2 Rockets Compare Dobeck Performance AFR Plus to TuneECU - Long Post

[Idaho Red Rocket 3]

I wanted to give the Forum Members some information about the Dobeck Performance AFR Plus I recently installed on my 2006 Standard Rocket III. This add-on performance enhancement system is a plug and play devise that controls the fuel system at the injectors. No computers or dyno tuning is required. The devise is safe because the rider can control the fuel injection Air Fuel Ratio on the AFR readout gauge that comes with the devise. The simple controls can change the setting anytime the rider chooses. And you can change the settings as you change your riding style and any intake or exhaust changes that may be desired. The device has 3 fuel settings and a fuel pump setting. There are several switch point settings as well. All are adjustable at the touch of 3 buttons on the AFR gauge face. I wanted to compare the results of this device to the result achievable with TuneECU, a computer, and a trip to the dyno.

I have two 2006 Rocket III motorcycles. My red standard you see in my avatar and a Classic recently purchased for $3000 due to the popping out of second gear problem. (The Classic is another couple of stories for several other posts later.) The standard has stock tune 20226, stock under seat air filter with snorkel removed, stock exhaust with cat eliminator pipe. The Classic came with TuneECU installed but not optimized. I found tune 20219 installed. It too has the stock under seat air filter with snorkel removed, but it has the D&D slip on 3-1-2 exhaust and no cat. D&D claims this mod alone ads something about 8 to 10 HP and TQ. The previous owner had an extra baffles made for it to tone down the noise. (Really sounds good.)

Saturday my son and I took both Rockets to see Glenn at Motor Mayhem in Meridian, Idaho. Glenn is one of the owners and can be reached at 208-887-2058. He has a 2 large roller DynoJet dyno that can do motorcycles and cars. I asked Glen how his numbers compare to others dyno numbers. He said his customers tell him his dyno is “conservative” and is considered to be as close to actual as is available in our area. He told me some of his customers take their vehicle to some of the other dyno places around the valley to get higher number printouts so they can have better bragging rights. I also asked Glen if those 2 big rollers were going to create a false number for my motorcycles. He said “it would be like pulling a trailer up a steep long grade with a fat girl sitting on the back seat. In essence it will give the bike a good workout under load and report very accurate numbers”. I also asked Glenn about the effects of our altitude. He said not only our altitude reduces power but so does our “poor” air quality. It is very dry with very fine dust in the air here. The power loss can be anywhere from 10 to 15 percent. The print out will have an SAE number that is used to calculate the Sea Level equivalent power.

First up is the Classic with TuneECU already installed. I made a few settings changes before the run. Increased idle to 960 RPM, max RPM to 6700, increased max KPH to 299, and reduced fan start temp to 98C. I believe these changes have little to no effect on the HP and TQ. We did 7 runs and I will give you the results of the 5 that matter. On 2 of the 7 runs we tried some ideas that only reduced power, so I’ll skip those.

Classic Runs: Stock intake / D&D 3-1-2 slip on exhaust. Time was 10AM to 11:10 AM. Temps started at 83 degrees and went up to 88 degrees. Humidity started at 23% and went down to 20%.
1) Tune 20219 with 2nds at 100%. HP 116.29 TQ 146.00.
2) Tune 20219 with 2nds at 75% at 2250 to 3750 RPM. HP 127.27 TQ 145.32.
3) Tune 20228 Power-TrippR3 TORS underseat decel with 2nds at 100%. HP 130.52 TQ 148.18.
4) Tune 20050 with 2nds at 100%. HP 130.84 TQ 151.39.
5) Tune 20050 with 2nds at 75% at 2500, 2750 and 4500 RPM. HP 130.76 TQ 151.51.

Using just TuneECU we see an increase from tune 20219 to tune 20050. HP+ 14.47 TQ+ 5.51. I find it interesting how closing down the secondaries some in the mid-range increase power a bit. We made run number 5 the final tune. With the 12% SAE factor printed on the report, the power adjusted to Sea Level is HP 146.45 TQ 169.70.

Now we hook up the Standard bike which has the Dobeck Performance AFR Plus. Since I have TuneECU and know how to use it, I made the same changes on this bike, increased idle to 960 RPM, max RPM to 6700, Max KPH to 299 and reduced fan start temp to 98C. I believe these changes have little to no effect on the HP and TQ. We did 8 runs and I will give you the results of the 3 that matter. We tried several runs just adjusting the AFR Plus, but determined the settings Mark Dobeck set it at last April were the best. So we put it back to those numbers for the remainder of the test runs.

Standard Runs: Stock intake / Stock exhaust with cat delete pipe. Time was Noon to 1:35 PM. Temps started at 92 degrees and went up to 95 degrees. Humidity started at 17% and went down to 12%. About 2 years ago we ran the bike without the AFR Plus and got these numbers. HP 119.76 and TQ 136.22. (About - from memory. My dyno sheet is on the wall at my office.)

1) Tune 20226 stock tune with 2nds closed down to 91% to as low as 34% from 1709 RPM to 4000 RPM. Most way points are 43% or less in the mid-range. HP 138.16 TQ 145.26. Nice increase over bone stock.
2) Tune 20226 stock tune with 2nds at 75% from 1978 to 3750 RPM. HP 139.20 TQ 151.96. Better.
3) Tune 20050 with 2nds at 75% at 2500, 2750 and 4500 RPM. HP 140.18 TQ 155.34. Best.

Since I have the TuneECU, we made run number 3 the final tune. With the 13% SAE factor printed on the report, the power adjusted to Sea Level is HP 158.40 TQ 175.53.

So here is my take on the Dobeck Performance AFR Plus. No computer needed. No dyno tuner needed. Fully adjustable and safe with Air Fuel Ratio read out in real time. Comparing my standard bike with stock tunes with and without AFR Plus, the bike gained 19 horsepower and 9 ft. lbs. torque with AFR Plus.

Bill.

 

[Idaho Red Rocket 3]

Really ?? Over 2 weeks on the board. Over 200 views. And not a single comment.

I put a lot of effort and money into this comparison test. I sure would appreciate feedback and comments.

WHAT GIVES ??

Bill

 

[ewswartze]

Excellent, detailed information. I currently run PCV w/at and speaking of that I need to accept the current trims.

 

[dougl]

No response because it's hard to understand much less explain. It doesn't sound like you optimized your fueling with either the Dobek or tuneecu. You just changed tunes with tuneecu without the Dobek and did the same with the Dobek's preprogrammed settings.

What is 20219 for? I know that 20226 is for tors with cat bypass. First, the bike was probably dynoed in 4th gear so the secondaries position for a particular tune is only relevant for 4th. Peak hp was at about 6000 on my R3 and peak torque between about 2700 and 3000 rpm as I remember. On my bike, the stock tor tune gave about 13 ft lbs less peak torque than a Tuneboy custom tune with secondaries at 100%. As you noted the stock 20226 tune shuts them to 40% so this obviously limits the peak torque. I'm not sure the difference between 75 and 100 is that important as you have found. However I believe you would get the most power at 100% if your fueling and timing was optimized. It is surprising that you get more power from the d&ds with the stock 20050 which is for stock mufflers with a filled cat than from a Tripp tune although the difference wasn't much. It's also weird that you're getting 150+ ft lbs from the stock mufflers and d&ds using the 20050 tune. That doesn't seem conservative. I doubt anyone is getting 170 ft lbs at sea level at 25 C with just exhausts like these.

 

[barbagris]

You wanted feedback - OK

Lets make one thing really clear.

Neither a Dobeck-AFR or a PCV with A/T is going to be as good as a PROPER BESPOKE tune - EVER.

Also whilst it would seem fair to compare two R3's - From folk like Wayne Tripp we know that individual injectors can vary immensely. Unless you can tune each cylinder to it's injector you can never compare 100%. Neither of the bolt ons allows this (on an R3).

The Dobeck is a SIMPLE TO USE device. No argument. It is also - no doubt - cheaper as an option. And whilst my profession for over 30 years has been in IT - I hate PC's - HATE. So I understand that lure too.

But it depends very much on the algorithms of Mr Dobeck. I think it gives an illusion of giving you more control than you really have. The fact that the best settings were the Dobeck originals sort of bears this out. I did look at an earlier Dobeck device (the AFR was not about at the time) - but there was simply not enough info as to what it REALLY DOES for me to trust it.

Like I say I have 30 odd years in very high end IT (incl supercomputers) - I can see through technical smoke and mirrors better than many. For years I was employed to FIND technical logic errors. To actually make things fail by taking advantage of their weak spots - I have a real talent for it. When I see a lot of smoke and mirrors - I get distrustful - it's a character fault.

Why treat a FI system like carb's?. It's not.

Let me make it VERY clear - I'm not saying Mr Dobeck does not know what he's doing. Actually I'm sure he does. But it does not mean I have to trust him. The problem is that his algorithms are kept very secret - and I respect his right to do this.

If you're going to play with things I personally believe one should have as much info as is possible. And strive to understand it - asking folk who do tune for a living, if you don't know. Or leave it to professionals.

The PCV-A/T imo gives finer granulation of control and visibility. But requires a little more personal understanding. It's still a wee bit illusion-al imo. I'd like to see the log of AFR adaptation for example - like number of samples - adjustment step speed - i.e the basis for adjustment. Just for my personal understanding.

There is NO WAY these piggy back systems tune instantly - it builds an average over "x" cycles. could be 100 BANGS or 10,000 BANGS. I'd like to know. Then predicts injector requirements based on ECU input. It's NOT Rocket science.

One thing the PCV-A/T has shown me is that individual RPM-vs-TPS settings can be radically different to it's neighbours. Sometimes you do need to tune one 500rpm vs 2%TPS wide cell individually. It's also astonishing how much changing (as an example) air filters can accentuate and change this.

Like the Dobeck - the A/T uses a simple bog standard wide band AFR sensor - without an accuracy guaranty.

TuneECU gives even more control - but requires a hell of a lot more understanding.
And if you intend to mess about with stuff - you (imo) need other things like PROFESSIONAL GRADE (300 plus bucks a pop) AFR sensors/meters and a DYNO.

Just loading a different tune is NOT "using" TuneECU. It's apply somebody else's bespoke tune to your bike - still just a close but no cigar solution.

And imo/e you need TuneECU if you're going to fit either piggyback system as there are features in the Triumph ECU that WILL upset any AFR system that measures/predicts/modifies - and you need to alter/deactivate them.

So if you need a PC for TuneECU - why not just use it for PCV-A/T as well.

If there was a DECENT tuner near me - I'd have taken that route. There is now a dyno (albeit not a braked one) - but the place has a reputation for blowing motors - so I'm not going there.

At the time the only option was a PCV-A/T - and it's still the one I'd take. I can see logged numeric data - which to me is FAR more usefull than point in time analogue display. It requires a little more effort - but fine maybe once a month along with regular oil/water checks and cable adjustments.

What we really need to see are results from one bike. And with the same objective. For example midrange torque, or WOT acceleration power. Apples vs Apples - no oranges or prunes.

Tuned and dyno'd with a DOBECK-AFR (by let's say Mr Dobeck)
Same bike tuned & dyno'd using PCV-A/T by Mr DynoJet.
And then the same bike done by Wayne Tripp or Nev Lush on a 100% pro setup and TuneECU.

This is really the only way to know.

 

[69birdflu]

Uh

You wanted feedback - OK

Lets make one thing really clear.

Neither a Dobeck-AFR or a PCV with A/T is going to be as good as a PROPER BESPOKE tune - EVER.

Also whilst it would seem fair to compare two R3's - From folk like Wayne Tripp we know that individual injectors can vary immensely. Unless you can tune each cylinder to it's injector you can never compare 100%. Neither of the bolt ons allows this (on an R3).

The Dobeck is a SIMPLE TO USE device. No argument. It is also - no doubt - cheaper as an option. And whilst my profession for over 30 years has been in IT - I hate PC's - HATE. So I understand that lure too.

But it depends very much on the algorithms of Mr Dobeck. I think it gives an illusion of giving you more control than you really have. The fact that the best settings were the Dobeck originals sort of bears this out. I did look at an earlier Dobeck device (the AFR was not about at the time) - but there was simply not enough info as to what it REALLY DOES for me to trust it.

Like I say I have 30 odd years in very high end IT (incl supercomputers) - I can see through technical smoke and mirrors better than many. For years I was employed to FIND technical logic errors. To actually make things fail by taking advantage of their weak spots - I have a real talent for it. When I see a lot of smoke and mirrors - I get distrustful - it's a character fault.

Why treat a FI system like carb's?. It's not.

Let me make it VERY clear - I'm not saying Mr Dobeck does not know what he's doing. Actually I'm sure he does. But it does not mean I have to trust him. The problem is that his algorithms are kept very secret - and I respect his right to do this.

If you're going to play with things I personally believe one should have as much info as is possible. And strive to understand it - asking folk who do tune for a living, if you don't know. Or leave it to professionals.

The PCV-A/T imo gives finer granulation of control and visibility. But requires a little more personal understanding. It's still a wee bit illusion-al imo. I'd like to see the log of AFR adaptation for example - like number of samples - adjustment step speed - i.e the basis for adjustment. Just for my personal understanding.

There is NO WAY these piggy back systems tune instantly - it builds an average over "x" cycles. could be 100 BANGS or 10,000 BANGS. I'd like to know. Then predicts injector requirements based on ECU input. It's NOT Rocket science.

One thing the PCV-A/T has shown me is that individual RPM-vs-TPS settings can be radically different to it's neighbours. Sometimes you do need to tune one 500rpm vs 2%TPS wide cell individually. It's also astonishing how much changing (as an example) air filters can accentuate and change this.

Like the Dobeck - the A/T uses a simple bog standard wide band AFR sensor - without an accuracy guaranty.

TuneECU gives even more control - but requires a hell of a lot more understanding.
And if you intend to mess about with stuff - you (imo) need other things like PROFESSIONAL GRADE (300 plus bucks a pop) AFR sensors/meters and a DYNO.

Just loading a different tune is NOT "using" TuneECU. It's apply somebody else's bespoke tune to your bike - still just a close but no cigar solution.

And imo/e you need TuneECU if you're going to fit either piggyback system as there are features in the Triumph ECU that WILL upset any AFR system that measures/predicts/modifies - and you need to alter/deactivate them.

So if you need a PC for TuneECU - why not just use it for PCV-A/T as well.

If there was a DECENT tuner near me - I'd have taken that route. There is now a dyno (albeit not a braked one) - but the place has a reputation for blowing motors - so I'm not going there.

At the time the only option was a PCV-A/T - and it's still the one I'd take. I can see logged numeric data - which to me is FAR more usefull than point in time analogue display. It requires a little more effort - but fine maybe once a month along with regular oil/water checks and cable adjustments.

What we really need to see are results from one bike. And with the same objective. For example midrange torque, or WOT acceleration power. Apples vs Apples - no oranges or prunes.

Tuned and dyno'd with a DOBECK-AFR (by let's say Mr Dobeck)
Same bike tuned & dyno'd using PCV-A/T by Mr DynoJet.
And then the same bike done by Wayne Tripp or Nev Lush on a 100% pro setup and TuneECU.

This is really the only way to know.

And all I can add to that....
I must have ingested lead paint when I was young.

 

[STRIPES]

Mark Dobeck invented the Power Commander.

 

[RKTNMYPKT]

stupid patrick - YouTube

 

[CanberraR3]

I put a Dobeck on mine and I'm real happy with it. I'm afraid I haven't read all the long posts here but appreciate the time and effort. I'm sorry but most of it goes way over my head; I'm a simple kind of guy and open to recommendations. I don't necessarily need to understand the technical detail.

 

[JoseyR3Wales]

Actually, I just saw this and thanks for the work you did. I am glad to see the Dobeck info as this is the least invasive for old geezers like me. Much appreciated. If you getvdown to Lewiston and Lapwai tell my family hello