors and a solderless mar connector (or similar). There is a diagram kicking around some place of the various combinations. There are no electronics inside the cube. It's just a jumper block.

[Peter Parts]

Dirtrider - thanks for that extensive clarification.

 

I don't see the CO pot providing any CO adjustment in the absence of an O2 sensor (just what is it telling a 2.2?) - I thought it was a trimmer for the O2 sensor?

 

Even with a dyno (and it has to be part-load, of course) and an old degree wheel to stand in for the absent timing marks, no easy way to observe and record timing which is 2D+ (TPS, HES, and trim sensors).

 

The only bike map set I've ever seen is the Cagiva one that Brad Black posted long ago. I wish somebody could point me to other ones, esp. the highly secret Motronics.

 

Ben

[dirtrider]

Evening Ben

 

The Co pot works almost like the idle needle on the old carbs. Real effective at idle but as the throttle is opened it becomes less and less effective as the throttle is opened farther. The Co trim pot must somehow force a trim offset in the idle fueling either through supplemental mapping or an actual idle injector length skew. Even countries without full emission compliance statutes usually have some type of idle Co requirements. As a rule when a full cat is involved that takes an o2 sensor for cat protection and cat performance at road load fueling.

 

I can’t tell you this for absolute positive but on all that I have looked at with an active o2 sensor the Co pot is not looked at. In fact it only seems to work effectively on the open loop mapped Ma 2.2 system.

 

Be no reason to have a functional Co pot on a system with an active o2 as the o2 would just remove any fuel it added and add any fuel it removed. As I mentioned in the post above as long as the system has an active o2 sensor it (the o2) is the Queen Bee and rules the roost (always). The only way a Co pot could work in conjunction with an o2 is (IF) the o2 dropped out at idle or was mapped out at idle and I haven’t seen that be the case on any of the closed loop 2.2 systems. In fact with an active o2 it would be foolish to try and manually trim idle fueling with the added expense of a Co trim pot. O2 works better and is already there.

 

Again I don’t have any Motronics data on this but it looks to my educated eye like the Ma 2.2 can only process either the Co pot or the o2 sensor so probably uses some of the same internal controls depending on which is stated by the base mapping.

 

[breyfogle]

.... Be no reason to have a functional Co pot on a system with an active o2 .....

 

Probably correct. My K75 does not have an O2 sensor but does have a CO pot. My R1100 has an O2 sensor but no CO pot.

[Paul Mihalka]

Out of memory, the R1100RT in Europe and Canada came without O2 sensors, without CCP, but with a CO adjuster pod. When you remove the CCP it ignores the O2 sensor and goes into a fallback program. If you add the CO adjuster it reads it and basically adjusts the idle mixture. My bike was set up like this and with Autolite 3923 plugs it did run real nice.

[NonComp]

I think my stock Canadian r1100 came with the beige CCP. At least, that's what is in it now. And the CO pot.