How bad is the stock exhaust?

[1190SX]

In light of the fact that it seems that the value on the EBR isn't going up, and I haven't had much luck selling it yet, I decided I might as well ride it in the mean time. Some of you may know I had Deans exhaust on my bike and sold it, now I have the stock exhaust again. I was wondering if anyone can weigh in (maybe Dean) and tell me how bad is the stock exhaust. Has anyone tried to see what the power difference is between a properly tuned stock system and the aftermarket? Thinking of removing the primary muffler and fabricating a merge to run an arrow slip on in place of the stock secondary. Im not a huge fan of the shorty exhausts and I have had them on 2 bikes, so I hesitate to just take off the secondary and run the race ECM. Yes, those shorty systems are too loud for me, but the stock one seems to be junk. An Arrow slip on in place of the stock secondary should keep the noise to the rider down while improving performance.

[d_adams]

Stock pipe is 25.75 lbs with all clamps, etc. Mine is 8.5 lbs for the round, 9.5 for the oval. Stock hp/torque 160 & 85 or so. Mine hit 179 & 95 as I recall. You'll need a pair of wideband O2 sensors, displays and the controller, along with a programmable ecm (about $1300) and then figure out how to do the tuning or pay someone to do it for you.
I've thought about doing it just to see what it would do, but I have no economical incentive to do so, not to mention I'm pretty happy with what I've got on it at the moment.

Replacing the main part of the exhaust (the 19.5 lb part under the bike) and putting on a 2-1 setup will sound the same as an hmf system.

[1190SX]

Thanks dean. I just hate the look of the HMF(no offense to hmf). So I wanted to try and design my own mid pipe.


And as far as tuning is concerned, I already have a controller and widebands, but could probably just run one of the pre existing tunes such as HMFs because the system will be so similar.

[1190SX]

A more straight forward question might be: has anyone dynoed the bike with the EBR race ECM and secondary removed?

[Bruiser]

Surprisingly, I've looked around for several months and haven't found one. I don't know why nobody has compared them

[d_adams]

A more straight forward question might be: has anyone dynoed the bike with the EBR race ECM and secondary removed?

3-5 hp more than stock, peak hp. Midrange is supposed to be improved, not sure how much though. I remember asking about it at the factory this year, that was the answer I got.

[Mike]

"Butt dyno" wise, the power seems up a little, but the overall driveability was the biggest increase. I drive my RX daily to work (85 miles a day). I really don't care about the last 2hp. Driveability...along with power (!) is my biggest concern. Splitting lanes in SoCal is tedious enough, I don't need an engine that is too finicky for it's own good.

After installing the new ECM (IDS), I was pleasantly surprised. Not only will the engine lift (with my 250lb body) the front wheel off the ground using the throttle only (not before ECM change), but as noted, all on-off-on throttle actuation's are MUCH nicer...read that smoother, more responsive than with the original ECM.

Mike

P.S. - I have stock sprockets.

[1190SX]

3-5 hp more than stock, peak hp. Midrange is supposed to be improved, not sure how much though. I remember asking about it at the factory this year, that was the answer I got.

As always thanks for the info Dean.

[1190SX]

I found this on the HMF website and find it interesting
They claim
The Buell RX 1190 is available as a Full System in the Performance (Street) Series. The full system picks up 7 more horse power, 5lb of torque and adds an incredibly deep tone to the EBR motor. The aluminum shell also weighs substantially less than the stock system, adding to the overall performance.

But the dyno sheet doesn't reflect those numbers.
1653

This begs the question, was the dyno test done without a race ECM? Or are the claims false?


The numbers shown on this dyno sheet, 147HP and 76 FtLbs stock, are way lower than I have heard. Furthermore, if these figures are accurate and were done with the race ECM, a 3 HP gain is laughable for the price.

[d_adams]

They didn't claim PEAK hp gains, just a 7 hp gain. That's about what the spread is at 7k rpm. The torque gain is right in the same area. Mustang dyno's do show lower numbers than dynojet, same with Superflo being low. I think it's about a 12% lower number typically. Multiply those numbers by 1.12 and it's close to a typical dynojet reading.

[1190SX]

Ok, that makes sense. It seems like their numbers are pretty close to the numbers of the secondary delete and race ECM.

Dean, do you believe your tune has better fueling for peak power regardless of the exhaust setup? I.E. would it work well with the secondary delete or would the Race ECU from EBR be better?

[Nemesis]

Unless you compare the same modifications on the same day on the same dyno i wouldnt bother holding too much stock on it.

Too many people get caught up in dyno wars and imo it's silly.
Personally i've just always headed to the 1/4 mile to see my trap speed, if it's up, we're heading in the right direction.

[d_adams]

Mine is set up richer than most, it was done intentionally. I went for a specific AFR, power was the result. My tune would be way too rich for a stock exhaust, I'm not sure that it will even fire up and run. Use the tune designed for the exhaust, whichever one it may be. Someone spent a fair bit of time and money setting it up, mine certainly cost enough.

[1190SX]

Good to know, thanks Dean