@greychinos , it is ok..
It is ok for you to misinterpret what you read and the images you see ( As in : https://www.kawasakiforums.com/forum...timings-44296/)
It is ok for you to misunderstand.
It is ok to not be able to correctly translate various dyno chart power levels into accurate assessments of changes in the riding experience.
It is ok to not know how to accurately assess dyno chart power curves.

Years of provenance, constantly re-proving the validity of results and the expected results from the mod combos perfected long ago - it is about time someone came along and yell'd "BullSh%t" .... You have always been inevitable, therefore expected, and I personally welcome you ( I really do !)....

So now.. Lets get you on track - ok?
If so, I suggest we start with an analysis of my top post on "the" thread : https://www.kawasakiforums.com/forum...timings-44296/

 

What am I misunderstanding when I point out that the MCM torque curve in that chart is less flat than it is pre-MCM? The MCM torque curve starts higher in the lower revs and then decreases harder in the upper revs. It's not as flat of a curve.

 

EDIT: KLXster arrived before I posted this, but I'm not editing my post as it still applies.

I do not know what KLXster's bike was like for the dyno runs. He would have to tell you that, considering the post was 4 years old things may have changed. So we have to wait to see what he says. Only he can tell you how that set up was at that time. It seems he changed his tune here about the modification and in that post it seems he is talking about running too lean. Fact is the charts for Marcelino's run had 25 hp on an EFI Euro bike. He mentions the numbers in his posts, unfortunately the images were taken down, but his written information remains, although without much about the dyno information, just that it was better. With the EFI it did some self compensation as opposed to jetting.

In other words I'm not seeing that information as being very reliable, being old. I will wait for KLXster's input here. If it is running lean then it is totally understandable that it is not peaking. It isn't running out of breath as you say, it is running lean, not enough fuel for the air being taken in. A narrow LSA is set up to increase the capability for more fuel to pass through at higher rpm. The cams will control peak rpm, which won't change much based on what the Hot Rod article has in their information. It makes more power within the limits of the cams.

I will tend to defer to the people at Hot Rod, they've been doing this kind of stuff with IC engines for a few years now. If they are pointing out the changes I will tend to take their "word" for it. I will still say the narrow LSA of the MCM should boost power over the wider LSA of the OEM settings based on the information from Hot Rod and that it matches up with information that Marcelino posted here, plus an article written by Joe Minton around 1987 or so where he wrote of the same situation pertaining to LSA, going to a narrower LSA on a 1986 Honda Nighthawk S, near identical to the angles of both Marcelino and Hot Rod.



The claims for "HUGE" gains is not made by "people" it is made by KLXster. I personally realize the bike is a 250 and isn't going to be "huge" in my book. It pulls stronger through the range to actual peak power for my off road work so far. I will say the butt dyno said my bike pulls stronger with the MCM and jetting done per the D. Pippin information using Kiehin parts. I am running the 13/42 sprockets for now. Not as much science as KLXster, but far better than stock. It was worked out by the the riders back then who did it old school swapping brass. KLXster is doing it all with AFR information and has done dyno runs with his bike.

If you need so much ability for both off road and on road you are barking up the wrong tree. You need to either go to a seriously higher horsepower bike or two bikes, a dual sport and a street bike. When out on the road the KLX has plenty of over run power, reving to 10,000 rpm if necessary. I pretty much set my limits at around 8500 rpm since the peak comes in around 8600 for the stock set up and, per the Hot Rod article, the rpm peak doesn't seem to change, just the horsepower at that rpm.

But either way definitely do what you believe is right for you.

 

Nothing like "new blood" in here to blow off the cobwebs and break the stagnation.. For this, I thank @greychinos ..

Geez, I don't know where to start.... How bout the "Huge".. Where did I get this ? Why do I, and others that understand, use such a term ?
It is to simply attempt to describe something that is quite hard to fathom. At first, years ago, I ( and others) would use the phrase "you get a whole new bike to ride". and "hang on tight".. I guess it just morphed in to "huge".. It is simply a way of trying to describe what happens when you go from 18-20hp / 13-14 lb ft TRQ to 23,24,25hp (depending on which mod combo you employ) and 16+ lb ft TRQ along with superior shaped power curves.

It stands even today, that if you are not currently fully employing one of the mod combos, you will not be able to fathom what you are missing.

 

The discussion about MCM particulars is old as well.. The change to the valve opening and closing events enhances low rpm power capability while the increase in overlap enhances upper rpm power capability. Resulting in a "battle" that, thankfully, gives us more below 6500 rpm without costing ( anything or much of anything) above. There is not an definitive understanding of whether the MCM costs anything above 6500 rpm in bikes that are running the finalized CVK Setup (fueling), over standard cam timings.

My "flawed but still useable" comparison chart would indicate that there is a possibility of a tiny loss (perhaps .5 hp) above 6500 rpm if the MCM bike were run lean against a non-MCM bike that was running the finalized fueling scheme - end of story ?

NO... @Richard Avatar was a connoisseur of high rpm power. He tested and experimented with creating ever more of it.. His addition of the MCM to his bike lasted every bit of 30 minutes when he declared a definite loss of top end HP.. I am personally confident (I was "friends" with Richard) that he and he alone would have the ability to sense a .5 - .75 HP loss between 8000 and 10,500 rpm..

So, I became confident in touting the MCM as a mod that significantly enhances power levels below 6500 rpm and will either maintain HP levels above or only cost a fraction of a HP above, compared to stock timings.

 

About the thread, @greychinos , the comparison of the rpm range at which max TRQ is available (a 1600 rpm spread vs a 1000 rpm spread) and the fact that a small "bump" is the only way the non-mcm bike achieved a "peak TRQ parity" to the MCM bike.
What do these two things mean to you ? (I'm seriously asking. )

 

A gain is a gain, I'm not gonna dispute that, but going from 14 lb-ft of torque to 16 lb-ft of torque on a 300 pound machine and describing that as "hang on tight" is pretty comical. Are we talking motorcycles here or are we the weekly bingo club?

 

Ok, I'll wait for your answer..

 

While I wait, I will go ahead and show what happens when an owner uses the "littlest" mod combo. NO expensive exhaust system or MCM involved here ! Just a slipon !

This is a members' stock bike VS same bike with SLIPON ONLY, lidless airbox, and the matching (finalized) CVK setup. Same dyno ( for those that think "same dyno" is important.)
This is from the thread: https://www.kawasakiforums.com/forum...ncorked-44295/

 

Yea, but does it make a thumpy thumpy sound?
2 ftlbs torque and 2HP over the whole power band is going to be hard to beat for any mod! It's almost like having a Honda 50 motor helping!
.... seriously, I am trying to help.