Kawasaki KLR Forum banner

121 - 133 of 133 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Pushing 3 thousand mcp kits out now.

if a person was to put an mcp kit on a harley they'd have to change the nozzle too as the harley uses a bigger diameter needle nd a larger diameter nozzle, which is relative.

i'm hoping to put one on a harley one of these days
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,462 Posts
Hi all, as promised here are my before and after dyno results for the mods on my KLR650, hope this is of interest to someone. Regards Ben
Ben,
I'll ask if your carburetor was de-resticted with epoxy or an HD throttle slide at the same time as the jet kit was installed?
 

·
Premium Member
2013 KLR 650/692, 2017 HD Electraglide Ultra
Joined
·
1,198 Posts
Those power and torque curves look like something else was done than simply rejetting. A 34% increase in max HP due to ONLY rejetting strains credibility. The before curve shows a sharp falloff in torque about 5000 RPM, which would be consistent with the limited slide in Aussie models. The after curve shows that moved out 1500 or more RPM.

Do those charts show rear wheel HP and torque measured on chassis dyno, or corrected for engine HP?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Those power and torque curves look like something else was done than simply rejetting. A 34% increase in max HP due to ONLY rejetting strains credibility. The before curve shows a sharp falloff in torque about 5000 RPM, which would be consistent with the limited slide in Aussie models. The after curve shows that moved out 1500 or more RPM.

Do those charts show rear wheel HP and torque measured on chassis dyno, or corrected for engine HP?
Yes, that hp and torque increase is too phenomenal for just a jet needle change.

My Guzzi V7 Cafe race-bike was bored out from 750 to 850cc, a performance exhaust and a Dynojet Power Commander were installed and as a result of these changes the hp increased by ~25%. Those were three major changes and the engine performance gains reflect it. Big performance gains come from not changing just one thing but by making multiple changes.

Jason
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Ben,
I'll ask if your carburetor was de-resticted with epoxy or an HD throttle slide at the same time as the jet kit was installed?
Thanks for your question, surprisingly the slide had been epoxied by a PO, so the first dyno run had that in place. However it had also been over jetted and the float level was incorrect. Further details back at post #96
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
29864
Those power and torque curves look like something else was done than simply rejetting. A 34% increase in max HP due to ONLY rejetting strains credibility. The before curve shows a sharp falloff in torque about 5000 RPM, which would be consistent with the limited slide in Aussie models. The after curve shows that moved out 1500 or more RPM.

Do those charts show rear wheel HP and torque measured on chassis dyno, or corrected for engine HP?
Hi Pete, you are quite correct, there were a number of mods between the two dyno runs (more details at post #96)
The figures were measured at the back wheel on a Dyna Pro dyno
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,725 Posts
None of the people you mentioned have tried MCP except one, who i will let speak up for himself and not draw him into this thread. So if you're looking for evidence based fact you're not going to get it from any of these folks but one, who publicly posted in here that he preferred MCP which immediately sparked hundreds of kits being sold.

Grant
....I guess that is me. I don't have much to add from my #49 and #53 post though I'll reiterate that when you take out all the rhetoric, personal banter and yes, some of the more implausible claims and judge only the jet kit on its own, it works very well. Unfortunately, I've not done anything more than provide a "seat of the pants" comparison despite my thirst for hard data......some people have done a better job and provided such data though it's often colored by comparisons to stock, inferior 22 cent mods or improperly jetted KLX kits. That said, I've found PeteK's and KLR4ever's experiences and comments to be useful.

I take claims of reduced fuel consumption with a healthy grain of salt and I have no intention of trying to compare that as there are way too many variables and frankly, it's just not a metric I care about - with 7 galls of fuel, my range is sufficient and fuel consumption is only a concern for me as it affects range. I strongly suspect that the stock, overly lean, setup is the one to beat for the ultimate mpg though I certainly don't recommend running overly lean for a few pennies at the pump. I'm not even going to speak about my thoughts on rpm changes...

My comparison point is just one bike; I plan on swapping my 685 equipped bike to an MCP kit when I get the chance but unfortunately I've suffered a couple of injuries and have done nothing to the KLR's this year, nor have I started riding them.....hopefully soon. I will update the group with my thoughts on that swap (bike is currently running a KLX kit with the standard jetting formula and is running well).

2 cents FWIW,

Dave
 

·
Premium Member
2013 KLR 650/692, 2017 HD Electraglide Ultra
Joined
·
1,198 Posts
Dave, I look forward to comparing your results to mine.

As for measuring fuel mileage, I somewhat disagree with you regarding the accuracy. Yes, there are a number of variables that can affect the results, as I note in my discussion, but if you carefully control the main ones, the results are repeatable within a few percent. As you know, in my testing I ran the exact same route, filled up the tank at the same station at the same pump with the bike on the side stand in the same spot so it leaned at the same angle and filled the tank to the same reference point. The significant variable I couldn’t control was the wind, which over a 100-mile circuit, could vary substantially from one section to another. Nevertheless, I tried to do these tests on relatively calm days. I also did the route multiple times in the two configurations to average the results.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,725 Posts
Dave, I look forward to comparing your results to mine.

As for measuring fuel mileage, I somewhat disagree with you regarding the accuracy. Yes, there are a number of variables that can affect the results, as I note in my discussion, but if you carefully control the main ones, the results are repeatable within a few percent. As you know, in my testing I ran the exact same route, filled up the tank at the same station at the same pump with the bike on the side stand in the same spot so it leaned at the same angle and filled the tank to the same reference point. The significant variable I couldn’t control was the wind, which over a 100-mile circuit, could vary substantially from one section to another. Nevertheless, I tried to do these tests on relatively calm days. I also did the route multiple times in the two configurations to average the results.
Hi Pete, I worded that poorly; there are too many variables in how/where I ride and I just don't care enough to perform the kind of quality testing that you did. I certainly appreciate your results and the time it took you to perform the tests and I'm glad for the data point.

Cheers,
Dave
 
121 - 133 of 133 Posts
Top