New 2012 WR450 dyno results


16 replies to this topic
  • xzlram

Posted March 21, 2013 - 04:40 PM

#1

Well I have been contemplating buying a new WR450 for the last 6 months. I broke down and bought a 2012 last night and like most people was less than impressed with the performance in stock form it was pathetic! I currently am riding a 09 KTM 530 in the woods and a 07 kx450 for track and dunes. Both of those bikes have lots of power on tap at all times. So of course I cannot leave this WR450 the way it came! The first run is stock, as in .3 miles on the bike and nothing molested. The second dyno run was with the throttle screw removed. Third was with the silencer gutted (no pea shooter, no arrestor.) I have a fmf power core, ecu, and tuner coming for it next week. If I get a chance to get it on the dyno again I will post the results. Bike only has 1 mile on it right now so I'm sure it will loosen up and gain another hp or two as well. The dyno I used is our dynojet 248, its made for cars and trucks but it measures the acceleration from one speed to another to calculate horsepower so it doesn't really matter what we put on it. It's definately hard on the little motors like a bike but I only did a short run in the peak HP range of the motor. Bike was also run in 3rd gear as to lessen the load on the motor as well. So If someone else has dynoed the same bike and got a different hp great! This is just to show what the gains are with each mod, it doesn't really matter what the actual number is. I took the bike out in the field next to our shop after the last run and I must say I am already impressed with the response of this bike. It doesn't seem to really like the mods right now with the stock ECU and mapping. I didnt put an O2 sniffer in it yet but I'm sure its pretty lean.

Attached Thumbnails

  • WR450 2012.jpg


  • xzlram

Posted March 21, 2013 - 04:42 PM

#2

Oops looks like I posted in the YZ forum can a moderator move this thread to the WR forum? thanks.

  • allterra

Posted March 22, 2013 - 08:03 AM

#3

Nice to see. Will you do a graph after more mods? Do you have any of your others on graphs? I am curious to compare.

  • GP1K

Posted March 22, 2013 - 08:04 AM

#4

I'm curious to see the results once you get the ECU & FMF on there. I didn't think gutting the stock pipe gains you a whole lot, and your graph shows that.

I have the ECU on but went with the Q4 Hex muffler. FI tuner is still on backorder. I never rode mine with the throttle screw in, but did ride it a bit otherwise stock, and I can say it's a BIG improvement with the FMF and whatever base map comes on the ECU. More power across the board, and better throttle response.

  • GuyGraham

Posted March 24, 2013 - 03:13 AM

#5

Is it my eyes or are there only two lines on the dyno graph
I can't see the green 3rd run

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted March 24, 2013 - 06:53 AM

#6

Is it my eyes or are there only two lines on the dyno graph
I can't see the green 3rd run


No blue, just red and green

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted March 24, 2013 - 06:57 AM

#7

Just remember, that a Dyno is designed for estimating MAX hp under a MAX load.

It does not accurately measure power at partial throttle, lower gears, or when rolling on the throttle.

So, you usually cannot see the MAJOR benefits of the upgrades on a dyno, which are throttle response, throttle linearity, and HP rise time (acceleration).

More HP can mean all of the above actually get much, much worse (adding turbos, high lift cams, open exhaust, etc as an extreme example), which is why riding and seat of the pants is the ONLY measurement that matters.

But it's still fun to see it.

Edited by Krannie, March 24, 2013 - 07:01 AM.


  • JDLowrance

Posted March 24, 2013 - 10:55 AM

#8

Think you old guys....wait what?....need to have your reading glasses checked. I know, I'm an old guy too.

I can see all three plots on the graph, blue on bottom, red in middle and green on top. To be fair it is a little faint but they're there.

Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • Krannie McKranface

Posted March 24, 2013 - 10:58 AM

#9

Think you old guys....wait what?....need to have your reading glasses checked. I know, I'm an old guy too.

I can see all three plots on the graph, blue on bottom, red in middle and green on top. To be fair it is a little faint but they're there.


Oh, crap yes they are. I just assumed the bottom one was Torque, cause it was so low.....!

  • allterra

Posted March 24, 2013 - 03:00 PM

#10

I just find it amazing that factory it is showing less than 20hp.

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted March 24, 2013 - 03:01 PM

#11

I just find it amazing that factory it is showing less than 20hp.


....at the rear wheel. You almost double that for crank HP (what is typically published).

Edited by Krannie, March 26, 2013 - 05:32 AM.


  • Tford713

Posted March 24, 2013 - 03:58 PM

#12

....at the rear wheel. You almost double that for crank HP (what is typically published).


So your saying with simple mods his bike has close to 70hp at the crank?

  • GuyGraham

Posted March 25, 2013 - 10:30 AM

#13

Had to really darken it to make the green line visible

Posted Image

Edited by GuyGraham, March 25, 2013 - 10:30 AM.


  • xzlram

Posted March 25, 2013 - 11:40 AM

#14

The dyno is capable of accurately measuring hp at part throttle and when rolling on the throttle. The operator would be the inaccurate part of those tests. I have been dynoing and tuning gas and diesel engines for years, I would disagree with Krannie's statement that you can double the rear wheel HP for crank HP. The parasitic losses from the drive chain, the knobby, and the weight of the rear wheel do not equate to another 20hp in stock form. I would say maybe 20% max. That is usually an accurate percentage for most engine/vehicles. But it really doesn't matter, this is all purely for fun and information. Krannie is correct in the fact that a huge HP number doesn't mean its useable. We run into this all the time on diesel trucks. There is a big difference between a truck that makes 600 hp at the rear wheels that is smokey and acts like a light switch and a truck that makes a clean 600 hp that has linear controllable HP. In the case of this bike there isn't anything mods that I plan on doing to it to make it unrideble. I ride extremely tight woods with footpeg dragging ruts/roots, mud, rocks etc... It has to have as much power on tap as possible (I'm not a small guy) and yet still be smooth.

I plan on putting it back on the dyno after I get the ECU, FMF, and tuner on it. I will probably just put the FMF tune in the ECU and dyno it with that for a max hp number. I plan on putting the O2 sniffer in the exhaust and dialing in the fuel on the dyno at all the throttle settings. This should give the best response and mileage without running it lean.

I have not put any of my other bikes on the dyno besides my CRF70 haha. It now has a 140cc motor in it and I have yet to tune it in. I may put my 530 on it just to see what the power difference is.

  • allterra

Posted March 25, 2013 - 01:02 PM

#15

The dyno is capable of accurately measuring hp at part throttle and when rolling on the throttle. The operator would be the inaccurate part of those tests. I have been dynoing and tuning gas and diesel engines for years, I would disagree with Krannie's statement that you can double the rear wheel HP for crank HP. The parasitic losses from the drive chain, the knobby, and the weight of the rear wheel do not equate to another 20hp in stock form. I would say maybe 20% max. That is usually an accurate percentage for most engine/vehicles. But it really doesn't matter, this is all purely for fun and information. Krannie is correct in the fact that a huge HP number doesn't mean its useable. We run into this all the time on diesel trucks. There is a big difference between a truck that makes 600 hp at the rear wheels that is smokey and acts like a light switch and a truck that makes a clean 600 hp that has linear controllable HP. In the case of this bike there isn't anything mods that I plan on doing to it to make it unrideble. I ride extremely tight woods with footpeg dragging ruts/roots, mud, rocks etc... It has to have as much power on tap as possible (I'm not a small guy) and yet still be smooth.

I plan on putting it back on the dyno after I get the ECU, FMF, and tuner on it. I will probably just put the FMF tune in the ECU and dyno it with that for a max hp number. I plan on putting the O2 sniffer in the exhaust and dialing in the fuel on the dyno at all the throttle settings. This should give the best response and mileage without running it lean.

I have not put any of my other bikes on the dyno besides my CRF70 haha. It now has a 140cc motor in it and I have yet to tune it in. I may put my 530 on it just to see what the power difference is.


:lol: I would like to see the CRF70 with the 530cc in it :lol: Sorry I couldn't resist. :devil:

However I have a lot of dyno work on my street bike and have found that from one dyno to another can change drastically. even the same day, same dyno can be different from one run to another. I don't know but I think that 20% parasitic loss may be a bit high for a bike. Over all they are just used as a guide or a reference for the unit you are working on.

  • xzlram

Posted March 25, 2013 - 01:18 PM

#16

:lol: I would like to see the CRF70 with the 530cc in it :lol: Sorry I couldn't resist. :devil:

However I have a lot of dyno work on my street bike and have found that from one dyno to another can change drastically. even the same day, same dyno can be different from one run to another. I don't know but I think that 20% parasitic loss may be a bit high for a bike. Over all they are just used as a guide or a reference for the unit you are working on.


I would probably agree 20% is probably high but its far closer than 100%! and you are totally correct dyno's will read different, pretty common. Best advice is to use the same dyno everytime while tuning so it doesn't add an extra wrench in the mix, and don't worry about what someone else has made on a different dyno!

The 70 with the 140cc motor in it is bad enough! It really needs a longer wheelbase... I find it easier to injure myself on the 70 now than my big bikes! HAHA

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted March 26, 2013 - 05:32 AM

#17

....at the rear wheel. You almost double that for crank HP (what is typically published).



[color=#282828][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Yeah, that's not really right. More like 40%, not 100% more.[/background][/color]

Edited by Krannie, March 26, 2013 - 05:32 AM.





 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.