Hello Iwilson , Thanks for sharing. For now, I would be happy with the good running and stable hot and cold idle . As was talked about before , Norton uses DIN not SAE . SAE will read lower numbers than DIN . So we are probably right in the ballpark at say 68 to 70 HP when converting from DIN to SAE . The 2016 Cycle World article test the 2015 961 , which they say had the MK2 engine SAE (70.8 BHP , 58.7 FTlbs) . This is of course with the quiet factory pipes. What I don't have is a quiet pipe vs open system comparison. I can say for certain that mid-range torque is WAY higher with the Motad short/loud system. The high rpm power is the same as stock , in my view. This has more to say about the quality of the stock Motad system than anything else. If Norton wanted to tweak the numbers say give you quiet pipes out the door that don't perform to peak HP , and then give the owner the aftermarket pipes and tune. WOW , suddenly Norton is great. BUT , I stand by what I said before . This engine is capable of 90 HP with reliability. I would be ecstatic if Norton would just let the engine rev to a full 8000 RPM !!! The graph above show my latest dyno run and 2016 Aftermarket Map for the SC ECU before and after. What I had before was 091 pre 2016 , So for now I am happy. It will be interesting to hear from G81CanCycle about his mods and power increases . Tony
Fast Eddie wrote:That's great info Ian. It is often very surprising how 'seat of the pants' feeling can be quite off when confirmed properly on a Dyno. Good on yer for doing proper testing on this.
I wouldn't t be happy with it yet though to be honest. You could get good modern carbs to run cleaner than that. I know it's been asked before, someone asked if anyone had fitted FCRs or similar to a 961 and the poster was derided for asking the question! Of course fuel injecion is better WHEN it's right, but given the amount of time and effort you guys are putting into maps and upgrades, without really yet finding 'the one' I'd say it's a relevant question!
At mid 60s RWHP you are in the same ball park as a reasonably tuned 'old' Commando (my own 850 is 64.6rwhp, others have more than me). I reckon the 961 engines are quite capable of more than that.
A couple of posters mentioned Dynojet were going to develop something for the 961, does anyone know if this has progressed any yet?
The factory have their hands tied, let's not blame them, they have to make super clean engines today to sell them. But there's obviously a market for a good aftermarket solution for these bikes.
TonyA wrote: BUT , I stand by what I said before . This engine is capable of 90 HP with reliability. I would be ecstatic if Norton would just let the engine rev to a full 8000 RPM !!!
BritTwit wrote:TonyA wrote: BUT , I stand by what I said before . This engine is capable of 90 HP with reliability. I would be ecstatic if Norton would just let the engine rev to a full 8000 RPM !!!
Also, It’s frustrating to me to see how there has been virtually no progress in extracting more HP from these motors.
Back in 2006 before Kenny Dreer’s efforts went bust, he began looking into a higher performance version of the 961.
He was working with a NASCAR team based in Washington State. I don’t remember the name of the team.
Also, Matt Capri of Triumph Performance intended to develop and market performance products for the 961.
My hope was to build a new age Norton Hot Rod, but currently there are still no components on the market.
So far there is still nothing for the new Nortons other than exhaust systems.
A Power Commander with effective maps would be a nice start.
I have spoken to engine builders here about the Norton, and they always identify two areas on the 961 that would need improvement to extract good HP:
1. The air box/plenum sure looks sexy, but is far too small for a 900-1000 cc engine to provide for adequate volumetric efficiency.
If an air box is to be used it has to have greater volume than the current one.
Option would be to remove the airbox and put sock filters and velocity stacks on the TBs, and install faux covers on the sides to look like the original airbox.
2. Throttle bodies (TBs)– are also too small, and restrictive with the butterfly valve to provide adequate flow of air for producing good power.
Kenny Dreer’s original 961 design used flatslide 39mm FCR’s. These babies flow a lot more fuel/air than the current throttle bodies.
I wonder if the stock 961 TBs have enough meat on them to be bored out a few mm like the TBs on Hinckley Bonnevilles?
There is a company in the UK that does this. They take the stock Bonneville 36mm TB and bore it to 39mm and fit new throttle valves to suit.
The airbox and throttle bodies are of course just fine for passing restrictive emission regulations, but will hamstring any efforts to extract real power from the mill.
Britfan60 wrote:That's a cold start? Mine fires right up but shoots to 2K for about 15 seconds, then drops to a steady 1150. Nice video.
GKRyder wrote:What would it take for FCRs apart from carb kit.
A different pickup? (From 270 twin) say a Triumph Scrambler or more to it.
Keihin FCRs transformed everything I ever put them on butvtrhy were carbed bike with best carbs.
A better EFI perhaps should be better but I have run out of patience with getting better results from the FI and dealer knowledge with it here.
Happy to be a guinea pig with some direction.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests