Area-P power drain

[mikecronis]

Had the Area-P full-race-carbon exhaust installed by my local dealer, along with a rejet of the slow "pilot" jets to 40 and the "main" jets to 102 with one 1mm shim on the needle. Be advised I'm at 6000 ft. (Colorado).

I found the bike to be a bit "boggy" and not crisp in acceleration. By way of mods for the engine I have a drop-in K&N and a snorkel removal.

Since the bike was sitting all winter, I drained the tank and filled it up with 91 and gave it a spin around town the next day. This helped a bit, but there's still a very slight bog-down at about 6k rpms from half to WOT. Perhaps a 1 second hesitation or so.

As a check, I went to a local long highway hill that climbs 1000 feet in 1 mile or so. Normally I can accelerate from an indicated 80 to 85 mph at WOT before the exhaust install and rejet, now it decelerates to 75 before I reach the top. Temp outside was 60F. Coming back down, I was able to reach my usual 110 indicated mph.

To check to see if I might be running too rich, I revved the throttle to 5k rpm in neutral at 0 mph to watch the tach needle. It does not dip below 1.4k rpm (throttle knob setting) after releasing, nor does it float down too slowly, though it stops at about 2k rpm for about a half-second before getting to 1.4k.

I'm not sure if I might be running too rich, but there are some mild indications that this might be the case. After riding for a few hours, the bike seemed a tiny bit more snappy but not really. WOT is slow to respond until it gets going, like a delayed response of a second or two, the same with half-cracked throttle.

Suggestions?

[kbryant]

Originally Posted by mikecronis

Had the Area-P full-race-carbon exhaust installed by my local dealer, along with a rejet of the slow "pilot" jets to 40 and the "main" jets to 102 with one 1mm shim on the needle. Be advised I'm at 6000 ft. (Colorado).

I found the bike to be a bit "boggy" and not crisp in acceleration. By way of mods for the engine I have a drop-in K&N and a snorkel removal.

Since the bike was sitting all winter, I drained the tank and filled it up with 91 and gave it a spin around town the next day. This helped a bit, but there's still a very slight bog-down at about 6k rpms from half to WOT. Perhaps a 1 second hesitation or so.

As a check, I went to a local long highway hill that climbs 1000 feet in 1 mile or so. Normally I can accelerate from an indicated 80 to 85 mph at WOT before the exhaust install and rejet, now it decelerates to 75 before I reach the top. Temp outside was 60F. Coming back down, I was able to reach my usual 110 indicated mph.

To check to see if I might be running too rich, I revved the throttle to 5k rpm in neutral at 0 mph to watch the tach needle. It does not dip below 1.4k rpm (throttle knob setting) after releasing, nor does it float down too slowly, though it stops at about 2k rpm for about a half-second before getting to 1.4k.

I'm not sure if I might be running too rich, but there are some mild indications that this might be the case. After riding for a few hours, the bike seemed a tiny bit more snappy but not really. WOT is slow to respond until it gets going, like a delayed response of a second or two, the same with half-cracked throttle.

Suggestions?

Mike - The "power drain" is you're being way, way off on your jetting. If your dealer recommened these specs to you they are far too rich for your conditions and altitude. And your resulting lack of performance is completely expected.

I see that you emailed me the same post. I'll send you a much closer set of recommendations in the morning.

[Jiggles]

Don't use 91 octane, your bike requires 87

[mikecronis]

Thanks, KBryant! Many on the forum recommended and/or have used 40/102 with 1 shim for your exhaust at this altitude, however (Colorado Springs), but I agree it's a bit much. I only have the 40 pilot and the 102 main jet but I was thinking the stock 38 pilot (I belive that's stock) and the 102 might be better?

[joshuatrueanderson]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Don't use 91 octane, your bike requires 87

yeahh?? I also live in colorado.. ive been using premium.. wrong?

also i live at 7420 ft in avon, co and im using the dyno jet kit that came with the exhaust, jets 110 and needle 3 spots down from top with 2 washers on top. Ive been gainin more in top end at higher RPMs for sure. Smooth at top end

[Jiggles]

Oop your right? I just checked the manual it says use 87 unless you're in Colorado

[kbryant]

Originally Posted by mikecronis

Thanks, KBryant! Many on the forum recommended and/or have used 40/102 with 1 shim for your exhaust at this altitude, however (Colorado Springs), but I agree it's a bit much. I only have the 40 pilot and the 102 main jet but I was thinking the stock 38 pilot (I belive that's stock) and the 102 might be better?

Pleasure. EM sent. Well those other "recomendations" do not necessarily mean it's the best way to go.

[kbryant]

Originally Posted by joshuatrueanderson

yeahh?? I also live in colorado.. ive been using premium.. wrong?

also i live at 7420 ft in avon, co and im using the dyno jet kit that came with the exhaust, jets 110 and needle 3 spots down from top with 2 washers on top. Ive been gainin more in top end at higher RPMs for sure. Smooth at top end

Josh - Use Regular at that altitude - 85 -87 octane is fine. It will run better with lower octane, especially at altitude like yours. Your jetting is really on the heavy side for your altitude. Mike is running the stock airbox, snorkel out, hi-perf panel filter. Your jetting specs indicated would be similar to sea level type conditions (depending on temps/humidity) for air box removed/pod filters, but not for 7420' elevation. There is a "Tuning" section included with the Race System manual to assist you. If you feel that it's running good; excellent. But you are likely leaving a lot of room for further improvement.

[mikecronis]

A little correspondance from Area-P's president.. Anyway, he's recommending the following.. feel free to read and make your own judgements on Area-P and their suggestive methods (sorry Racer-X, he contradicts you?):
===================
Hi Mike,
As indicated on my forum response, you are way too rich. Your temps are on the cool side, so this will help lean things out currently. Just as an example and general rule:
Colder air = leaner. Warmer air = richer.
91 octane fuel is not helping you; even more so at that altitude. Run 85 - 87 octane. It will actually make more power and run better.
To simplify things, it would be best to get the main jet size correct first, then go onto the needle position and air/fuel jet adjustments. But you can definitely go back to a maximum of the #38 stock pilot jet and perhaps 1.5 - 2.0 turns out to start. The .040" shimming on the needle may be ok for now. Not the best way to tune the needle (I recommend adjustable needles/different taper like in the Dynojet kit). We can determine that after you get the main jet correct.
I am "assuming" you are using Keihin style/number main jets? If so, you really need to go way down on your main jet size like a # 94 to start. Simply try that first and let me know the results. Be sure the engine is completely up to operating temp before evaluating. We can then go on from there to get you dialed-in.
Also, there is a detailed "Tuning" section in the Race System installation manual. This information will help assist you as well.
Sincerely,
Kerry Bryant - President

--

Dear Kerry B,
Wow, thanks for the input. The stock Ninja 250R jet is 98 for the main, 38 for the pilot. With the "snorkel removal" I was running a bit lean. I suspected I would be running even more lean after your exhaust install, so I went up a bit on both. It didn't seem like too aggressive an addition. I agree with the octane recommendation, though I've dyno'ed both with 87 and 91 and get the same dyno results on previous Ninja 250 bikes I've owned (4 of them).
I purchased the main and pilot jets from "JetsRUs" and purchased the Klein direct (not clone) options. I'll probably leave the needle shimmed the 1mm and go back to stock, but in your experience with Colorado owners, what was their jet settings? Everyone I've talked to on all the forums that are in Colorado or high-altitude went with the 102s, but it's apparent to me they're too aggressive. Do you have any results from previous purchasers?

---

Mike,
Yes, I know what the stock jetting is. You are asking me for advice and I'm trying to provide it to you. So you need to decide if you would like to try it, or listen to "everyone else on the forums". Simply because "everyone" is running 102 main jets, does not make it correct. It has nothing to do with Colorado owners; the data is based on elevation, temps, humidity. It does not matter about where those conditions are generated; simply that they are the parameters in which we are operating in.
I have no idea of where/how you are determining that you were "running lean with the snorkel removed" and stock jetting at your altitude. It's simply not possible, assuming you were running the oem exhaust system. Or you have not provided all the mods/information you currently have. If you are determining this based on an A/F curve from a dyno at your location, simply let me see it so I can help you analyze it.
Concerning fuel - we have commonly seen repeatable power differences of up to .4 hp (4/10ths) difference between 87 & 91 octane. You want to use the lowest octane fuel possible without detonation. At altitude such as yours, if lower octane than 87 was available, I would try it.
It's simple science - at 6000' you have significantly less air. Which means less power. Which means less fuel is required. At sea level and up to about 1200', it is common to run #98 - #100 main jets. Every 1500' or so commonly requires one size smaller main jet (less air). For example - at Willow Springs Raceway (about 2500' or so), it is common to run #94 main jets. So, do you really think that you would require larger main jets at 6000'? Of course not. Same for the #40 Pilot Jets. Sometimes there is improvement, but it is based obviously on conditions and mods. But it is far more common to keep the #38, as it has plenty of adjustment within it's range. So again, there is no way you are going to require a larger jet at your elevation, with your mods.
I have no idea of what "Klein" jets are? Unless you mean the oem style Keihin jets?
Based on the information you provided of your set-up - stock airbox, K&N filter panel, snorkel removed - simply try what I have recommended. It's simple enough to change it back again if you so decide.
Kerry Bryant - President

---
Dear Area-P,
Thanks very much for your feedback and suggestions! My lean-conditions were noticeable after the snorkel removal and high-flow drop-in filter was indicated that when at idle, in neutral, "blipping" the throttle to 5k rpms or so and releasing, the tach needle would hang for a tiny bit then drop somewhat slowly back to idle (more so than before the air-adjustments were made). During mid-revs at-speed it felt it was searching for fuel with a few light misses audibly on wide-open acceleration. It was my understanding a lot of Ninja 250R 2008-2012 were set a bit lean to begin with, and adding an aftermarket exhaust with headers may add to that fact. I suspect a rich condition the same actions would have the tachometer needle drop below the set idle point, bog there as the engine searched for a proper ratio as the fuel was consumed a tad, and then come back up to idle; throttle response would be "bog-gy" and slow to respond (as in the case of my now oversized jets).
Made a typo on "Keihin". I've always foolishly pronounced that as Klein as in "Kevin Klein" for some reason; and yes, I had those installed.
Your recommendation was to return to the stock pilot jet and consider an even leaner, 94-sized jet and consider moving up slowly to an adequate dyno reading, and though not the preferred method, leave the shim in-place.
On previous Ninja 250s I've owned (4 of them) I've installed a Muzzy full system at this altitude and did not rejet to good result, leaving the 38/98 combination in-tact. I was perhaps overzealous with the jets by reading from others who had supposedly "good results" on forums and other sites.
I'll have the bike dyno'ed at my local dealership with the jets current in-place and the stock and send you the results. If my results are not as satisfactory as your dyno chart on your website, I will purchase leaner jets for my altitude going backwards from 98 (and again dyno and send you the results). Feel free to post these high-resolution jpegs as I have this process done so others can benefit instead of "street cred" methods.
Thanks for your time,
Mike

---

I thought I was polite but he seemed a bit cross? Hard to tell with emails, you know. Anyway, he recommends I go down to a 94 jet and to use a lower octane pretty much.

Comments, suggestions? Has anyone tried this at altitude?

When I jetted my Honda Superhawk I went down one size level to great result but no exhaust system was added (it's a good bike with enough growl). Has anyone jetted down?

[xaple]

Originally Posted by mikecronis

A little correspondance from Area-P's president.. Anyway, he's recommending the following.. feel free to read and make your own judgements on Area-P and their suggestive methods (sorry Racer-X, he contradicts you?):

I thought I was polite but he seemed a bit cross? Hard to tell with emails, you know. Anyway, he recommends I go down to a 94 jet and to use a lower octane pretty much.

Comments, suggestions? Has anyone tried this at altitude?

When I jetted my Honda Superhawk I went down one size level to great result but no exhaust system was added (it's a good bike with enough growl). Has anyone jetted down?

Having spoken to Kerry in person, he is one of the nicest guys to talk to and very informative. Very helpful and told me to call him if i needed advice when putting in my exhaust. Not many other company heads would do that lol. Just my input.

[DaBlue1]

Originally Posted by mikecronis

....A little correspondance from Area-P's president.. Anyway, he's recommending the following.. feel free to read and make your own judgements on Area-P and their suggestive methods (sorry Racer-X, he contradicts you?):.....

Sounds like the same info that was given back in January......hmmm?
http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showp...42&postcount=6
http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showp...61&postcount=7
http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showp...0&postcount=11

[Alex]

Not sure why you felt the need to post private emails to a public forum.