Ace UCE project.

[GlennF]

There are a couple of people who have tried this and I'm sure it can be made to work but pump gas is not going to cut it - Supercharging means you have too much dynamic compression.

I had a different idea - have a super charger, but only run it at the bottom 2000 RPM or so.

You better do something about the serious lack of oil pressure at low revs if you try that.

[ace.cafe]

I am expecting/hoping to have some photos and data on the UCE head project by later tonight.
I talked to the shop today, and they said they would try to get the pics and flow chart out to me tonight, if they can get to it.
If not tonight, then I'll post it as soon as they send it to me.

Basically, the head is done, and the special custom valves have been ordered, and we will have to wait for them to come in before we can do any heads.

The exhaust port has been raised and enlarged to some degree at the exit, and so it will need the aftermarket exhaust systems that have the full diameter pipe without the reducer. We will be working on our own pipe too.

The other necessary pieces in the puzzle such as piston, etc, are still underway. Progress is being made.

[1 Thump]

Tom
DandD recently made custom pipes and exhausts for RE.

http://www.enfieldmotorcycles.com/forum/index.php/topic,15069.0/all.html

[ace.cafe]

Okay, while I'm waiting for the data and pics of the UCE head to get sent to me, let's have a comparison of the stock head flow of "old vs new".

The flow data for the stock Iron Barrel head:
CFM flow @ 28" water column
@ .050" lift = 28.7
@ .100" lift = 53.2
@ .150" lift = 83.8
@ .200" lift = 111.7
@ .250" lift = 132.3
@ .300" lift = 143.0
Average flow = 92.1 avg cfm flow

Flow data for stock UCE head.
CFM flow @ 28" water column.
@ .050" lift = 35.9
@ .100" lift = 65.338
@ .150" lift = 89.09
@ .200" lift = 111.74
@ .250" lift = 125.64
@ .300" lift = 135.9
Average flow = 93.93 avg cfm flow

The stock UCE head has a very slight flow advantage of 1.83 cfm.
This flow difference is nearly nothing, and it could be said that they are basically even within their factory lift ranges.

For purposes of investigation about how the ports would respond to higher than factory lifts, we flowed these ports up to .400" lift.

Iron Barrel:
@ .350" lift = 151.1 cfm
@ .400" lift = 154.6 cfm

UCE:
@ .350" lift = 141 cfm
@ .400" lift = 142.5 cfm

In this comparison, it appears evident that the Iron Barrel would respond more to higher lift than the UCE. Just as it did at lifts higher than .200", where they were about equal flow. Because the Iron Barrel engine has a hemi chamber, it suffers less from flow interference by the combustion chamber walls. We aimed to improve this situation in the work which was done to the UCE head, so it would respond more to the higher lifts which we have planned for it.

We are primarily interested in the intake flow amounts here, because the exhaust goes out mostly under pressure when the exhaust valve opens and has significant help to get it out of the cylinder. The intake flow is the area of main concern.

When we get some data in on the modified/ported UCE head flow, I will post that and compare against the stock flow, so we can see what was accomplished.

[1 Thump]

FWIW, Hitchcocks online catalog (page 92) now claims that they have put in more work on the power commander and seemingly ironed out the bugs, and it comes with a 20% power increase.

[ace.cafe]

FWIW, Hitchcocks online catalog (page 92) now claims that they have put in more work on the power commander and seemingly ironed out the bugs, and it comes with a 20% power increase.

Interesting.
I'll be watching to see what actual users say about it.

[Ducati Scotty]

Yes, interesting.  I wonder if they've solved the RPM problem.  The PCs were reporting wildly swinging RPMs while the engine was running steady.  If so, that's some very good news for everyone.  A free flow air cleaner, exhaust, and a PC are the go-to first steps in hot rodding almost any EFI bike.

Scott

[1 Thump]

The attached dyno chart did not show the wild rpm oscillations that Wokka had reported. Someone should call them. They usually stand behind their product.

[ace.cafe]

FWIW, Hitchcocks online catalog (page 92) now claims that they have put in more work on the power commander and seemingly ironed out the bugs, and it comes with a 20% power increase.

Okay, regarding this "20% hp increase", let's have a look at that a little closer.
They say in the ad that "Dyno figures show that we have gained approximately 20% increase in BHP at the rear wheel coupled with a smoother power curve by using a different air filter and silencer."

This means that it is NOT the Power Commander alone doing this. In fact, the vast majority of the gains are from the free-flowing filter and exhaust, with the Power Commander doing the equivalent of the re-jetting that we would do on a carb equipped Bullet.

There is only one ignition setting and mixture setting that is correct for any particular engine condition and speed. Anything other than that will lose power and efficiency.
A change in electronic controller can only make more power if the existing/previous controller had been tuned poorly enough to be losing that  amount of power, and then the new controller can gain back what was lost by the poorly tuned controller.

The facts are that the only way to really increase power beyond what the proper mixture setting and ignition setting allows with the stock system is to increase the amount of air entering the engine, and then adding the proper amount of more fuel to that air to make the best power mixture for the higher amount of air. The free-flow filter and silencer can have some of this effect of improving the breathing. But only to the extent that the breathing capacity of the engine allows for flow.

And this is where we come into the equation. We get more air into the engine. Air is the hardest part of the mixture to get into the engine, because we have to get a LOT of it in there in an extremely short time period of each cycle, while the fuel is easily squirted in in a small amount. It's the air that's tough to get enough of, and without more air, it doesn't do any good to put more fuel in.

So, you have to take these marketing claims of "more hp" with a grain of salt, really. They might give more power, but they can only gain back whatever poor tuning lost with the factory tuned ECU. Or, by adjusting the mixture for the added air flow that the free-flow stuff provided. Just like we would do manually with our carburetor on the Iron Barrel bike.
It's getting more air into the engine, and then getting the A/F ratio set right for that larger amount of air volume that actually makes more power. And this is why we work so hard on the heads, and make such a big issue out of the cfm air flow rates of these ports, etc. It's not just some esoteric issue. It is the very heart of making more power, and that's what we do.

[mattsz]

So, you have to take these marketing claims of "more hp" with a grain of salt, really. They might give more power, but they can only gain back whatever poor tuning lost with the factory tuned ECU. Or, adjusting the mixture for the added air flow that the free-flow stuff provided. It's getting more air into the engine, and then getting the A/F ratio set right for that larger amount of air volume that actually makes more power.

Ok, so maybe this has been addressed already, but...

Just how poorly tuned are our factory ECU's?  If the 20% gain is due to the Power Commander, the filter, and the silencer, then how much is due to the PC alone?

[Ducati Scotty]

+1 Ace!  The D&D exhaust also includes a free flow air filter.  Without better breathing all around the PC really wouldn't do too much.  I've seen a few of the maps they have for totally stock bikes.  They really add or remove just a teeny bit here and there which smooths things out.  I'd say the corrections they're making are largely the result of individual engine variances compared to the standard EFI map.  Most EFI bikes are mapped very well these days excepting the lower crusing RPMs where EPA and other emissions regulations often have them running lean.  This makes for cleaner emissions but less than optimal performance.  In these ranges you don't generally get a huge blast of extra power, just a smoother and better behaved engine.

Scott

[gremlin]

let's have a comparison of the stock head flow of "old vs new".

The flow data for the stock Iron Barrel head:
CFM flow @ 28" water column
@ .050" lift = 28.7
@ .100" lift = 53.2
@ .150" lift = 83.8


Flow data for stock UCE head.
CFM flow @ 28" water column.
@ .050" lift = 35.9
@ .100" lift = 65.338
@ .150" lift = 89.09


In this comparison, it appears evident that the Iron Barrel would respond more to higher lift than the UCE.......

........the UCE head, so it would respond more to the higher lifts which we have planned for it......

I like that the UCE flows significantly better at lower opening than the Iron Barrel - it holds promise that a wider cam lobe (less slope) can perform better than a radically steep lobe.

[ace.cafe]

That's a very good observation!

The cam on the UCE is not a very radical one, and seems to be designed mostly around wideband torque production and emission control.

However, it does have the auto decompressor mechanism inside the exhaust cam, and that really complicates making other cams for it, because we want to retain the auto-decomp system so as to not endanger the starter sprag. We have a strategy in mind.

Regarding the low lift flow, this will most likely see some change with the ported head, but hopefully not too much change. When optimizing valve seat angles for most flow, sometimes the flow at lowest lifts(where least flow occurs) get a little cut, in favor of more flow at the higher lifts where most flow occurs. We'll just have to see how this pans out. I have not seen the flow chart yet. But our plan is to provide a lift increase along with this porting, so our goal will be to optimize for best overall cylinder fill, and most flow will occur at the higher lifts.
 
However, we are taking a moderate approach to this, sort of like we did with the Fireball. We are not attempting to do a racing engine with this. At least, not right now.

[rep_movsd]

One of the interesting facts about the ECU of the Classic-500 is that they actually took the trouble to map it to 18500 feet altitude. Any Bullet that cannot reach Khardungla pass at that height will never be taken seriously in India. Been there - The CL-500 climbed easily in 3rd and 4th with a pillion. All the other 350 cc bikes including the CL-350 needed 1st and second even with a single rider. A "Japanese" bike was revved out in 1st gear and barely moving forward in the last stages.

[Royalista]

Amen to that...

Whenever I have an issue that's what keeps me focused. Whatever happens, I can ride it up to Khardung La.