Dominator dyno run

iwilson

iwilson

Joined
Nov 6, 2015
Messages
400
Country flag
Finally got round to getting the bike back on the dyno to see the change from the original SC ECU to the OMEX ECU. As I had mentioned in a previous thread the bike now starts and idles, hot or cold without fail. A big step forward in its own right.

However... The current map has lost a few hp everywhere. Looking at the plot the fueling could be cleaned up and no doubt the timing adjusted to get it closer to the factories claimed output of 78hp. Allowing 12% for drivetrain losses, you get a figure of 73.5hp at the flywheel. I certainly wouldn't complain if a future revision gets us a little closer to what the engine is actually capable of with a more optimised map. Bearing in mind I'm running essentially a baffled version of the megaphones.

Dominator dyno run


I'll post any future runs in this thread. I have the raw data files if Norton wants them.
 
Yeah I lost a few (most felt in midrange) with new Omex and latest map on the 961 as well.
 
That's great info Ian. It is often very surprising how 'seat of the pants' feeling can be quite off when confirmed properly on a Dyno. Good on yer for doing proper testing on this.

I wouldn't t be happy with it yet though to be honest. You could get good modern carbs to run cleaner than that. I know it's been asked before, someone asked if anyone had fitted FCRs or similar to a 961 and the poster was derided for asking the question! Of course fuel injecion is better WHEN it's right, but given the amount of time and effort you guys are putting into maps and upgrades, without really yet finding 'the one' I'd say it's a relevant question!

At mid 60s RWHP you are in the same ball park as a reasonably tuned 'old' Commando (my own 850 is 64.6rwhp, others have more than me). I reckon the 961 engines are quite capable of more than that.

A couple of posters mentioned Dynojet were going to develop something for the 961, does anyone know if this has progressed any yet?

The factory have their hands tied, let's not blame them, they have to make super clean engines today to sell them. But there's obviously a market for a good aftermarket solution for these bikes.
 
Dominator dyno run


Hello Iwilson , Thanks for sharing. For now, I would be happy with the good running and stable hot and cold idle . As was talked about before , Norton uses DIN not SAE . SAE will read lower numbers than DIN . So we are probably right in the ballpark at say 68 to 70 HP when converting from DIN to SAE . The 2016 Cycle World article test the 2015 961 , which they say had the MK2 engine SAE (70.8 BHP , 58.7 FTlbs) . This is of course with the quiet factory pipes. What I don't have is a quiet pipe vs open system comparison. I can say for certain that mid-range torque is WAY higher with the Motad short/loud system. The high rpm power is the same as stock , in my view. This has more to say about the quality of the stock Motad system than anything else. If Norton wanted to tweak the numbers say give you quiet pipes out the door that don't perform to peak HP , and then give the owner the aftermarket pipes and tune. WOW , suddenly Norton is great. BUT , I stand by what I said before . This engine is capable of 90 HP with reliability. I would be ecstatic if Norton would just let the engine rev to a full 8000 RPM !!! The graph above show my latest dyno run and 2016 Aftermarket Map for the SC ECU before and after. What I had before was 091 pre 2016 , So for now I am happy. It will be interesting to hear from G81CanCycle about his mods and power increases . Tony
 
TonyA said:
Dominator dyno run


Hello Iwilson , Thanks for sharing. For now, I would be happy with the good running and stable hot and cold idle . As was talked about before , Norton uses DIN not SAE . SAE will read lower numbers than DIN . So we are probably right in the ballpark at say 68 to 70 HP when converting from DIN to SAE . The 2016 Cycle World article test the 2015 961 , which they say had the MK2 engine SAE (70.8 BHP , 58.7 FTlbs) . This is of course with the quiet factory pipes. What I don't have is a quiet pipe vs open system comparison. I can say for certain that mid-range torque is WAY higher with the Motad short/loud system. The high rpm power is the same as stock , in my view. This has more to say about the quality of the stock Motad system than anything else. If Norton wanted to tweak the numbers say give you quiet pipes out the door that don't perform to peak HP , and then give the owner the aftermarket pipes and tune. WOW , suddenly Norton is great. BUT , I stand by what I said before . This engine is capable of 90 HP with reliability. I would be ecstatic if Norton would just let the engine rev to a full 8000 RPM !!! The graph above show my latest dyno run and 2016 Aftermarket Map for the SC ECU before and after. What I had before was 091 pre 2016 , So for now I am happy. It will be interesting to hear from G81CanCycle about his mods and power increases . Tony
Click to expand...

I was just admiring your torque curve Tony, except 'curve' isn't really the right description is it? More of a torque 'flat' !
Must be very nice in the twisties ...
 
Fast Eddie said:
That's great info Ian. It is often very surprising how 'seat of the pants' feeling can be quite off when confirmed properly on a Dyno. Good on yer for doing proper testing on this.

I wouldn't t be happy with it yet though to be honest. You could get good modern carbs to run cleaner than that. I know it's been asked before, someone asked if anyone had fitted FCRs or similar to a 961 and the poster was derided for asking the question! Of course fuel injecion is better WHEN it's right, but given the amount of time and effort you guys are putting into maps and upgrades, without really yet finding 'the one' I'd say it's a relevant question!

At mid 60s RWHP you are in the same ball park as a reasonably tuned 'old' Commando (my own 850 is 64.6rwhp, others have more than me). I reckon the 961 engines are quite capable of more than that.

A couple of posters mentioned Dynojet were going to develop something for the 961, does anyone know if this has progressed any yet?

The factory have their hands tied, let's not blame them, they have to make super clean engines today to sell them. But there's obviously a market for a good aftermarket solution for these bikes.
Click to expand...

I never put any faith in butt dynos which is why I've done so many dyno runs! However this is one of those occasions where despite the slight reduction in power and the not so pretty AFR plot the bike runs perfectly.

Power delivery is relatively linear with a wonderful accompanying soundtrack! I can't go on enough about how good the start and idle is, I must sound like an old record but let me state once again that since receiving the new OMEX ECU the bike has not stalled a single time as in not ONCE, hot, cold it doesn't matter.

But dear god the dyno owner who btw does all the tuning for Ken McIntosh (world renown for his Norton featherbed Manx's), is pulling his hair out in frustration with his inability to unleash the missing hp. I'm just happy the bike is at last showing signs of being reliable although Nortons customer service has a long way to go, which is strange since it costs nothing to ANSWER emails...

Prepare to be amazed as the mighty Norton fires up and idles without human assistance!

[video]https://youtu.be/hHNa-UV7-aw[/video]
 
That's a cold start? Mine fires right up but shoots to 2K for about 15 seconds, then drops to a steady 1150. Nice video.
 
TonyA said:
BUT , I stand by what I said before . This engine is capable of 90 HP with reliability. I would be ecstatic if Norton would just let the engine rev to a full 8000 RPM !!!
Click to expand...

Tony,

I agree.

Also, It’s frustrating to me to see how there has been virtually no progress in extracting more HP from these motors.
Back in 2006 before Kenny Dreer’s efforts went bust, he began looking into a higher performance version of the 961.
He was working with a NASCAR team based in Washington State. I don’t remember the name of the team.
Also, Matt Capri of Triumph Performance intended to develop and market performance products for the 961.
My hope was to build a new age Norton Hot Rod, but currently there are still no components on the market.
So far there is still nothing for the new Nortons other than exhaust systems.
A Power Commander with effective maps would be a nice start.

I have spoken to engine builders here about the Norton, and they always identify two areas on the 961 that would need improvement to extract good HP:

1. The air box/plenum sure looks sexy, but is far too small for a 900-1000 cc engine to provide for adequate volumetric efficiency.
If an air box is to be used it has to have greater volume than the current one.
Option would be to remove the airbox and put sock filters and velocity stacks on the TBs, and install faux covers on the sides to look like the original airbox.

2. Throttle bodies (TBs)– are also too small, and restrictive with the butterfly valve to provide adequate flow of air for producing good power.
Kenny Dreer’s original 961 design used flatslide 39mm FCR’s. These babies flow a lot more fuel/air than the current throttle bodies.
I wonder if the stock 961 TBs have enough meat on them to be bored out a few mm like the TBs on Hinckley Bonnevilles?
There is a company in the UK that does this. They take the stock Bonneville 36mm TB and bore it to 39mm and fit new throttle valves to suit.

The airbox and throttle bodies are of course just fine for passing restrictive emission regulations, but will hamstring any efforts to extract real power from the mill.
 
BritTwit said:
TonyA said:
BUT , I stand by what I said before . This engine is capable of 90 HP with reliability. I would be ecstatic if Norton would just let the engine rev to a full 8000 RPM !!!
Click to expand...

Tony,

I agree.

Also, It’s frustrating to me to see how there has been virtually no progress in extracting more HP from these motors.
Back in 2006 before Kenny Dreer’s efforts went bust, he began looking into a higher performance version of the 961.
He was working with a NASCAR team based in Washington State. I don’t remember the name of the team.
Also, Matt Capri of Triumph Performance intended to develop and market performance products for the 961.
My hope was to build a new age Norton Hot Rod, but currently there are still no components on the market.
So far there is still nothing for the new Nortons other than exhaust systems.
A Power Commander with effective maps would be a nice start.

I have spoken to engine builders here about the Norton, and they always identify two areas on the 961 that would need improvement to extract good HP:

1. The air box/plenum sure looks sexy, but is far too small for a 900-1000 cc engine to provide for adequate volumetric efficiency.
If an air box is to be used it has to have greater volume than the current one.
Option would be to remove the airbox and put sock filters and velocity stacks on the TBs, and install faux covers on the sides to look like the original airbox.

2. Throttle bodies (TBs)– are also too small, and restrictive with the butterfly valve to provide adequate flow of air for producing good power.
Kenny Dreer’s original 961 design used flatslide 39mm FCR’s. These babies flow a lot more fuel/air than the current throttle bodies.
I wonder if the stock 961 TBs have enough meat on them to be bored out a few mm like the TBs on Hinckley Bonnevilles?
There is a company in the UK that does this. They take the stock Bonneville 36mm TB and bore it to 39mm and fit new throttle valves to suit.

The airbox and throttle bodies are of course just fine for passing restrictive emission regulations, but will hamstring any efforts to extract real power from the mill.
Click to expand...

Very interesting !

I would be sorely tempted to try some 39mm FCR bad boys and a performance ignition system on a 961 IF I had one!
 
Britfan60 said:
That's a cold start? Mine fires right up but shoots to 2K for about 15 seconds, then drops to a steady 1150. Nice video.
Click to expand...

Engine was Stone cold. In the past my old ECU would occasionally start from cold in the manner you describe, but not consistently. Nor could it be relied on to not stall hot or cold.

Regarding the engine it's certified to make 80PS which is near enough correct with the stock exhaust (based on my earlier dyno runs). No doubt there's more to be had, but you could say that of any stock engine for good reason - emissions and reliability to name two. What people are really complaining about is the lack of aftermarket solutions to have a play. And these days that means one thing the ability to alter the engine mapping. But with the relative rarity of the 961 there's no real interest from the commercial sector - although that may change in the near future. For the moment I have a bike that starts, idles and has enough power to put a grin on my face. I won't aggressively be seeking more at this point, it's not really what this bike is about. The V4 on the other hand is a different kettle of fish.
 
What would it take for FCRs apart from carb kit.
A different pickup? (From 270 twin) say a Triumph Scrambler or more to it.

Keihin FCRs transformed everything I ever put them on butvtrhy were carbed bike with best carbs.
A better EFI perhaps should be better but I have run out of patience with getting better results from the FI and dealer knowledge with it here.

Happy to be a guinea pig with some direction.
 
Converting the bike to Carbs would involve significant work, well beyond my skill level.
The problem with Carbizing a 961 is that you have to remove the ignition circuit from the ECU controlled circuitry in such a way as to not effect the remainder of the electrical system which will remain under ECU control like lights, instruments, horn, etc.
Otherwise, the bike will need complete rewiring.
A Triumph Scrambler igniter box (270 degree crank) could be linked to the Norton’s ignition trigger.
I don’t know if this will work electrically, but I can’t see why the Norton trigger would be that much different from a Bonneville/Scrambler trigger.
The Triumph igniter box works with throttle position data, RPM, and the trigger signals.
Then the new ignition circuit would need to be integrated into the main key ignition switch so it can be turned on/off with the key.
Once you have the ignition wired, you would need new intake manifolds/cables for the FCR’s.
Next is to find a way to install petcocks in the Norton fuel tank, or get a new tank with petcocks.
Then the fun begins with carb jet and needle setting changes.

I suppose it can be done, but it’s truly a daunting task.
 
Yeah enough there to go "f***it I'm off for a ride"

If it was more a basket case..like when I did same to a Guzzi 1100 Sport then maybe half fun.

Thanks gents.
 
GKRyder said:
What would it take for FCRs apart from carb kit.
A different pickup? (From 270 twin) say a Triumph Scrambler or more to it.

Keihin FCRs transformed everything I ever put them on butvtrhy were carbed bike with best carbs.
A better EFI perhaps should be better but I have run out of patience with getting better results from the FI and dealer knowledge with it here.

Happy to be a guinea pig with some direction.
Click to expand...

I know someone in the UK who would relish the task, make / adapt a custom ignition, make manifolds, set carbs up on rolling road, etc. Actually, he'd even make a custom EFI set up if desired.

Where are you?
 
Fast Eddie said:
I know someone in the UK who would relish the task, make / adapt a custom ignition, make manifolds, set carbs up on rolling road, etc. Actually, he'd even make a custom EFI set up if desired.

Where are you?
Click to expand...

Glad to see you're about to take the plunge. Looking forward to your build thread!
 
iwilson said:
Fast Eddie said:
I know someone in the UK who would relish the task, make / adapt a custom ignition, make manifolds, set carbs up on rolling road, etc. Actually, he'd even make a custom EFI set up if desired.

Where are you?
Click to expand...

Glad to see you're about to take the plunge. Looking forward to your build thread!
Click to expand...

Not quite Ian, I won't be plunging far at all, due largely to lack of a suitable machine upon which to plunge!

I merely know someone who's capable, equipped and willing to do this kinda stuff, for anyone who may be interested.

I have to remain content playing around with the 'old' Commando variant.
 
Fast Eddie said:
iwilson said:
Fast Eddie said:
I know someone in the UK who would relish the task, make / adapt a custom ignition, make manifolds, set carbs up on rolling road, etc. Actually, he'd even make a custom EFI set up if desired.

Where are you?
Click to expand...

Glad to see you're about to take the plunge. Looking forward to your build thread!
Click to expand...

Not quite Ian, I won't be plunging far at all, due largely to lack of a suitable machine upon which to plunge!

I merely know someone who's capable, equipped and willing to do this kinda stuff, for anyone who may be interested.

I have to remain content playing around with the 'old' Commando variant.
Click to expand...



I think if Norton don't step up to the plate , they are missing an opportunity here. What I would like to see Norton do is market a race kit for the Commando 961. A FACTORY DESIGNED AND APPROVED RACE KIT . Of course for off road use only !!! This kit would include a camshaft , higher compression pistons 11.1 to 1 up one point , and a proper 8000 rpm rev limit and other necessary changes in the ECU . Now , this will net another easy 5 to 10 HP or more if properly done. No need to change the Throttle bodies or air box yet. Lets not forget that the Norton Throttle Bodies are already 38MM . A New Designed Racing airbox could be introduced with a larger opening and larger filter. When Norton UK decided to DE-TUNE the 961 Commando , this was done early on during the Dreer prototype to the Norton UK production ready machine. Tests of the Dreer engine by Cycle World state 75 BHP . But , the FLAT FAT torque curve will give way to the scalded cat top end 5000 to 8000 RPM . The possibilities and opportunities are many !! And very delicious ! Of course there would be stipulations about NOT DURING WARRANTY , or VOIDS WARRANTY etc.. This in my view would be worth their time and effort and be profitable !
 
Tony,

First we should create a new thread to discuss hot rodding the 961.
Now, to further pollute this thread…

The 38mm throttle bodies on the 961 just can not flow as much as the 39 FCR’s.
The butterfly valve in the TB throat creates turbulence and reduces flow to probably the level of a 36-37mm smoothbore carb.
Converting to carbs as I mentioned in a prior posting would be a huge task.
A race kit from the factory would be great, I agree.
However, I just don’t see the willingness on the part of the Factory to do any such thing.
So, if we are going to get this done, WE, owners, will have to grab the bull by the horns, and make it happen.

I can see a quick, relatively inexpensive upgrade:

1. Ditch the airbox. Aesthetically, this would not be very pleasing to look at but will pay dividends in performance.
Will have to create a catch bottle for the crankcase/valve cover breathers.
2. Foam sock air filters with internal velocity stacks on the throttle bodies.
3. Ditch cats and install free flowing exhaust.
4. I believe someone on the forum indicated a few weeks ago that Dynojet will introduce a PC5 for the 961 soon.
Install power commander, and spend next few weeks on the dyno developing a strong map.

These mods will free up the induction and exhaust ends nicely.
The power commander will provide the necessary mixture changes to take advantage of the free breathing.

These changes alone should provide 10+ HP, plus better throttle response due to free induction, and a custom PC5 map.
 
BritTwit said:
TonyA said:
BUT , I stand by what I said before . This engine is capable of 90 HP with reliability. .......
Also, Matt Capri of Triumph Performance intended to develop and market performance products for the 961.
My hope was to build a new age Norton Hot Rod, but currently there are still no components on the market.
So far there is still nothing for the new Nortons other than exhaust systems.
A Power Commander with effective maps would be a nice for a start

1. The air box/plenum sure looks sexy, but is far too small for a 900-1000 cc engine to provide for adequate volumetric efficiency.
If an air box is to be used it has to have greater volume than the current one.
Option would be to remove the airbox and put sock filters and velocity stacks on the TBs, and install faux covers on the sides to look like the original airbox.

2. Throttle bodies (TBs)– are also too small, and restrictive with the butterfly valve to provide adequate flow of air for producing good power.
Kenny Dreer’s original 961 design used flatslide 39mm FCR’s. These babies flow a lot more fuel/air than the current throttle bodies.
I wonder if the stock 961 TBs have enough meat on them to be bored out a few mm like the TBs on Hinckley Bonnevilles?
There is a company in the UK that does this.....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Having ridden a Triumph 790 that had the full TPUSA treatment, that is head sent to TPUSA for porting etc, hot cam,air box upgrade, twin 38 mm Kehein FCR's , high compression pistons, upgraded ignition, I would say be careful what you wish for.
In addition to the upgrades, that bike had undergone about a year of farting around with various dyno tuners to solve stalling problems and general running problems. In the end it managed to make 6 extra peak HP on the dyno on it's very best run ( but many runs against 1 stock run, so was it really 6 HP?)
The mid range and low end were totally gutted, virtually no power below 6 k then an decent little band between 6 and 8, that was it. My 1968 650 SS would run away from it using half throttle!
And this was supposed to be a proven performance kit , hundreds if not thousands of these done.


If you have a good runner now it might be best to just enjoy it as is.

Glen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top