Carpenterized Touring

Some forum natives might remember that I went the engine tuning route on my standard (pre-"Roadster") Rocket, pretty much on my own. Pistons, cams, triple K&N's, Mad Dog cans and various Power Commander e:tuning experiments by a pro. Peak horsepower increased from 139 to 174, both dyno-tested, i.e. by 25% @ the same rpm level. But the Rocket felt as if it had lost a geat deal of its torque, at least below 4'000 rpm's, in the tuning process. It became ... unpleasant to ride outside of empty country roads. In urban areas, it also required far more clutching than one would expect from 2'300cc, tuning notwithstanding. Fuel starvation also became an occasional irritant north of 5'500 rpm's. OK, I was a tuning apprentice (which Carpenter is obviously not!) back then and probably lost patience too soon... but 4-5 years later my conclusion is: Never again!

Don't mean to read like a show-stopper. Just wish to submit that, money aside, tuning the Rocket engine necessarily entails trade-offs and that these trade-offs are worth considering beforehand.

Regards. Jamie:cool:
 
Last edited:
Well, I picked up my bike from Carpenter, did 200 miles on the way home. I will post my initial impressions. I only drove my bike about a year, stock. I added Jardines, triple K&Ns, and a retune with TuneECU, .and drove that 2 years. So what the difference is from stock, I can no longer accurately say, as I am not comparing the bike to a stock bike, there is no way I can accurately say what the stocker was like, it's been too long.

Below 3000 rpm, my Jardines with Hanso's tune was definitely stronger, from 3500-4000 I'd say it was a tossup, At 5000 or 6000 it just screams, no question that they provide what's advertized.the Carpenter package definitely comes into it's own at 4000 and above.

Most of what I knew about the Carpenter package came from the .com site, a couple/few guys there had it done. My main observation is that people tend to have an emotional investment in their decisions, in other words, if people spend a lot of money on something, they cannot bring themselves to say it wasn't worth it, I think most people can understand that.

I questioned why Carpenter's dyno charts never showed anything below 3500 rpm, "someone" replied that it was hard on drivetrain/didn't matter, whatever. I suspect the reason is that there is nothing there. Like I said, I don't remember accurately what actual stock would be, but as I said, Hanso's tune and Jardines was definitely stronger below 3500 rpms. 3500-4000, I'd say it was a tossup, above 4000 and up, the Carpenter bike is crazy fast. I have to honestly say though, at 60, 70, even 80 mph, a 5th gear roll-on is rather disappointing, it has less than what I had. A couple people on the .com site said it was nice being able to just roll on, instead of downshifting, I have to assume they must have come off a stock bike. I can't say they didn't deliver what they promised, but for an inexperienced person viewing a dyno graph, it's hard to translate it to real world. All I can say, is that going from stock (on a Touring), to a good aftermarket exhaust, and a retune, is comparable to going from that, to a Carpenter package. If someone had lent me a Carpenter bike for a weekend, I'm not sure if I would spend that kind of money. But it really does pull, if you get the rpms up there. There is obviously a lot of power there, but how much more you can use in the real world, I'm not sure, I promise I will put some more miles on it and report back. And Bob Carpenter is a gentleman and a scholar, my friend who took me up there ( a diesel mechanic) was really impressed by his shop, he said a half dozen times, you could eat off his shop floor, he didn't use the bathroom, I did, you could actually eat off the bathroom floor, LOL. First class setup.
DID you tell BOB you wanted the power down low below 3000 rpm ? BOB would have used different cams and tuned it for low rpm stump pulling power if thats how you want to ride
 
No, not sure that's what I would want, anyway, still getting to know the bike. I only did the ride home on the interstate so far. Just enumerating the pluses and minuses.
 
isn't the lush neville package (200hp) supposed to be one for high torque in low RPMs
 
Some forum natives might remember that I went the engine tuning route on my standard (pre-"Roadster") Rocket, pretty much on my own. Pistons, cams, triple K&N's, Mad Dog cans and various Power Commander e:tuning experiments by a pro. Peak horsepower increased from 139 to 174, both dyno-tested, i.e. by 25% @ the same rpm level. But the Rocket felt as if it had lost a geat deal of its torque, at least below 4'000 rpm's, in the tuning process. It became ... unpleasant to ride outside of empty country roads. In urban areas, it also required far more clutching than one would expect from 2'300cc, tuning notwithstanding. Fuel starvation also became an occasional irritant north of 5'500 rpm's. OK, I was a tuning apprentice (which Carpenter is obviously not!) back then and probably lost patience too soon... but 4-5 years later my conclusion is: Never again!

Don't mean to read like a show-stopper. Just wish to submit that, money aside, tuning the Rocket engine necessarily entails trade-offs and that these trade-offs are worth considering beforehand.

Regards. Jamie:cool:
YEP its not easy as it takes a lot of time to figure out the best combination and a lot of tuning on the dyno
 
No, I didn't say that at all, for me the jury is still out, I realize that the high rpms will take some getting used to. I live very rural, many nice big sweepers. Going for a ride today, but the wife will be on the back, with a pillion it would lift the front tire even before the Carpenter package.
WELL we didnt want to make anymore that stock power down low we want the bikes to be easy and pleasant to ride at crusing speeds and get good fuel economy but make three times the HP of a stock Rocket tourer when you want to mess with the hot rod bikers
 
I say give yourself some time to get used to the different power band and in doing learn to use it. Then make a judgment as right now your comparing apples to oranges.
 
WELL we didnt want to make anymore that stock power down low we want the bikes to be easy and pleasant to ride at crusing speeds and get good fuel economy but make three times the HP of a stock Rocket tourer when you want to mess with the hot rod bikers


To me, this actually sounds good. My slightly modified R3R is throttle twitchy enough already when working the twisties hard in 2nd or 3rd gear and up in the power band.
The huge power gains would then be used to grease squids out on the open road.
Potential for getting pinched would be greatly increased - but, WTF???
1olbull
 
Sounds a lot like what the Harley guys do wrong. Big cams, big intake and exhaust ports, big valves and big exhaust pipes and mufflers. That will always raise your power curve and loose ya a lot of low end.

Just my opinion, based on a lot of experience, I have always said the Rocket would be a great running street bike with a cam grind like the Andrews 21 cam specs for a Harley 96" and about 10:to1 static compression ratio. Finished off with some valve bowl work and a good three angle valve job, you would have a torque monster. Would the engine put out as much HP up top as the Carpenter kit? No, but most of us don't ride like they are drag racing stop light to stop light. At least I don't. Also, low end stump pulling torque is what makes a bike fun to ride in my opinion,,,,.If I wanted a high reving street bike I would get a Busa.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top