860 kits Engine vs RK

[motorsportaddiction]

860 kits Engine Tech vs RK Tek

I have sold both brands of 860 engine kits and have found from my own results and that of my customers that the engine tech kits were working alot better. The Engine Tech kits are ported the transfers are opened up which is not the same from RK teks kits, all that is done is a raised exhaust port ?. I also do not like there new patented dome design which does not make much sense on why you would want a rough surface on your domes. Having a smooth wavy or spiral surface has been done for years but has never proved to be any benefit, not having a smooth surface is due to not being done on a lathe.

If any one is looking for a 860 kit I have 2 Engine Tech kits in stock but I will need your cylinders in exchange. I run the 13.5 domes which in elevation premium is fine but in lower elevation you should mix your premium with some race fuel, premium does lower the octane of race fuel due to one being leaded and one unleaded so I would recommend running a 50/50 mix. It will put you in a safe octane range.

If you have done some research and like the RK tek kit more I do have one at the shop it has had 2 rides on it and was taken off and switched for an engine tek kit. This kit will have new pistons and 14-1 domes I will need your stock cylinders in exchange $1500

 

[Haggis]

Rory,

Not changing the subject alltogether, but what does Engine Tech have for top end on 03 Polaris 800 vES- what is the price with cylinder exchange. pm if you don't want to post.

Thanks,

 

[glengine]

I was just curious what kinda power the engine tech kits claim to put out? I was wondering if you have done any dyno testing on the different head designs?? I know people that have, and they found that the rough design actually does make more power.

 

[Deano670]

I was just curious what kinda power the engine tech kits claim to put out? I was wondering if you have done any dyno testing on the different head designs?? I know people that have, and they found that the rough design actually does make more power.

Can you say HARMONICS 180hp @ 8200rpm with 116ftlbs of torque with jaws twins.

 

[Caper11]

Can you say HARMONICS 180hp @ 8200rpm with 116ftlbs of torque with jaws twins.

Impressive I like the sound of that is the clutching hard to set up?

 

[Deano670]

Impressive I like the sound of that is the clutching hard to set up?

One could say its as easy as 1,2,3 You can also do a single pipe version which is good for 167hp 107ftlbs torque @ 8100rpm and its a premium fuel only engine

 

[Deano670]

Im actually hoping this week I'll have one on the dyno, as this claim to fame seems slightly HIGH

 

[motorsportaddiction]

A dome should be like an exhaust port smooth. When fuel enters the cylinder through the transfer ports it brushes off the head and stops near the exhaust port then fresh air enters. With the rough dome design it will slow down scavaging and it catches fuel on the rough dome design and creates hot spots and detonation as well as carbon build up.

 

[motorsportaddiction]

I was just curious what kinda power the engine tech kits claim to put out? I was wondering if you have done any dyno testing on the different head designs?? I know people that have, and they found that the rough design actually does make more power.

I cant tell you what the engine tech kits are putting out on dynos around here but I am sure you could go to the 3 different dynos and get a different number on each one. I look at it the same way as one of your earlier posts (You can get numbers off of a dyno but that will not tell you how something is actually going to work at alltitude.) I totally agree and we have tried both RK and Engine Tech and we are running what we have found to work best.

 

[Deano670]

Im not tryin to ruffle anyones feathers here by saying this, but its my preference to first setup an engine to run here at home, jetting,clutching so on and so forth. This does at the very least give one a starting point as to what to do for jetting and clutching before headin to the hills. Or at least I have had great success with this theory. You are correct in saying that a dyno is just numbers and prooves absolutly nothing on the mountain, however it does give one a starting point before making the long venture to the rock pile.

My two cents

P.S Any thoughts????

 

[motorsportaddiction]

Im not tryin to ruffle anyones feathers here by saying this, but its my preference to first setup an engine to run here at home, jetting,clutching so on and so forth. This does at the very least give one a starting point as to what to do for jetting and clutching before headin to the hills. Or at least I have had great success with this theory. You are correct in saying that a dyno is just numbers and proves absolutely nothing on the mountain, however it does give one a starting point before making the long venture to the rock pile.

My two cents

P.S Any thoughts????

I love the dyno too but I was just saying you are going to get different numbers almost every time. They work great to get a base line but there are so many variables that will give different numbers. So if you are dynoing for bragging rights I dont really believe in them that way. I you use them as a tuning tool sure.

 

[glengine]

A dome should be like an exhaust port smooth. When fuel enters the cylinder through the transfer ports it brushes off the head and stops near the exhaust port then fresh air enters. With the rough dome design it will slow down scavaging and it catches fuel on the rough dome design and creates hot spots and detonation as well as carbon build up.

Well i"m sorry to tell you but you are incorrect on this one.. Cause i know more than onme engine builder that has found that this dome design works well and makes power.. Anbd one of the builders has been doing it for a long time and makes his motors pretty much from scratch... I also dont totally understand your theory on transfer ports.. Cause all the air that enters the cylinder thru the transfer ports is actually an air/fuel mixture.. The rough design will make the air/fuel charge atamize the fuel better in turn making it a better and cleaner burn.. Am i wrong on this thinking?

 

[glengine]

Im not tryin to ruffle anyones feathers here by saying this, but its my preference to first setup an engine to run here at home, jetting,clutching so on and so forth. This does at the very least give one a starting point as to what to do for jetting and clutching before headin to the hills. Or at least I have had great success with this theory. You are correct in saying that a dyno is just numbers and prooves absolutly nothing on the mountain, however it does give one a starting point before making the long venture to the rock pile.

My two cents

P.S Any thoughts????

I agree with you in the fact that it can be helpful to know the numbers in the fact that you wil know where in your rpm range your max hp.. And then it can make it easier to tune when you are in the hills.. Did you happen to dyno that motor deano??

 

[glengine]

I love the dyno too but I was just saying you are going to get different numbers almost every time. They work great to get a base line but there are so many variables that will give different numbers. So if you are dynoing for bragging rights I dont really believe in them that way. I you use them as a tuning tool sure.

I agree totally with you in the fact that they are only good for creating a baseline for you to work with in your tuning.. The numbers that you get from a dyno dont always translate into good performance on the hill....

 

[Rucky]

Can you say COMPETITION??? lol

 

[Deano670]

Its lookin like friday for the dyno session. Now here is food for thought. I f you dyno an engine here at our altitude which for rough figuring we'll say is 2500ft and it makes 180hp(roughly). Theory says that for every 1000ft in altitude you go up, you lose 3% of your engine hp. So lets say again roughly speaking that then you head to the mountains to ride at an altitude of 7500ft. The difference here is 5000ft, so the percentage of engine hp loss should roughly be roughly 27hp if my math is correct. So should one not be able to say that the hp of an engine that makes 180hp at 2500ft above sea level, would not not be roughly 153 hp at 7500 ft above sea level?????

 

[summit889]

Its lookin like friday for the dyno session. Now here is food for thought. I f you dyno an engine here at our altitude which for rough figuring we'll say is 2500ft and it makes 180hp(roughly). Theory says that for every 1000ft in altitude you go up, you lose 3% of your engine hp. So lets say again roughly speaking that then you head to the mountains to ride at an altitude of 7500ft. The difference here is 4000ft, so the percentage of engine hp loss should roughly be roughly 21hp if my math is correct. So should one not be able to say that the hp of an engine that makes 180hp at 2500ft above sea level, would not not be roughly 159 hp at 7500 ft above sea level?????

You need a math class lol . 7500-2500=5000 not 4000. 180hp-15%=153. But the engine tech dyno number is sea level and all dyno's are corrected to sea level. so the 180hp is down to around 140hp (3% x 7500ft=22.5%loss)

 

[Deano670]

Thankyou missed the 5 and hit the 4. your so kind.