A tuners take on the PCV w Auto-Tune

[speedfrk]

Last night I talked to the service manager/tuner at my local stealer who I've been going to for quite a while for service even before I had an R3 with other bikes I've owned about the PCV w Auto-Tune. He stated that unless you are changing something internally, or are adding a totally freeflowing exhaust that the auto-tune feature is a waste of money. He said that the R3's electronics coupled with the O2 sensor will on it's own compensate for minor changes like cold air setups and better flowing exhaust. He also stated that unless you just got to have it the PCV has a lot of features that you pay for that the average person will never need/use. He has installed them, but isn't all that impressed. If you just got to have a tuning device he states that the PCIII is still the best bang for the buck. He said it's my money and he would be glad to install the PCV w Auto-tune, but he also doesn't want to see me spend money I don't need to.
I also asked him about a couple things I'm experiencing now that I've owned my 08 Classic for a couple months. I talked about the bike not having the same grunt down low as when I bought it and it idles just a little rough. He stated that he would hook it up to their computer and take some readings to see what's going on. I may possibly have slight leak on either the intake, or the exhaust, or I just might a ECU tweek. either way he said he can fix me up. I have no reason to doubt this guy as to date they have always done me right on service and when he dyno-tuned the 03 VTX 1800 that I used to own he made it absolutely scream. Sorry to be so long winded.

 

[Evil Mitch]

He is a very miss informed man. For starters the Pcv is basically just a more compact version of the pc3 with more capabilities so the more bang for your buck comment is rubbish . If one is better than the other it is the Pcv . Secondly the o2 sensor on the bike makes no where near the amount of fuel trim changes that auto tune makes for starters the stock o2 sensor is not wide band. Truth is dealerships only have three canned tunes to offer u and they all suck they really don't like dynojet products because they don't deal with them often enough at stealerships but they will feed all sorts of dribble so they keep your business over a performance specialist . Jmtcw

 

[R-III-R Turbo]

+1 evil mitch

for me the PC3 costs the same as the PC5 and the 5 does everything the 3 does and is smaller so wtf. it would be nice if the model numbers were the other way around cos then id have a PC-III in my R-III

as for this ECU tweak he speaks of

 

[speedfrk]

This is why I threw this out there. Evil Mitch you are right in that he probably doesn't have much experience with the PCV so he gives you the line to get you to stay with the PCIII, but I still believe he is an otherwise exellent mechanic. When I get my Jardines I'll pay him to install the PCV w Auto-Tune and before that ask you all here what to do after it's installed. I'm not going to install it myself as I'm too busy and based on past experiences am a firm believer in Murphy's Law. I'd rather someone else be responsible for breaking something than me. Thank you for the input from all.

 

[Evil Mitch]

Hey Speed do you already have pc3 ?

 

[warp9.9]

PCV is the PCIII with the multiport hub and other accessories built into a smaller unit. So I to kind of agree with Mitch.

Now the narrow band is good if you need changes in the areas where the programmed A/F ratoi is between 14.5 and 14.7 on the map These ration are lean as can be to achieve good fuel mileage. now to develop power you need a richer A/F ratio, the wide band sensor will cover more A/F ratios then just 14.5 to 14.7, especially in the power area.

OF course I am not using either untill they get the bugs worked out of the PCV as for PCIII it is worthless to me without all the other goodies.
Tune Boy is just fine for now. In fact most likely the only reason I will add the PCV is because most tuners don't or can't tune with tune boy.

 

[Evil Mitch]

That's probably the reason I used Pcv also Warp . I couldn't find anybody in Brisbane that could work with Tuneboy . All the dyno mobs here seem to use dynojet.

 

[speedfrk]

No PCIII. Might have to wait until Santa brings me my Jadines this year to get the PCV.

 

[Evil Mitch]

No PCIII. Might have to wait until Santa brings me my Jadines this year to get the PCV.

Just remember when u go to order from dynojets site it will direct you to pcIII instead of Pcv if you say you have a 2008 or earlier rocket . The Pcv works fine on earlier models so just state u have a 2009 and it will direct u to Pcv . There are other captains here using it on earlier models Dutch as Hanso and Densell .

 

[warp9.9]

That's probably the reason I used Pcv also Warp . I couldn't find anybody in Brisbane that could work with Tuneboy . All the dyno mobs here seem to use dynojet.

Yes Dynajet seems to be the base line for all dyno comparisons.

So far i have done my own tuning and probably have close to 300 maps for my bike as I made the changes bot timing and fueling. Shes not perfect but gets 38 mpg on the highway criuse if I can control my wrist. I know she has enough power that I can not go WOT in 1st. I can in 2nd but not by wacking her I have to ease into her some or she won't keep the front end down. I finally got control of the 140 mph wheelie when I shift into 4th. I have a choice now I have more time in the behind the increase engine pepp
Just over 59,000 miles on the beast and 8700 on the new pistons, rods, cams, valves and porting so its looking like I put her back together right

I think the real trick with the PCV sense it has a problem at real low throttle percentages is to lower the F/L switchover down to that area and add the Narrow band O2 sensor thats right two sensors if your using autotune) and let the ecu trim the lower areas that PCV has problems in (I would also change the upper fuel ratio areas that are 14.57 A/F down to less then 14.5 so the ecu will not be in closed Loop mode in that zone, taking fuel away that is preprogramed in the PCV). The reason I would try lowering the F/L switchover is so you do not send so many different signals to the PCV ( like its bouncing back and forth from the F table to the L table. ) Its just a idea I have been bouncing around in my head.