.: XT660.com - The #1 XT660 Resource :. - Leo Vince or other pipe?

Page 1 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

.: XT660.com - The #1 XT660 Resource :. ( https://www.xt660.com/index.php)

- XT660Z Exhausts ( https://www.xt660.com/forumdisplay.php?f=168)

- - Leo Vince or other pipe? ( https://www.xt660.com/showthread.php?t=12488)

Drzee

13-12-09 21:37

Leo Vince or other pipe?

Can anyone who has fitted a new pipe confirm what difference, if any, that a new pipe such as the Leo Vince does to the fluffy low down power of the Tenere? Or is this the character of the XT660 engine and not much can be done about the way the low down power comes in?

Thanks

Simon

firestorm_al

13-12-09 23:27

I fitted my Leo Vince cans a couple of weeks ago. I was quite surprised how light the standard can was considering how heavy the cans on my XT660X were.

I prefer them with the baffles in. The most noticable thing for me was they seem to have smoothed out the low rev response of the engine so low speed response seems better.

Al.

jiauka

13-12-09 23:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drzee (Post 114115)

Can anyone who has fitted a new pipe confirm what difference, if any, that a new pipe such as the Leo Vince does to the fluffy low down power of the Tenere?

No, I have them fitted, and I have evolved from the pipes, snorkel removal, DNA filter fitted and a kind of Kev mod, the best overall gain comes from the snorkel removal+Kev mod. 2nd is DNA filter and 3rd -and most expensive- is the exhaust.

My advice, don't do it before going the "intake way", there is no gain, not even in weight (just about 1kg).

have fun,

j.

tripletom

14-12-09 10:21

I would recommend you fitted some form of fuelling modification if you are running the LVs. On a dyno run my stoichiometric ratio was a very lean 14:1. Not good.

firestorm_al

14-12-09 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by tripletom (Post 114145)

I would recommend you fitted some form of fuelling modification if you are running the LVs. On a dyno run my stoichiometric ratio was a very lean 14:1. Not good.

Did they take into account the clean air system on the bike or disable it for the dyno run as I believe that it can lead to a false CO2 figure making the bike seem to be running leaner than it actually is?

Al.

tripletom

14-12-09 17:18

I don't know to be honest Al, the sniffer went down the silencer, they did a few short runs and then did a power run before giving me my print out. I'll have to find out from my dyno knowing mate how much the dynojet dynos are off so I can get a more realistic figure power wise.

Drzee

15-12-09 20:55

Thanks for all the replies.

Has anyone told their insurance company about the Kev mod? And what did they say?

Cheers

Simon

stuxtttr

09-01-10 03:32

just a quote from london biker :

Boosting the stock power from 46bhp up to almost 52bhp, these exhausts also produce an incredible extra 16% torque - which in laymans language means a big hike in the power band from 2600rpm - right up to 7200rpm, the biggest increase being in that much used mid-range 3800-4400 rev band, where the stock power flattens out.

Can anyone confirm if this is the case with the pipes fitted as standard and no other fueling or engine mods.

I suspect its a load of ballony but it would be interesting to know all the same.

tripletom

09-01-10 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuxtttr (Post 116098)

I would say that is likely to be ********. My otherwise stock Tenere went onto a Dynojet dyno (not the most truthful of dynos) and posted rwhp of 47.74 with uncorked Leo Vinces. Given the enthusiasm for dynojet dynos producing higher than reality figures, I would expect the more realistic output with the LVs fitted to be around 43-44rwhp.

CaptMoto

09-01-10 16:39

Tripletom, what other mods have you got besides the cans and the powercommander? Any aftermarket filters?

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01.

Page 1 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page