MadScientist

If you are doing it to clean up the engine bay, go for it. I've done it all. Everything removable associated with the PAIR and flapper system are gone. Snorkel has been on and off, currently back on. I think it feels a little smoother at low speed with the snorkel. There isn't really much to gain here, a pound or two of removed parts and I didn't see any power gains worth mentioning. Gets some hoses and crap out of the way when you are doing other stuff.

Alright, previously I had a PCII and had been using a custom map. It ran well at wide open, but everywhere else it left something to be desired. The PC V on the other hand, WOW. Someone else described it as fuel injection nirvana, I would be inclined to agree. I'm sure it doesn't hurt that the injectors were sent out for cleaning and flow balancing either. I only rode it briefly with the cleaned injectors and no power commander, just to make sure they were good to go, and throttle response was as I remembered (mediocre at best). Installation notes: I had to drop the header/collectors to take it over for welding of the O2 sensor bung. To avoid any waiting, order the two new copper exhaust gaskets for the front head tubes, they are deformed during installation and must be replaced. Also, be VERY careful when pulling the collector system down off of the rear head tubes. If you can avoid damaging the large metal/moly gaskets here, you will save some decent coin. I managed to leave one fully intact, but the other was around $20 at the dealer. The re-used one does not leak, I've reused gaskets like this on my ducati as well. All of the electrical connections were exactly the same as a 6th gen. The connector is on the opposite side of the airbox, however. Cable length was acceptable, but I would have preferred an extra 6" or so, for better positioning of the PC V box. Since the ECU is right there by the tail lights, I didn't see any sense in running wires all over the bike to pick up the speed and temperature, so I tapped the lines about 8" ahead of the ECU. Both enter the ECU on the "gray" connector (right side connector, looking at it), the temp is blue/yellow and enters on pin B15, speed is the pink wire on B17. I added a molex connector w/ gold terminals (to avoid oxidation) to the end of the taps, so I could just unplug rather than desolder at the tap location. I stole power for the O2 heater from the tail light circuit, no issues with that. I will include some pictures later that show the position of the O2 sensor and the routing of the leads. I haven't had any heat issues and the position shouldn't bother the rear suspension. I am using a vacuum switch to disable the autotune during closed throttle decel, I also wired a toggle switch in series with the vacuum switch so I could turn off autotune completely, if I wanted to. Riding impression: Unbelievable. The bike is so smooth it is rediculous. NO low speed snatch/jerk at all. No flatspots, no lean surging (had plenty of that on the ducati w/ narrow band O2 system...), no hesitation. The throttle reacts like a very well tuned carb system, plus it will self adjust to changes in weather/altitude. I only wish I had done before and after dyno runs so we could have some numbers and slopes to compare. Also, do the mapping by gear. Even if you have one of the older ECUs that only has one map, the PC V will hold a modification table for each gear. I'll say that mine follow similar trends, but they are still rather different. To anyone considering a PC III: Do the V instead. If a shop is trying to convince you to go with the III, I would find another shop... The base unit is about the same price and you can add autotune later if you want. Canned maps and PCIII maps can be slightly modified to work with the PC V as well.

I saw your thread and wasn't sure if you went through with the install. Unless I hear some bad news from the injector shop, the PC-V is a go. I found what I was looking for in the files area and it looks like it may be plug n play with the 5th gen too. Seems both use the same 10P connector for the throttle body electronics. Hopefully the pin arrangement is the same. For now I'll assume that it is.... :biggrin: Looks like Honda moved that connector to the right side of the airbox (per PC-V install instructions) on the 6th gen bikes. On a 5th gen it is located behind the left fairing, just above the radiator. Unless some sixth gen owner wants to go find the grey 10P connector for the TB electronics and take a picture of the wire colors for us...

I've read through his posts and it seems to be straight up plug n play with any of the 6th gen bikes. However, I'm putting it on a 5th gen. Anyone done this yet? I need to make sure that the throttle body harness connection is the same on both models, if not I need to figure out what wiring needs "adjustment".

Well the VFR is under the knife do to some fuel injector issues, so what better time to light my wallet on fire do some midsummer mods. Anyway, the injectors are on their way to WitchHunter Perf right now and I'll be ordering the PCV "retrofit" kit from fuel moto in the next couple days. Before I do that, I want to take a look at the 6th gen wiring diagram (06-09 if it makes a difference) and find out if I need to do any modification to the wiring harness for this to work. I would prefer not to download the entire 6th gen manual. So if someone could take a few screen shots of that section and email me, I would much appreciate it. Now off to the exhaust shop to get that O2 bung welded on....

I'm looking to put a system that utilizes a wideband O2 sensor for self tuning. Anybody out there have any experience with the Terry Components TV-3 fuel management system? Quite a few of the local harley riders think they are a pretty decent unit. I am not finding a whole lot of other information out there on this kit, however. Looks like this kit can be had in the mid $300 range. Otherwise, Fuel Moto shows a retrofit kit for the installation of a PCV to the 5th Gen VFRs. Has anybody else put a PCV on a 5th gen yet? Fuel Moto is located fairly close to me, so in-person support may be available. This is a bit more expensive than the TV3 kit when you factor in the Autotune module as well as the retrofit kit.

Well at that rate, you will have 1700 L * (2 min/ 1L) = 3400 minutes. Again that is a bit of a conservative figure, from the company (better to under quote the output than over quote it). With the pump, I'm getting a little more than .75 lpm. I'm not sure why, but I've measured using the old displacement method and consistantly gotten about .75 l of gas in a minute. It may have something to do with pump generating pressure flow and the flow scrubbing small bubbles off the plates, which clears the plate to form more gas. I do know that units without the pumps make fairly large bubbles that rise in the tubes like bubbles in soda, cling side wall of the tube. My unit even when it was setup on a bench test, makes white froth in the output tubes more like the bubbles rising in draft pint of guiness (ie. there are no recognizable bubbles until the gas rises to the surface). based on what I saw on the bench a liter of water will last 1833 L * (4 min/3L) = 2444 minutes or more than 40 hours. The question now is if that tiny bit of hydrogen and oxygen is going to really change the thermodynamic conditions inside the cylinder enough to realize any gain. I mean we are talking about ~640 parts per million or 0.064% HHO. Hmmm.... Well, nothing to do but wait for data, seeing as how you already have the stuff installed. I guess I now have some reservations about the efficacy of this system. I'd have to look up the number of liters of liguid gasoline you would need to make the number of liters of gas vapor you would need, assuming you need 1 mole of gasoline for every 14.7 moles of O2 (which is what % by volume of a liter of atmosphere?). 18-22% depending where you are and who you ask. 14.7:1 is a mass ratio, not a mole or volume ratio. You need to figure in the density of air to determine how much fuel you will use (assuming stoich, of course). THEN, you would need to figure out the composition of gasoline (or some idealized test fuel) and you could then plug all the individual component information into a gas law equation of some kind to figure out the volume of gasoline vapor generated from a given mass of gasoline (see what I mean about complicated). Not to mention that there are generally oxygenating agents in gasoline as well....MTBE, EtOH, etc... but here is a rough equation. if the motor displaces 1560 L/min at 4000 rpm, then its pumping 280 L/min of O2, and so if we assume an ideal set of conditions use a stoich air fuel ratio, we need 19.1 liters of gas vapor. .75 liters of HHO is not as far away from the quantity of gasoline vapor as it seems at first. Now I know that equation is not 100%, but it gives you some other idea into how much gasoline is needed to make and engine run and also how little HHO would be needed to have an effect. As you say its installed, so we will see how it does when I get the tuning finished. And I have some other things to try to improve the hho production as well. The other thing I haven't mentioned is how throttle position effects the ratios. I'm guessing everything suggested so far is more equivalent to WOT conditions. If you are at part throttle, the HHO tank is still generating the same amount of gas as at WOT and the throttle plates are letting less air in. I would assume then that the concentration of HHO in each cylinder would be greater than that at WOT. This is probably why little HP gain would be seen, as the engine is pumping a LOT of air at 10k+ rpms and the HHO will be very dilute. However, at part throttle with the higher concentrations, some thermodynamic changes may be more easily affected. At this point, this is all mental masturbation. Get this thing running, inquiring minds want to know.

Uhh, 1700 liters you say. That is not really very much. Well lets assume 4 revolutions = 1 intake event on each cylinder = ~.780 liters/4 revs At 4000 rpm -> (4000 rev/min) * (.780 L/4 revs) = 780 L/min 1700 L * (1 min/780 L) = 2.2 minutes So, lets safely say the engine will consume every bit of HHO gas as fast as it is made. Well at that rate, you will have 1700 L * (2 min/ 1L) = 3400 minutes. The question now is if that tiny bit of hydrogen and oxygen is going to really change the thermodynamic conditions inside the cylinder enough to realize any gain. I mean we are talking about ~640 parts per million or 0.064% HHO. Hmmm.... Well, nothing to do but wait for data, seeing as how you already have the stuff installed. I guess I now have some reservations about the efficacy of this system.

No, no all wrong. It's for time travel, see the flux capacitor...

The bike isn't throwing away electricity. The load on the engine from the stator is the resistance of the system attached to it. As you draw more amps, the stator will be harder to turn, using more fuel. If this is the case, the only way that you will get any energy back from this type of system would be if you increased k (the reaction rate) to a point where the energy gained by more efficient combustion (reaction in the cylinder) would offset the energy lost to power the electrolysis cell.

Being a chemist (though more into the biochemical aspects rather than physics/thermodynamics) I understand the principals here, though the system is slightly more complex than throwing LeChatlier and the laws of conservation at it. We Have: 1) Excess oxygen to begin with (more hydrocarbons than stoich.) 2) A power source that shunts waste energy to heat (stator->R/R) 3) Inefficient extraction of energy (loss as heat or incomplete reaction) 4) Fuel injection system that will deliver a quantity of HCs independent of what is in the gas phase (air, HHO) You are adding: 1) More oxygen (since you are not pressurizing above atmospheric -that I can see- this will displace air that is ~18% oxygen with HHO that is 33% oxygen at best (complete electrolysis)) 2) Hydrogen (which is also a combustible fuel, already in the gas phase) 3) Water? Possible Outcomes: 1) The oxygen and hydrogen recombine upon ignition and create water vapor (gas phase). This may occur before any HC fuel has a chance to react with the added oxygen. This would do 2 things: A) Move some of the heat energy that would be lost anyway at the R/R into the cylinder. We do not gain any volume expansion from the combustion of hydrogen except through heating something else (like air or the water vapor product). 2 mol H2 + 1 mol O2 -> 2 mol H2O + heat -- a net 1 mol loss of a gas. B) Increases the kinetic energy of the HC fuel (the chemical energy is fixed in the bonds), allowing it to volatilize quicker to the gas phase (which we want anyway) from the liquid phase. This would give a quicker, more even combustion if the result is a more homogeneous and highly concentrated charge of HC vapor. (This is also why finer "atomization" of fuel leads to increases efficiency) The benefit to this is that the increasing the temperature increases the reaction rate (Arrhenius equation) no matter what order the reaction. This is good, but the amount of energy you add will be less than that generated by the rotor/stator. 2) (Unlikely, but possible) The added oxygen is present long enough to react with HC fuel. - This only applies if the HC combustion is at least 1st order in oxygen (I would guess it is). Thus more reactant = faster reaction... 3) (Bad News?) The HHO system delivers mainly water vapor (or some other non-combustible vapor?) Sure this might expand a bit, but nothing like water injection. Now I didn't go looking up the reaction rate equations/constants for any of the combustion reactions that are taking place (well, what did you expect for free) so most of what I figured is just assuming that the reactions are 1st order in all species. What I am curious about is why wouldn't they use a variable field exciter like an automotive alternator? Seems like a lot of energy to dissipate continuously as heat.