DynoTech's AmSnow Adirondack Shootout Apex dyno results

[dynotechjim]

There are some well-meaning people posting stuff on this site that is incorrect. Those of you DTR members who follow what I really do know that when I replaced the original sf901 electronics with new 902 stuff, I had my own HTG1000 triple edge on the dyno. 225hp with early electronics, 225hp with the new electronics. I have the original absorber, and original torque measuring strain gauge. If I hang xxx lb of torque calibration weight and adjust properly, then the hp results are identical. It's just math, whether it's a cheap $100,000 dyno like mine or a million dollar dyno (?)--torque x rpm / 5252=hp. The SF tech who came here for two days to train me on the new system understands why I wanted to see identical numbers before and after on the same engine--all the nascar teams he's trained when they've switched to the new 902 stuff have done the same thing, with the same result. It's just math. But it made me feel warm and fuzzy seeing it for myself on my own engine. And since I've upgraded the electronics, I've had several engines here for repeat tuning/ testing and of course all is the same. Hentges racing has a 600 polaris mod mule engine that they use for all testing/ evaluation, and it made xxx hp with 901 stuff and identical xxx hp with 902 stuff. It's just math. Then we always use STP J-607 correction factor (adjusts the HP to what it should be a 60 degrees F sea level baro, dry air). I always thought it would be good to have a "J-snowmobile" correction factor for sea level baro, 0 degrees F dry air which would be considerably higher hp than the J-607.

Those of you DTR members who follow my detailed tech info know that some sled manufacturers have, understandably, wildly differing EFI calibrations from 70 degrees F (where EPA testing is said to be done) to 20 degree F winter air. So when the preproduction broken-in 2011 Apex was wickedly lean at 70 degrees F, and we fixed it by adding fuel, it would have been inappropriate to report that, and cause needless concern since when the cold air arrived all could have been perfect. But as we would see with the brand new zero mile Apex that D&D brought here for the shootout in 25 degreeF air, it was equally lean on top end. Not lean to create deto like would probably happen with most two-strokes, but lean to make considerably less than max power, but excellent fuel mileage (like gas engine airplanes do--setting mixture to max power for takeoff then leaning out even more for cruising mileage) and perhaps lower emissions.

But all of us greedy bastards want max power--screw the mileage and emissions--so adding fuel is a cheap way to do that on the 2011 Apex. But I doubt that adding duel to the band new Apex we had here would bring it up to the power of the perfectly tuned preproduction Apex that Woody brought here. Was the difference just breakin miles? DTR members know the HP difference we saw several years ago on the Shootout RX1 from out of the crate, to after running 8 hours, full load, at WOT (!!) on my dyno. But could there be some mechanical difference between the prepro Apex to the production Apex?

It's still December and we have good early season conditions out east--Apex riders are racking up breakin miles, and people are making hotrod parts. So it's just a matter of time before we glean more info on this new machine, along with exact fuel tuning requirements. Plus we will know the exact value of added hotrod parts. But please don't assume that your out of the crate 2011 Apex is as powerful as Woody's dyno-tuned preproduction 2011 Apex. It's not the dyno calibration--it's the brand-new 0 mile machine and its extremely lean tuning vs one with a bunch of miles and perfect dyno tune, and perhaps some differences in the machines themselves.

 

[kviper]

Very understandable and thanks for the clarification.

 

[sk-rx1]

This seems completley reasonable. Which part of this makes it appropriate for Yamaha to take dyno results for a "perfectly dyno tuned preproduction Apex" and print those results for advertisement in Yamaha showrooms? After they had held this info as not releasable from the spring until Spetember.

 

[MUSKIE]

Good post Dyno --Jim. !!

 

[FrostyNutz]

Thanks for the info ! It's nice to hear it from the source.

Can you tell us what the A/f ratio was on the 0 mile Apex vs the Woodys on top end @ 20F ? Was it lean like 14 afr lean or higher ? Can the stock ecu be reflashed with a new fuel map or is a FC our only solution ? I have no idea what Yamaha uses for knock control but it had better be good. A bad tank of gas or a very cold night could be trouble @ wot if these things are running that lean. Now i'm nervous,,, what will the afrs read at 0*f ? Will the ecu detect knock and pull timing ? That would suck 3/4's of the way down the lake with an etec in hot pursuit lol.

Yamaha now states 91Oct min for the new Apex. It's obvious they leaned it out,,,more hp, smaller tank , stronger midrange, longer track= more rotatiing mass to move. Gas consumption had to increase and mileage had to go down,,, I guess that forced Yamaha to bring it closer to the edge to compete with the others. Personally I dont' mind spending a few more bucks to get the most out of this sled in every situation. If I need a FC and a wideband,, than so be it

On a more positive note,,,,,That's 2 more things I won't have to buy when I turbo it LOL

 

[dirkdiggler]

This post talks in circles.

 

[SuperStroker!]

There are some well-meaning people posting stuff on this site that is incorrect. Those of you DTR members who follow what I really do know that when I replaced the original sf901 electronics with new 902 stuff, I had my own HTG1000 triple edge on the dyno. 225hp with early electronics, 225hp with the new electronics. I have the original absorber, and original torque measuring strain gauge. If I hang xxx lb of torque calibration weight and adjust properly, then the hp results are identical. It's just math, whether it's a cheap $100,000 dyno like mine or a million dollar dyno (?)--torque x rpm / 5252=hp. The SF tech who came here for two days to train me on the new system understands why I wanted to see identical numbers before and after on the same engine--all the nascar teams he's trained when they've switched to the new 902 stuff have done the same thing, with the same result. It's just math. But it made me feel warm and fuzzy seeing it for myself on my own engine. And since I've upgraded the electronics, I've had several engines here for repeat tuning/ testing and of course all is the same. Hentges racing has a 600 polaris mod mule engine that they use for all testing/ evaluation, and it made xxx hp with 901 stuff and identical xxx hp with 902 stuff. It's just math. Then we always use STP J-607 correction factor (adjusts the HP to what it should be a 60 degrees F sea level baro, dry air). I always thought it would be good to have a "J-snowmobile" correction factor for sea level baro, 0 degrees F dry air which would be considerably higher hp than the J-607.

Those of you DTR members who follow my detailed tech info know that some sled manufacturers have, understandably, wildly differing EFI calibrations from 70 degrees F (where EPA testing is said to be done) to 20 degree F winter air. So when the preproduction broken-in 2011 Apex was wickedly lean at 70 degrees F, and we fixed it by adding fuel, it would have been inappropriate to report that, and cause needless concern since when the cold air arrived all could have been perfect. But as we would see with the brand new zero mile Apex that D&D brought here for the shootout in 25 degreeF air, it was equally lean on top end. Not lean to create deto like would probably happen with most two-strokes, but lean to make considerably less than max power, but excellent fuel mileage (like gas engine airplanes do--setting mixture to max power for takeoff then leaning out even more for cruising mileage) and perhaps lower emissions.

But all of us greedy bastards want max power--screw the mileage and emissions--so adding fuel is a cheap way to do that on the 2011 Apex. But I doubt that adding duel to the band new Apex we had here would bring it up to the power of the perfectly tuned preproduction Apex that Woody brought here. Was the difference just breakin miles? DTR members know the HP difference we saw several years ago on the Shootout RX1 from out of the crate, to after running 8 hours, full load, at WOT (!!) on my dyno. But could there be some mechanical difference between the prepro Apex to the production Apex?

It's still December and we have good early season conditions out east--Apex riders are racking up breakin miles, and people are making hotrod parts. So it's just a matter of time before we glean more info on this new machine, along with exact fuel tuning requirements. Plus we will know the exact value of added hotrod parts. But please don't assume that your out of the crate 2011 Apex is as powerful as Woody's dyno-tuned preproduction 2011 Apex. It's not the dyno calibration--it's the brand-new 0 mile machine and its extremely lean tuning vs one with a bunch of miles and perfect dyno tune, and perhaps some differences in the machines themselves.

I don't think anyone was claiming you would be anything but completely honest...absolutely not! I know you have the highest level of integrity and you do your best to produce accurate and repeatable power figures, every time you run your equipment and I mean that!

The question I have, in reading the original results from the pre-production testing last year, compared to the results you got this year...of course 1800 miles on these engines makes a difference. The part I'm missing and correct me if I'm wrong is "why wasn't it made clear that the base-line test on the pre-production engine and the subsequent result from that test (~164HP), how did I miss the fact that an aftermarket fuel controller was used to produce those numbers? How was anybody to know the pre-production sled wasn't stock?

Did Yamaha know the engine wasn't stock and the results of the tests may have been lower than observed, without the use of the fuel controller?

There was no disclamer present on the add material I read in my dealers show room to indicate an aftermarket performance enhancing device was used to produce the numbers for the pre-production sled.

I didn't see a disclaimer stating the output for the 2011 production engines would be different from the pre-production figures.

As far as I know, Fuel Injection, even non-closed loop injection takes sensor input to adjust for differences in air temp, BP, knock etc and would maintain the proper A/F ratio to account for the "fueling" differences between you testing in the warmer and cooler air recently.

I don't know, maybe I'm being a bit over the top here and I certainly "get it" with regard to the 2011 APEX being a great sled but man...this stuff is clearly used to entice people (as indicated by Yamaha's use, reproduction and posting of the Dynotech data on the actual sleds in the dealer show room and in every magazine I've read) to make a decision to part with 15K dollars and that is serious coin!

The reason this is exceedingly more important in this case is due the the weight of the APEX sled...the thing needs more power than anything else it competes with to run at least as good as the sleds it competes with!

I don't know...just a little frustrated with a tendancy for dishonesty by all of these sled manufacturers at times.

I hope 1800 miles turns up 10hp and all this goes away!

I stand by my original posts point, which was simple...purchase a fuel controller for your 2011 APEX and hope 8 -10HP shows up when the sled gets 1800 miles on it.

 

[dirkdiggler]

I standby my posts as well. I find it very strange that all these sleds seem to be reading 10hp off what they did last spring.

 

[Daranello]

Jim why can't the test be "SAE Certified" ?

 

[rindtj]

So the sled was not broken in that dynoed 151? The 163 was broken in AND had a fuel controller? So through break in and a fuel controller the sled gained 12 HP? If that is the case it is definitely more believable, and the the 163 was "tuned." I don't know much but I would say that it would be believable that broken in the sled would pull 160ish w/o the FC. That is assuming my above assumption are correct.

 

[Alatalo]

But please don't assume that your out of the crate 2011 Apex is as powerful as Woody's dyno-tuned preproduction 2011 Apex. It's not the dyno calibration--it's the brand-new 0 mile machine and its extremely lean tuning vs one with a bunch of miles and perfect dyno tune, and perhaps some differences in the machines themselves.

There has been loads of rumours around regarding a possible change of dyno equipment, a possible change of dyno procedure, other sleds also producing less horsepower on the new equipment / procedure and the possible involvement of an external fuel controller. Thank you for clearing this up.

So, the only conclusion of this thread and several other threads is that Yamaha is advertising numbers from a well broken in, perfect dyno tuned preproduction unit with perhaps some differences in the machines themselves...?

 

[RunninRX1]

Jim why can't the test be "SAE Certified" ?

He mentioned he uses J-607 as the CF.. this IS a SAE correction factor so they are SAE certified (unless the CF's are over +/- 7%). J607 is actually obsolete. This CF has some issues with torque losses so you have to be very careful what you enter in (if you even account for it).

 

[Essarex]

We ride an Apex for many reasons, but I am willing to bet the first and biggest reason is, straightline Performance; from arm stretching launch through mid-range pull that is down-right visceral to top end speed that can only be matched with forced induction by the other brands.

If we 'believed' the dyno figures published by any independent organization, we would not even consider the Apex. By the figures, it is underpowered and overweight, as compared to the Cat and Doo. On a power to weight basis, even the Polaris rates higher.

But, we all know how they move on the snow. Their performance cannot be explained by the numbers. It is not physically possible for a 163hp 650 lb APEX to be as fast as a 163hp 470 lb ETEC,,,, but they are.

Dynos are necessary evils. We need them to help us develop and improve our platforms. But they cannot and should not be used for predictors of real world performance.

 

[RunninRX1]

I can answer some of the other various questions...
I am not sure about the ECU in the 2011 as being reprogrammable or not as I haven't had the chance to take one apart. I would assume it is although Yamaha does not give this capability to their dealers AFAIK. IMO this is a costly mistake if you do have an issue with the ECU calibration once production starts.
2006-2010 Apex's are reprogrammable. I can read them out and reprogram them.
All of the ones I have taken apart so far do account for changes in IAT, ECT, BARO among other things to correct the fueling.
I haven't seen any information yet if a 2011 ECU has a knock sensor or not.
If anyone who has a 2011 can get me the numbers written on the ECU or take a picture of it I can try to figure out what is in it. 2006-2010's are made by Mitsubishi.

 

[Race_blue60]

Dynos are necessary evils. We need them to help us develop and improve our platforms. But they cannot and should not be used for predictors of real world performance.

THANK YOU...ALWAYS whenever someone says something about anything on here..how much HP does this add, does that add? If we were worried about HP #s wed be riding the new cfr cat right now...seems to me everyone forgot about what this site is intended for...to help other Yammie riders, not to bash one another. if someone doesnt like someones elses dyno #s...go buy one or keep it to yourself, in a perfect world...Hell ive got 2 Hauck Powersports stickers on my sleds (one on each side).. they gave me a few extra HP...TRY THEM EVERYONE,IT WAS EVEN ON THE DYNO!
Ask Allen, i bet he can hook you up too