This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Factory pro HDJ?

Joined Feb 2007
150 Posts | 2+
SWEDEN
Hallo. Has anybody tested Factory Pro HDJ Emulsion Tubes? and what do you think about it? In theory it seems to can do some good. other wise it seams that the owner is a little anti Dynojet :roll: or is it just me thinking that :D regarding dynos and jetting-kit. He may have a point in what he is saying. but some off his products seams good. I think.

Regards Patrik
 
Well factory pro has their own jetting kit, as well as the HDJ. Factory pro also sells a "kit" that includes a drill bit and a tap to enlarge the main air jet as well.

Here Sweedish, check out this link, Buzzard was doing his home work on this very subject the thread is a great read. http://www.husaberg.org/index.php?name= ... pic&t=5326

I followed his jetting set up along with the HDJ. I did not test with and without it so I can't verify the results,but, I can tell you that his jetting set up works pretty darn good!!
 
dale

you reckon you're interested in jetting right/

well years ago an aussie, JD and i got talking about the MAJ. aah! says the aussie, i drilled my MAJ out to 2.3 and my bikes a flyer!

i went testing that weekend, it was hairy! i was on crown land and the gamekeeper was around. eventually he caught me (nearly).

anyway, i did the tests and came back to tell them all that a 160maj was the right one and we'd misunderstood the jetting.

so a few did try the 160maj and said it was an improvement. that's all those with lean jetting advocated by me.

fact is, if you run a rich MJ which all the americans do, you need any kind of air in there to lean it off. it's only when you have the right MJ at maximum poser that you can experiment with the MAJ from MP through to max revs.

i trust you knew that this was what the MAJ is for?

regards

Taffy
 
Taffy said:
dale

you reckon you're interested in jetting right/

well years ago an aussie, JD and i got talking about the MAJ. aah! says the aussie, i drilled my MAJ out to 2.3 and my bikes a flyer!

i went testing that weekend, it was hairy! i was on crown land and the gamekeeper was around. eventually he caught me (nearly).

anyway, i did the tests and came back to tell them all that a 160maj was the right one and we'd misunderstood the jetting.

so a few did try the 160maj and said it was an improvement. that's all those with lean jetting advocated by me.

fact is, if you run a rich MJ which all the americans do, you need any kind of air in there to lean it off. it's only when you have the right MJ at maximum poser that you can experiment with the MAJ from MP through to max revs.

i trust you knew that this was what the MAJ is for?

regards

Taffy

Taffy,

Thanks for the info. Can you define the word "Poser" and "MP" for me?

Dale
 
Taffy said:
dale

i trust you knew that this was what the MAJ is for?

regards

Taffy

Actually, no. In all the threads I've read here about jetting that's the first mention I've seen on modulating the MAJ. I've seen your rec's on the PAJ in relationship to the PJ.

Dale
 
well you know how a power graph tails off past peak power right?

well what happens is that the pulses of the engine get so close you just have one continuous stream of air and fuel. but at the same time the engine isn't using as much because it can no longer fill the cylinder efficiently. you are past peak power and what's known as best BMEP. BMEP means maximum efficiency of a cycle of the engine.

so the engine runs over rich from peak power to peak revs. right.

so you need less fuel right?

well the MAJ feeds straight into the emulsion tube. it leans off the jetting past max power.

BUT, BUT, BUT if you are an american (huge dig there but you've got broad shoulders right?) you are so rich that you could probably do with three holes feeding air.

this company have worked it out that this drilled ET as a stand alone mod will help "lean off" the jetting. result: a real bigbob go faster goody!

because everyone runs rich even from the factory EVERY SINGLE MANUFACTURER FITTED THE LARGEST SIZE. a 200 MAJ. the aussie in our little group, then JD checked that the hole size without the MAJ even fitted was 2.3mm which equals a 230MAJ.

the aussie went out and said "strewth it goes like a sheila with a rat up her arse (or words to that effect!) JD stuck it in his 'puter and said yes it will be an improvement let's all drill the MAJ tube out to 3mm.

i with my traditional english reserve (i'm only half welsh!) decided to test it. alas in their rush to say that it's great, we never really truysted the aussie and JD's bike was VOR. after a coupla numpties said it's better (with their 180MJs still fitted i might add!) i tested.

and yes i really was chased by the gamekeeper as i was on crown land. prince charles himself fired his shotgun at me (honestly!).

anyway, with a 155MJ i tested.

no MAJ (=230)
back to the std 200
180 MAJ
160 MAJ

the final result was something like

150MJ and 160MAJ

the bike revved on for another 1.000 revs and the 150MJ gave more power.

when i get a chance i'll put up the tests and you will follow the story even better. but essentially you're introducing air at peak power (poser!) to peak revs.

hope you can follow that. and BTW it might be eric that has a keen interest in jetting at present - i can't remember!

regards

Taffy
 
Taffy said:
well you know how a power graph tails off past peak power right?

well what happens is that the pulses of the engine get so close you just have one continuous stream of air and fuel. but at the same time the engine isn't using as much because it can no longer fill the cylinder efficiently. you are past peak power and what's known as best BMEP. BMEP means maximum efficiency of a cycle of the engine.

so the engine runs over rich from peak power to peak revs. right.

so you need less fuel right?

well the MAJ feeds straight into the emulsion tube. it leans off the jetting past max power.

BUT, BUT, BUT if you are an american (huge dig there but you've got broad shoulders right?) you are so rich that you could probably do with three holes feeding air.

this company have worked it out that this drilled ET as a stand alone mod will help "lean off" the jetting. result: a real bigbob go faster goody!

because everyone runs rich even from the factory EVERY SINGLE MANUFACTURER FITTED THE LARGEST SIZE. a 200 MAJ. the aussie in our little group, then JD checked that the hole size without the MAJ even fitted was 2.3mm which equals a 230MAJ.

the aussie went out and said "strewth it goes like a sheila with a rat up her arse (or words to that effect!) JD stuck it in his 'puter and said yes it will be an improvement let's all drill the MAJ tube out to 3mm.

i with my traditional english reserve (i'm only half welsh!) decided to test it. alas in their rush to say that it's great, we never really truysted the aussie and JD's bike was VOR. after a coupla numpties said it's better (with their 180MJs still fitted i might add!) i tested.

and yes i really was chased by the gamekeeper as i was on crown land. prince charles himself fired his shotgun at me (honestly!).

anyway, with a 155MJ i tested.

no MAJ (=230)
back to the std 200
180 MAJ
160 MAJ

the final result was something like

150MJ and 160MAJ

the bike revved on for another 1.000 revs and the 150MJ gave more power.

when i get a chance i'll put up the tests and you will follow the story even better. but essentially you're introducing air at peak power (poser!) to peak revs.

hope you can follow that. and BTW it might be eric that has a keen interest in jetting at present - i can't remember!

regards

Taffy

Thanks Taffy,

That makes a lot of sense and follows how the two stroke power jet carbs worked. The power jet would feed fuel up to a certain point, and then cut off towards the upper end the rev range leaning the mix.

A question: Do you think the HDJ helps in atomization of the fuel like they claim.

Another question: How oxygenated are your fuels over there in jolly ol' england. I would assume that you all have just emmission type stuff on all your cars, and would imagine that BP has developed cleaner burning fuels by gov't regs with the additon of some type of oxygenators. Over here the gov dictated MTBE be added to the gas. Then it was discovered that this was bad, so now there on with Methanol @ 5 or 10%. And what octane do you run? Here we can only get 91 from the pump anymore, and of course it's no lead.

The reason I ask is because, of course, the higher the octane the richer it will run.

And yes, I like most americans I run with have shoulders capable of carry a lot of weight......... And this one is now down to running mj's in the 162 to 165 range.

Now then, since you brought it up. In my testing with the smaller mj's, while running a max poser test on a road, sand wash etc... The smaller mj's make the bike feel like it's starving a bit at peak revs, (using 200 maj with HDJ). When using the larger mains 178 or 182, it definitely pulls harder up to the max revs. So, am I correct in assuming, based on your above dissertation, that my running the 200 maj with the 162mj that the mix is too lean at max revs? Or even in the upper rev range??
 
Taffy
I wonder if I got this right and if this is correct
by increasing the MAJ to 2.3/3mm you have increased the atomizing of the fuel
in doing so you have more comlete burn= less CO and hydro carbons and more CO2
with better atomizing you are exposing more fuel molecules to O2 making it necessary
to decrease size of MJ to maintain the same air fuel ratio

I have just installed the factory pro needle jet and it seems more responsive off idle
but accel pump messes with the off idle response 6mm before she starts squirting seems
alot better next is remove it completely

Cheers taffy
 
it's important to understand that it's only past eak power that this sis supposed to help. however it does start while you are at peak power ever so slightly.

so in other words (and i'm trying to remember back 6 years here) i went 230 > 200 > 180 > and noticed that i had more overrev but i also under stood the principal of it so i checked the MJ and it improved with a 150MJ.

this is on a wr400 remember!

the reason was that i was introducing LESS air at peak power so at peak power i therefore had a rich condition.

i then lowered the main jet to get peak power right.

i then did my usual trick of one (first with the same 180 of course) over one under so i went back to 200MAJ and then tried through to 160maj and was happy with the result.

i could have gone lower still but i had other tests to do.

as far as helping co2 and emmisions go per, i would say that a bike must always have well mixed fuel air and that anything that helps this is better.

however, why didn't keihin do this? there must be a reason. they aren't stupid.

thing is, you now know what the MAJ does and it's a freebie!

to find out about this new device you should have valid lowest jetting tests. change one thing at a time and when completely exhausted with the basic jetting you should then try it.

if anyone would like to send me one i would love to test it!

regards

Taffy
 
Swedishsteel, Back to your original question, I have played with the HDJ on two Bergs, my 450, and a buddies 550. Great results with both! On the 550 we did do a lot of testing with and without, and it definitely makes a positive change. Simply put, the bike burns fuel better at small throttle openings, and tolerates a wider range of jetting. I give it two thumbs up!
 
buzzard said:
Swedishsteel, Back to your original question, I have played with the HDJ on two Bergs, my 450, and a buddies 550. Great results with both! On the 550 we did do a lot of testing with and without, and it definitely makes a positive change. Simply put, the bike burns fuel better at small throttle openings, and tolerates a wider range of jetting. I give it two thumbs up!

Thanks. That was what I wanted to hear. Then I'm going to order one and test.
But Taffy can still go on and talk about MAJ and Poser, its interesting to but I just want to know if someone had tested this product on a Hsb.

Regards Patrik
 
And what octane do you run? Here we can only get 91 from the pump anymore, and of course it's no lead.

Hi DalEO,

from the mid to late 1980`ies catalytic converters (cars)became mandatory in Europe -> unleaded fuel was the result
From year 2000 onwards there is no leaded fuel in the EU available (except Avgas, but that is an other story)
So it´s pretty much the same as in the US.

BUT,there´s still some difference: the octan-numbers are measured in different way
Europe has ROZ-numbers the US has (ROZ+MOZ):2 -> results are not the same (please google for detailed informations)->
Our gasoline/petrol/benzin has usually 91/95/98 Octane and in most countries the 98 is already replaced with 100 octane.

MTBE is the most common additiv,
and one more BUT:every Country is making their own (specific)fuels, the fuel in finland (i.e.very cold, they add some alcohol)differs a lot from
the fuel in greece...
this doesn´t make life easier Factories to supply the "correct"(?) jetting ( Yamaha for example has (beside the jetting) totally different CDI`s
on their Offroad-bikes)

And last, but not least: Usage between US/Australia and Europe is different:
We run our bikes mostly on single-trails and you have lots of space with WOT...

Hope I could help a bit
 
Gokai134 said:
And what octane do you run? Here we can only get 91 from the pump anymore, and of course it's no lead.

Hi DalEO,

from the mid to late 1980`ies catalytic converters (cars)became mandatory in Europe -> unleaded fuel was the result
From year 2000 onwards there is no leaded fuel in the EU available (except Avgas, but that is an other story)
So it´s pretty much the same as in the US.

BUT,there´s still some difference: the octan-numbers are measured in different way
Europe has ROZ-numbers the US has (ROZ+MOZ):2 -> results are not the same (please google for detailed informations)->
Our gasoline/petrol/benzin has usually 91/95/98 Octane and in most countries the 98 is already replaced with 100 octane.

MTBE is the most common additiv,
and one more BUT:every Country is making their own (specific)fuels, the fuel in finland (i.e.very cold, they add some alcohol)differs a lot from
the fuel in greece...
this doesn´t make life easier Factories to supply the "correct"(?) jetting ( Yamaha for example has (beside the jetting) totally different CDI`s
on their Offroad-bikes)

And last, but not least: Usage between US/Australia and Europe is different:
We run our bikes mostly on single-trails and you have lots of space with WOT...

Hope I could help a bit

Thanks Gokail134,

Yes that does clear some things up. I will followed your advice and googled it and here is what the first page I came upon. It's a great explanation.

Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

After reading this description the difference can be quite great between european and us fuels. Throughout 90% of all the discussions on jetting on this site, the assumption was that everyone was running "premium" unleaded pump gas . And, as you can see from the article over in europe, 100 octane "premium" pump gas would be about equivalent to 94 or 95 octane fuel here in the states. And as the octane rating goes up, most of the time the mixture get's richer if the jetting is left unchanged.

So, with that in mind. I woulld like Taffy to chime in here and let us know what fuel he has been running during his jetting tests. As Taffy likes to state that he can't get any of us Yanks to run a 150 range mj, perhaps that is the reason why. As stated in the article, the higher octane fuels have a much greater resistance to auto ignition, AND, and this is a big and, they have more energy for a given volume based on the fact that they have more carbon-carbon bonds. As opposed to carbon-hydrogen bonds.

Further, here in the states MTBE has been found to be BAD. It gets into the water table due to leaky tanks, and is carcinogen. So, this oxygenator has been replaced with up to 10% methanol mix to help the fuel burn more cleanly. However, according to this article, while methanol, ethanol, mixes might have a higher octane rating, they contain LESS energiy for a given volume.

THE POINT here is that if you have less energy for a given volume of fuel you will need MORE of the same fuel to deliver the same amount of energy as one that has more energy in a given volume. This is also explained by the drop off in mpg here in the states with the reformualted fuels.

Here is the article in it's entirety:

Octane rating
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The octane rating is a measure of the autoignition resistance of gasoline (petrol) and other fuels used in spark-ignition internal combustion engines. It is a measure of anti-detonation of a gasoline or fuel.

Octane number is the number which gives the percentage, by volume, of iso-octane in a mixture of iso-octane and normal heptane, that would have the same anti-knocking capacity as the fuel which is under consideration. For example, gasoline with the same knocking characteristics as a mixture of 90% iso-octane and 10% heptane would have an octane rating of 90. [1]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Definition of octane rating
o 1.1 Measurement methods
* 2 Examples of octane ratings
* 3 Effects of octane rating
* 4 Regional variations
* 5 References
* 6 External links

[edit] Definition of octane rating

Octane is measured relative to a mixture of iso-octane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane, an isomer of octane) and n-heptane. An 87-octane gasoline, for example, has the same octane rating as a mixture of 87% (by volume) iso-octane and 13% (by volume) n-heptane. This does not mean, however, that the gasoline actually should contain these chemicals in these proportions. It simply means that it has the same autoignition resistance as the described mixture.

A high tendency to autoignite, or low octane rating, is undesirable in a gasoline engine but desirable in a diesel engine. The standard for the combustion quality of diesel fuel is the cetane number. A diesel fuel with a high cetane number has a high tendency to autoignite, as is preferred.

[edit] Measurement methods

The most common type of octane rating worldwide is the Research Octane Number (RON). RON is determined by running the fuel through a specific test engine with a variable compression ratio under controlled conditions, and comparing these results with those for mixtures of isooctane and n-heptane.

There is another type of octane rating, called Motor Octane Number (MON) or the aviation lean octane rating, which is a better measure of how the fuel behaves when under load. MON testing uses a similar test engine to that used in RON testing, but with a preheated fuel mixture, a higher engine speed, and variable ignition timing to further stress the fuel's knock resistance. Depending on the composition of the fuel, the MON of a modern gasoline will be about 8 to 10 points lower than the RON. Normally fuel specifications require both a minimum RON and a minimum MON.

In most countries (including all of Europe and Australia) the "headline" octane that would be shown on the pump is the RON, but in the United States, Canada and some other countries the headline number is the average of the RON and the MON, sometimes called the Anti-Knock Index (AKI), Road Octane Number (RdON), Pump Octane Number (PON), or (R+M)/2. Because of the 8 to 10 point difference noted above, this means that the octane in the United States will be about 4 to 5 points lower than the same fuel elsewhere: 87 octane fuel, the "regular" gasoline in the US and Canada, would be 91-92 in Europe. However most European pumps deliver 95 (RON) as "regular", equivalent to 90-91 US (R+M)/2, and even deliver 98 (RON) or 100 (RON).

The octane rating may also be a "trade name", with the actual figure being higher than the nominal rating.[citation needed]

It is possible for a fuel to have a RON greater than 100, because isooctane is not the most knock-resistant substance available. Racing fuels, straight ethanol, AvGas and liquified petroleum gas (LPG) typically have octane ratings of 110 or significantly higher - ethanol's RON is 129 (MON 102, AKI 116). Typical "octane booster" additives include tetra-ethyl lead and toluene. Tetra-ethyl lead is easily decomposed to its component radicals, which react with the radicals from the fuel and oxygen that would start the combustion, thereby delaying ignition. This is why leaded gasoline has a higher octane rating than unleaded.

[edit] Examples of octane ratings

The octane ratings of n-heptane and iso-octane are respectively exactly 0 and 100, by definition. For some other hydrocarbons, the following table[2][3] gives the road octane numbers.
n-octane -10
n-heptane 0
2-methylheptane 23
n-hexane 25
2-methylhexane 44
1-heptene 60
n-pentane 62
1-pentene 84
n-butane 91
cyclohexane 97
iso-octane 100
benzene 101
E85 Ethanol 105
Methane 107
Ethane 108
Toluene 114
Xylene 117

[edit] Effects of octane rating

Higher octane ratings correlate to higher activation energies. Activation energy is the amount of energy necessary to start a chemical reaction. Since higher octane fuels have higher activation energies, it is less likely that a given compression will cause knocking. (Note that it is the absolute pressure (compression) in the combustion chamber which is important - not the compression ratio. The compression ratio only governs the maximum compression that can be achieved).

Octane rating has no direct impact on the deflagration (burn) of the air/fuel mixture in the combustion chamber. Other properties of gasoline and engine design account for the manner at which deflagration takes place. In other words, the flame speed of a normally ignited mixture is not directly connected to octane rating. Deflagration is the type of combustion that constitues the normal burn. Detonation is a different type of combustion and this is to be avoided in spark ignited gasoline engines. Octane rating is a measure of detonation resistance, not deflagration characteristics.

It might seem odd that fuels with higher octane ratings explode less easily, yet are popularly thought of as more powerful. The misunderstanding is caused by confusing the ability of the fuel to resist compression detonation as opposed to the ability of the fuel to burn (combustion). However, premium grades of petrol often contain more energy per litre[citation needed] due to the composition of the fuel as well as increased octane.

A simple explanation is that carbon-carbon bonds contain more energy than carbon-hydrogen bonds. Hence a fuel with a greater number of carbon bonds will carry more energy regardless of the octane rating. A premium motor fuel will often be formulated to have both higher octane as well as more energy. A counter example to this rule is that ethanol blend fuels have a higher octane rating, but carry a lower energy content on a volume basis (per litre or per gallon). The reason for this is that ethanol is a partially oxidized hydrocarbon which can be seen by noting the presence of oxygen in the chemical formula: C2H5OH. Note the substitution of the OH hydroxyl radical for a H hydrogen which transforms the gas ethane (C2H6) into ethanol. Note that to a certain extent a fuel with a higher carbon ratio will be more dense than a fuel with a lower carbon ratio. Thus it is possible to formulate high octane fuels that carry less energy per liter than lower octane fuels. This is certainly true of ethanol blend fuels (gasohol), however fuels with no ethanol and indeed no oxygen are also possible.

In the case of alcohol fuels, like Methanol and Ethanol, since they are partially oxidized fuels they need to be run at much richer mixtures than gasoline. As a consequence the total volume of fuel burned per cycle counter balances the lower energy per unit volume, and the net energy released per cycle is higher. If gasoline is run at its preferred max power air fuel mixture of 12.5:1, it will release approximately 19,000 BTU (about 20 MJ) of energy, where ethanol run at its preferred max power mixture of 6.5:1 will liberate approximately 24,400 BTU (25.7 MJ), and Methanol at a 4.5:1 AFR liberates about 27,650 BTU (29.1 MJ).

To account for these differences, a measure called the fuel's specific energy is sometimes used. It is defined as the energy released per air fuel ratio. For the case of gasoline compared to the alcohol fuels the specific energies are as follows:
Fuel Net energy Units
Gasoline 2.92 MJ/kg
Ethanol 3.00 MJ/kg
Methanol 3.08 MJ/kg

Using a fuel with a higher octane lets an engine run at a higher compression without having problems with knock. Actual compression in the combustion chamber is determined by the compression ratio as well as the amount of air restriction in the intake manifold (manifold vacuum) as well as the barometric pressure, which is a function of elevation and weather conditions.

Compression is directly related to power (see engine tuning), so engines that require higher octane usually deliver more power. Engine power is a function of the fuel as well as the engine design and is related to octane ratings of the fuel... power is limited by the maximum amount of fuel-air mixture that can be forced into the combustion chamber. At partial load, only a small fraction of the total available power is produced because the manifold is operating at pressures far below atmospheric. In this case, the octane requirement is far lower than what is available. It is only when the throttle is opened fully and the manifold pressure increases to atmospheric (or higher in the case of supercharged or turbocharged engines) that the full octane requirement is achieved.

Many high-performance engines are designed to operate with a high maximum compression and thus need a high quality (high energy) fuel usually associated with high octane numbers and thus demand high-octane premium gasoline.

The power output of an engine depends on the energy content of its fuel, and this bears no simple relationship to the octane rating. A common myth amongst petrol consumers is that adding a higher octane fuel to a vehicle's engine will increase its performance and/or lessen its fuel consumption; this is falseâ€â€
 
i read it down to your quote and fell asleep!

ok i got the picture. BTW it's carcenogetic over here i think.

i run standard unleaded. not even the premium. so simon will tell us but i think that's 95rom and the equivelant if you say so of your 91.

i take issue here:
THE POINT here is that if you have less energy for a given volume of fuel you will need MORE of the same fuel to deliver the same amount of energy as one that has more energy in a given volume. This is also explained by the drop off in mpg here in the states with the reformualted fuels.

the correct mixture is still the correct mixture. if your fuel gives you less power from it then that's that - you get less power! adding more won't change diddly!

i don't mind that nobody has responded to my point about best jetting THEN try the drilled ET?????

can i interest any of you in a honda APJ bump stop for $60?

regards

Taffy
 
THE POINT here is that if you have less energy for a given volume of fuel you will need MORE of the same fuel to deliver the same amount of energy as one that has more energy in a given volume. This is also explained by the drop off in mpg here in the states with the reformualted fuels.

the best mixture hasn't changed. if your fuel is poorer you'll have poorer results. adding more fuel won't change any of that.

i use the regular pump fuel which i think is 95ron. not sure. maybe simon knows?

so i think that that is similar to your 91 is it not?

regards

taffy
 
Taffy said:
i read it down to your quote and fell asleep!

ok i got the picture. BTW it's carcenogetic over here i think.

i run standard unleaded. not even the premium. so simon will tell us but i think that's 95rom and the equivelant if you say so of your 91.

i take issue here:
THE POINT here is that if you have less energy for a given volume of fuel you will need MORE of the same fuel to deliver the same amount of energy as one that has more energy in a given volume. This is also explained by the drop off in mpg here in the states with the reformualted fuels.

the correct mixture is still the correct mixture. if your fuel gives you less power from it then that's that - you get less power! adding more won't change diddly!

i don't mind that nobody has responded to my point about best jetting THEN try the drilled ET?????

can i interest any of you in a honda APJ bump stop for $60?

regards

Taffy

Sorry you fell asleep mate, didn't mean to bore you with facts. Perhaps a few red bulls, instead of a few bull dozers, would help you to stay awake and read the whole article.

Let me put it another way, and to keep the sandman at bay I'll make the point quickly.

Fuels that contain more energy will produce more power since the energy content of a fuel depends on its mass density. Further, anyone who has raced a series where fuel control is present knows how that sometimes the smallest changes in fuel will put you outside of legal limits.

Just as cool dry air is more dense, IE more O2 for a given volume, which will lean the mixture. So to will hot wet air which is less dense, richen the mixture, IE less O2 for a given volume.

Based on the information that I have found, it appears that some euorpean pump fuels are superior to those used by us Yanks. Therefore, my hypothesis was simply that due to differences in fuel density, or available energy for a given volume, requires different jetting to get the mix right. Just as varying densities of air, or density altitude, requires the changing of jets to keep the mix right. Although even when the mix is right at lower air densities, there will be less power output b/c there is less air and that requires less fuel to keep the mix right. And that my right honorable friend is perhaps why you have good results with main jets in the 150 range.

One of the most important considerations for myself is to always buy fuel from the same station that is a name brand, so that the fuel is hopefully coming from the same refinery. Also, we have seasonal changes to our fuel as well. Those changes being higher amounts of oxygenators added to help with air quality during those times of the year when atmospheric conditions conspire to make dispersal of pollutants more difficult.

Which brings us back to the basis of this thread, the HDJ dispersal emulsion tube. The basic claim I believe by factory pro is that this HDJ atomizes the fuel better and that makes the fuel burn better (mix eh?), smoother engine running, and more power at leaner delivery rates due to the fact that fuel is now atomized much better and will burn more completely, as opposed to delivering it in blobs to get the same mix. No?

They are only 9pounds 84 pence, not including delivery and you can find them here http://www.factorypro.com/ if you want to try one and give us your opinion.

Cheers!!
 
viking is getting me one mate and passing one on to me. i will then send him a birthday caed containing his prezzie!

sure i'll try it, i even think that it might make a difference! honestly, but i like to go around a subject and work my way to the middle so i sometimes play devil's advocate you know? i put all the reasons forward why not too and then do it!

but i feel i'm right to have my jetting as best as i can before i try it and as lean as i think it can be - which i do!

regards

Taffy
 
Which brings us back to the basis of this thread, the HDJ dispersal emulsion tube. The basic claim I believe by factory pro is that this HDJ atomizes the fuel better and that makes the fuel burn better (mix eh?), smoother engine running, and more power at leaner delivery rates due to the fact that fuel is now atomized much better and will burn more completely, as opposed to delivering it in blobs to get the same mix. No?

One more thought about the HDJ dispersal emulsion tube:
Doesn´t the better atomization cool down the air/fuel mixture better than the "standart" one?
If so, there should be a small power increase - if not, you can still be happy because of a cooler running engine (longer engine life?)

Hopefully Taffy brings a "Euro-Solution" pretty soon on
 
not a 100% but at a guess i would say that breaking fuel down makes it warmer and secondly that the centre of a globule of fuel will be cooler but that one half it's size will heat quickly.

it's that old ping-pong ball v a sheet of paper rule. heat helps atomization as well so one thing leads to another.

regards

Taffy
 

Register CTA

Register on Husaberg Forum! This sidebar will go away, and you will see fewer ads.

Recent Discussions