Yoshimura GSX1135R (EFE) Project

[Mindless]

Wow, you are getting serious. What are the plans for the head to up the flow rate?

Haha, I guess. Shooting to get out something like 140-145bhp out of the 1230cc in the end.

Ordered a complete Dyna 2000 ignition through a friend with some connections the other day. Should be arriving in a few weeks. Haven't seen anything from APE yet but supposedly the package is on it's way...

As for the head: no oversized valves or stuff like that yet but I'm probably going to talk with a local fella about doing some head work to make it breathe a bit better to complement the extra cc's. But it's expensive extra HPs... that's for sure.

Gonna go hunt for a painter tomorrow as well.

[posplayr]

Not sure what you are looking for but I'm sure there will plenty more torque with that 1230 coming from an 1133 and it is probably closer to 160 hp.

I would at least get your stock 1150 valves backcut and radius valve job as that is relatively cheap and anybody experienced can do some basic cleanup and improve the flow. I would be careful with anybody taking too much off without a flow bench though.

If you want to do more go up in size in stainless. For alot less money you can put a GSXR 750 head on you get bigger cams and bigger flow all for under $300. Just depends on what you want.

I'm lucky I got a nice street head from Terry.

A.) is to do go 1mm oversize on the intake to 28mm (same as the stock 1150 valves)

B.) If stock valves (1100/1150 23 mm exhaust and 28mm 1150 intake) then get them backcut or buy new stainless steel valves that don't need back cutting.

C.) Get a modern radius cut valve job on your seats using a Serdi

http://www.aperaceparts.com/headwork.html


D.) Minor clean up porting to smooth the area where the seat were opened up for the 28mm valves.

http://www.thegsresources.com/_forum/showthread.php?t=137631

[Mindless]

Not sure what you are looking for but I'm sure there will plenty more torque with that 1230 coming from an 1133 and it is probably closer to 160 hp.

I would at least get your stock 1150 valves backcut and radius valve job as that is relatively cheap and anybody experienced can do some basic cleanup and improve the flow. I would be careful with anybody taking too much off without a flow bench though.

If you want to do more go up in size in stainless. For alot less money you can put a GSXR 750 head on you get bigger cams and bigger flow all for under $300. Just depends on what you want.

I'm lucky I got a nice street head from Terry.

http://www.thegsresources.com/_forum...d.php?t=137631

I was talking more in terms of rear wheel horsepower. I have 125 at the wheel now so I'm probably around 140-150hp at the crank if you factor a 10-15% power loss through the gearbox and chain.

The local fella who does headwork has been doing head work since the late 70's so he's probably as experienced as one gets when it comes to these things. In short - he's as good as it gets. I'll be asking him for advice when the time comes. He has built plenty of race heads over the years.

[posplayr]

I was talking more in terms of rear wheel horsepower. I have 125 at the wheel now so I'm probably around 140-150hp at the crank if you factor a 10-15% power loss through the gearbox and chain.

.

I got a little corn fused; I'm guessing 140-150 hp at the crank for stock 1150 with cams and carbs is a little high (see various comments in the previous link). And I think Bill was figuring 160 hp at the crank with 1230, 0.340's , CV 36mm but with some head work and 28.5 mm intakes valves

[Mindless]

I got a little corn fused; I'm guessing 140-150 hp at the crank for stock 1150 with cams and carbs is a little high (see various comments in the previous link). And I think Bill was figuring 160 hp at the crank with 1230, 0.340's , CV 36mm but with some head work and 28.5 mm intakes valves

Well I'd say there's around 140hp at the crank since I'm getting 125 at the wheel. But as you say - I can expect a bit more with 100 more cc's and some head work.

And maybe the carbs will "scale" better with the larger displacement engine and as such produce a wee more horsies.

Or am I being overly optimistic?

[posplayr]

Well I'd say there's around 140hp at the crank since I'm getting 125 at the wheel. But as you say - I can expect a bit more with 100 more cc's and some head work.

And maybe the carbs will "scale" better with the larger displacement engine and as such produce a wee more horsies.

Or am I being overly optimistic?

Chp - crank hp
RWhp - rear wheel hp

A few people have reported dyno results for stock 1100's that have come in at about 92 RWhp. If you compare that to 108 Chp for the 80-82's you get

85.2% = 92/108


Using a 85.2% factor you would need 164 to 170 Chp to get 140-145 RWhp

That seems high 33%-37% above stock to get there. Bill is hearing 160 Chp from his 1230 but not sure what additional cams/carbs to get there.

In contrast I'm assuming 135-140 Chp with my 1166 but I do have more head work.

Shooting to get out something like 140-145bhp out of the 1230cc in the end.

Did you do a dyno run?

I have 125 at the wheel now so I'm probably around 140-150hp at the crank if you factor a 10-15% power loss through the gearbox and chain.

[Mindless]

Chp - crank hp
RWhp - rear wheel hp

A few people have reported dyno results for stock 1100's that have come in at about 92 RWhp. If you compare that to 108 Chp for the 80-82's you get

85.2% = 92/108


Using a 85.2% factor you would need 164 to 170 Chp to get 140-145 RWhp

That seems high 33%-37% above stock to get there. Bill is hearing 160 Chp from his 1230 but not sure what additional cams/carbs to get there.

In contrast I'm assuming 135-140 Chp with my 1166 but I do have more head work.

Did you do a dyno run?

Dunno what my '84 delivered before I fixed it up but it probably wasn't much. Stock camshafts on the Swedish models had very low lift I believe the duration is different too so it looses pretty much all power at 7000rpm. The inlet rubbers are choked as well (smaller inner diameter). A few valves didn't seal properly either so that's even more power loss. I'd expect around 90-95 at the crank because 100hp was the maximum allowed power back in '84 (over here that is) and the engine has done over 60000 miles. On the following years of the 1150, the restrictions were removed.

With the new camshafts, grinding in the valves a bit, new valvesprings and seals as well as the FCR39 carbs I got 125hp at the rear wheel on the Dyno. Pictorial proof supplied below.



Lets say we have a 15% powerloss then that would mean:

125.51 x 1.15 = 144.33chp

So 144'ish horsepower at the crank.

Of course this is just a rule of thumb and it's probably less than that. But with the new Dyna 2000 ignition system, the higher compression 1230cc piston kit and some head work I don't think 140-145rwhp should be unachievable.

[posplayr]

Dunno what my '84 delivered before I fixed it up but it probably wasn't much. Stock camshafts on the Swedish models had very low lift I believe the duration is different too so it looses pretty much all power at 7000rpm. The inlet rubbers are choked as well (smaller inner diameter). A few valves didn't seal properly either so that's even more power loss. I'd expect around 90-95 at the crank because 100hp was the maximum allowed power back in '84 (over here that is) and the engine has done over 60000 miles. On the following years of the 1150, the restrictions were removed.

With the new camshafts, grinding in the valves a bit, new valvesprings and seals as well as the FCR39 carbs I got 125hp at the rear wheel on the Dyno. Pictorial proof supplied below.



Lets say we have a 15% powerloss then that would mean:

125.51 x 1.15 = 144.33chp

So 144'ish horsepower at the crank.

Of course this is just a rule of thumb and it's probably less than that. But with the new Dyna 2000 ignition system, the higher compression 1230cc piston kit and some head work I don't think 140-145rwhp should be unachievable.

I guess I was not adequately accounting for those FCR39 carbs. You also have the 0.348"?

I guess I need to get my slingshot carbies going , I'm still running 36mm CV's

[Mindless]

I guess I was not adequately accounting for those FCR39 carbs. You also have the 0.348"?

I guess I need to get my slingshot carbies going , I'm still running 36mm CV's

But the 39's are probably a bit overdimensioned for the current 1135cc and standard head. As for the cams: yes, I'm running the .348" lift cams. Set to 108 degrees at both IN and EX.

I can probably gain a couple of horsepower on the exhaust as well. 60mm inner diameter only gives a big sound, not optimal power. Downpipes probably could be better as well. Gonna see about ordering a new exhaust by the end of the month. I'll probably go for a 4-2-1 GSXR exhaust if I can find a decent one.

[posplayr]

But the 39's are probably a bit overdimensioned for the current 1135cc and standard head. As for the cams: yes, I'm running the .348" lift cams. Set to 108 degrees at both IN and EX.

I can probably gain a couple of horsepower on the exhaust as well. 60mm inner diameter only gives a big sound, not optimal power. Downpipes probably could be better as well. Gonna see about ordering a new exhaust by the end of the month. I'll probably go for a 4-2-1 GSXR exhaust if I can find a decent one.

I'm very happy with my ebay Yoshi 4:2:1 (2nd gen GSXR 1100). A very noticeabel improvement in mid range.

There are apparently some Hindle 1st Gen 4:2:1's floating around in Europe. A dealler bought up the rest of the CLOSEOUT stock (they were $299 for header mid).

[Mindless]

There are apparently some Hindle 1st Gen 4:2:1's floating around in Europe. A dealler bought up the rest of the CLOSEOUT stock (they were $299 for header mid).

Yeah, those are the ones I've been looking at but they cost £299.

And a funny thing regarding the lock-up I bought: the spacer wasn't for the 1100/1150. It was for the GS1000...

Fortunately, I got a 1½" thick disc of aluminium out in the garage and some friends that are talented with CNC machines. Bit of a hassle but billet beats castings any day.

[posplayr]

Yeah, those are the ones I've been looking at but they cost £299.

And a funny thing regarding the lock-up I bought: the spacer wasn't for the 1100/1150. It was for the GS1000...

Fortunately, I got a 1½" thick disc of aluminium out in the garage and some friends that are talented with CNC machines. Bit of a hassle but billet beats castings any day.

Dont have them here but I have pictures of the Hindle mounted to my GS1100ED parts bike. No can just the mid but gives you and idea of fit if interested.

My Hindle pipe (with RS-3 oval can) is going to replace a 4:1 Muzzy on my GSXR1100G. The Hindle is extremely light by the way.

[Darkstang]

I have been following this thread and your build is awesome.

Concerning the horse power and parasitic loses. I do not believe that a straight percentage rule is linear. My stock 83 with just a 4 into 1 dynoed at 92 hp during bike week at Daytona.

I believe the drive train loss is more of finite amount of loss. Say it takes 15 hp to overcome the loss at factory hp levels, I cna't see it taking more power to overcome at higher hp levels? I have had this discussion many time when I was into racing and we had several vehicles dyno'd. Always wanted to dyno the motor and then the vehicle each time to get a true drivetrain loss scenario when only more hp was added and no drivetrain changes.


Do you have any pics of the bike in its current state? Did you leave the fairing off the front ?

[Mindless]

I have been following this thread and your build is awesome.

Concerning the horse power and parasitic loses. I do not believe that a straight percentage rule is linear. My stock 83 with just a 4 into 1 dynoed at 92 hp during bike week at Daytona.

I believe the drive train loss is more of finite amount of loss. Say it takes 15 hp to overcome the loss at factory hp levels, I cna't see it taking more power to overcome at higher hp levels? I have had this discussion many time when I was into racing and we had several vehicles dyno'd. Always wanted to dyno the motor and then the vehicle each time to get a true drivetrain loss scenario when only more hp was added and no drivetrain changes.


Do you have any pics of the bike in its current state? Did you leave the fairing off the front ?

Thanks!

And regarding the hosepower gains - I suppose you have a point. Regardless, I'm only gonna get more ponies out of it.

As for the current state of the bike:

[posplayr]

I have been following this thread and your build is awesome.

Concerning the horse power and parasitic loses. I do not believe that a straight percentage rule is linear. My stock 83 with just a 4 into 1 dynoed at 92 hp during bike week at Daytona.

I believe the drive train loss is more of finite amount of loss. Say it takes 15 hp to overcome the loss at factory hp levels, I cna't see it taking more power to overcome at higher hp levels? I have had this discussion many time when I was into racing and we had several vehicles dyno'd. Always wanted to dyno the motor and then the vehicle each time to get a true drivetrain loss scenario when only more hp was added and no drivetrain changes.


Do you have any pics of the bike in its current state? Did you leave the fairing off the front ?

Interesting point, put me aback for a moment because I had not considered the basis for a constant efficency approximation(if I did I forgot). I do remember having a discussion with a fellow at work as to how there could be as much as 15% loss in a chain system that should be much more efficient.

Rated horsepower apparently is measured at the transmission (of a motorcycle) so includes the transmission. The losses beyond that are chain drive and tires for purposes of comparing dyno results. I don't want to even start on this complex subject, however I will say that the frictional losses are more than likely associated with both speed and load. For a dyno run, we could assume that the speeds between two bikes of different hp are essentially the same, but the forces would be strongly related to engine torque.

So to the extent that the speeds of the dyno run remain the same, so to the frictional losses but there are going to be torque related forces hat would increase generally with a larger hp motor. For simplicity, I think to be safe I would stick with a fixed efficency model over a fixed hp loss. If you are interested you can down load the paper below ($34) and see what it says.

Chain performance is a complex subject , tires is another .....


Optimisation of the chain drive system on sports motorcycles

http://www.springerlink.com/content/bj274q1060h31xn3/

<H2>Abstract

This paper investigates the optimisation of the chain drive system on sports motorcycles. Recently there has been the development of a chain transmission efficiency model that is suitable for motorcycles. The new model is used to predict the efficiency of 600cc sports motorcycle at different speeds. The transmission efficiency is estimated to be between 96 and 99% for speeds less than 75 mile/h. Between 75 and 150 mile/h the transmission efficiency can be as low as 85% due to inertial tension. The transmission efficiency model presented in this paper enables optimisation of sprocket and chain sizes. In general, large sprockets are better at low speeds and smaller sprockets are better at high speeds. The optimum chain size is the chain with the smallest pitch that can meet the torque and power requirement. The sprocket centre distance also has a big effect on efficiency and it is important to use an effective installation procedure. In particular, it is important to set a chain up when the rear wheel axle, front crank and swing arm bearing are all in-line.

</H2>