Horizons Unlimited - The HUBB

Horizons Unlimited - The HUBB (http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hubb/)
-   Kawasaki (http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hubb/kawasaki/)
-   -   KLE 500 Dyno-tuning/carb settings info needed. (http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hubb/kawasaki/kle-500-dyno-tuning-carb-41935)

SPYE 3 Apr 2009 19:16

KLE 500 Dyno-tuning/carb settings info needed.
 
Hi there.

I have just installed a DNA filter and changed the exhaust. The bike revs much more freely, but still lacks just that little extra midrange grunt. I suspect it is running a little lean now.

I was wondering if a going a little larger on the main jet will improve it a bit. Dynojet do a jet kit, but it's a Stage #3. I am more inclined to go for Stage #1 type settings. The needle cannot be adjusted as it is fixed type (no circlip). If anyone has done this before I would appreciate a few pointers. (Jet sizes to start with etc.)

Another thing I found strange on my '07 KLE 500 is that left and right main jets are different sizes, #95 and #92 respectively. Can someone explain why this is?

I would appreciate any info regards the above.
Cheers
SPYE :confused1:

ShaunJ 3 Apr 2009 20:32

Hi
I'm running stage 3 K&Ns and full arrow system i also have a dynojet kit (stage 3)
The kit comes with:
126, 130, 134 main jets
Adjustable needle jets
softer springs and a drill bit to drill the slide (quicker throtlle opening) but i didn't bother with this

as for setting i use a 130 main jet and needle jets 1 higher than base setting 4th from top i think. i have a 33hp restrictor so can't tell how much better it is over std unrestricted but it pulls all the way upto 8000 before the restrictor kills it

as for the different std jets i think it may be to smooth out power delivery so the cylinders generate peak power at different engine speeds or its to do with the odd length exhausts?

SPYE 5 Apr 2009 10:09

I have a few questions if you dont mind.

1) What model KLE do you have? Is it the 2005 model that came out with the cat. exhaust.

2) Are you still using your stock airbox with a aftermarket (DNA or K&N) air filter?

3) How has the power improved? and has the fuel consumption increased quite a bit.

Can I use the Dynojet Stage 3 kit on my '07 KLE, using stock airbox with DNA filter and a semi-free flow pipe (end can only) and the stock headers? The Dynojet site says it is for models '91 -'98. (DJK 2149)

Thanx
SPYE

ShaunJ 5 Apr 2009 14:50

1) Its an 07

2) stage 3 K&Ns are 2 cone filters fitted straight onto the carbs with no airbox

3) Can't give exact figures but it definately makes a difference to the power
low-mid range there is a big improvement as for the topend it revs round to 10k freely but the restrictor kills it off so i can't tell how much power has been gained
As for fuel consumption it depends how much u thrash it with std set up i would get about 140 miles (54mpg) before reserve now i get about 120-130 (49mpg). Yesterday i raised the gearing from 17/44 to 17/42 this helps alot with fuel economy (50mpg riding spirited so could easily get 54+mpg riding normally)

The kit says it can be used with stock filters and exhaust upto stage 3 filters and freeflow exhaust so you should be fine as for the 91-98 models emissions laws changed so the later models couldn't legally use them

SPYE 5 Apr 2009 16:13

Thanx for the info. I must try and find a Dynojet distributor here in South Africa.

I am not inclined to go for the two separate cone filters. I want to keep the strandard air box with the DNA filter. As you said, you dont think it would be a problem keeping it like that.

Cheers
SPYE

ShaunJ 5 Apr 2009 17:31

From packaging:
For mildly tuned machines using the stock air-box, with stock or K&N filter. may also be used with a good aftermarket exhaust system.

so there shouldn't be a problem

SPYE 9 Apr 2009 19:25

I had a Dyno run done on the bike. The one is when the bike stock standard and the other is after the mod. with the new zorst and DNA filter installed.

Notice that after the mod. the power gain is not impressive. The torque curve is also all over the place.
Judging from the graph and comparing does someone think that the bike will need a bit of jetting to increase the power and give it a bit more low/mid range grunt.

Any advice will be helpful.
Thanx. :confused1:

ShaunJ 9 Apr 2009 20:22

The dyno place should have been able to give you an air/fuel ratio graph to show how off the jetting is.

The average air/fuel ratio is approx 15:1 (someone correct if wrong) this will give a good balance of power and economy by increaseing the amount of air available to the engine your fuel ratio could be (for ease of numbers) 30:1 so to get back to the 'optimal' mix the jetting needs to be richer in this example twice as much fuel is required.

An example of how badly lean running can hurt performance is when my mate removed a bung from the airbox on his tiger 900 to increase air flow with the bung removed i could easily out accelerate him at nearly any speed with the bung back in place and optimal mix restored his tiger out accelerates me at any speed and leaves me for dust past 60mph

So a re-jet would definately smooth out the curve and unleash its full potential

Hope this helps

surprised no one else has posted on this thread

SPYE 9 Apr 2009 21:16

The bike shops co2 sensors or something like that was not working at the time. Its a pity because it would be interesting to see. I will have to get the jetting done, but its very expensive over here in South Africa. A complete rip-off if you ask me.

Thanx for the info.

ShaunJ 9 Apr 2009 21:27

The jet kit cost me £82 which is quite a bit when you consider what you are actually getting.
A cheaper option maybe to get the dyno place to re-drill your jets and adjust the needles with small washers

Mollrik 27 Apr 2009 17:08

Carb
 
Hi! If you have changed the exhaust and air filter, you will more or less have to rejet your carb. I did a minor change which included a 5mm hole in the airbox to "improve" the airflow (I know one small hole wont do much of a change, but I wanted to do this upgrade slowly, and do test runs to see what effect the small "mods" would have), but that was enough to actually feel that something wasn't right (didn't give "instant" response to full throttle, and could not feel any gain in HP). I can't tell you how you should rejet your bike, but I would start by increasing the main jets by one size at a time(if the headers are having the same length, you could probably have 2 main jets with the same size), and see if that makes any difference (might have to do some minor adjustments to the jet needles and the pilor screw). The best thing would ofcourse include leaving the jetting to the people at the dyno where they can actually measure the AFR (Air Fuel Ratio). :thumbup1:



EDIT: I forgot to add that I have a new KLE with the small jets as stock ('99, so too old for the catalytic converters, but that's not relevant (92 and 95 main jets, instead of having two 112 main jets, as the older ones)). Small washers to adjust the needle might be needed too, but I would however start with the main jets and work my way from there

EDIT*2: The mods I've done to my bike is changing the exhaust, though I did the cheap way and bought an used ER-5 exhaust (~80 dollars), as they have same header length, but just doing that made the bike going lean (no other modifications added), so I installed two 95 main jets, but that were not good enough, so I went with two 100 main jets and that worked like a charm (did need to add a small hole to the airbox, as it went a little bit too rich (but not by much)). Later, I decided to get myself a DNA filter, and it felt like it barely gained anything, so I ended up with getting two 110 main jets (could not get 105), and shimmed the needles with a small washer on each needle, and added an other hole to balance it (5mm each hole). I can't tell for sure if the bike now could be a little rich, but I'll take a look at my spark plugs later to see, but I can tell you one thing - it did help a lot with the performance (no dyno, though the change were noticable (and by much, I would say)). I took a small look on the spark plugs on normal riding (never did any "real" checks, which includes doing WOT on a straight road and check the main jet from there, which I probably should have done), and think that they looked good (but that doesn't tell much about the main jet, but I do not feel any hesitation nor stumbling on full throttle, so I hope it should be fine)

I can not guarantee that my settings are correct, but as I do not feel any kind of hesitation, and the spark plugs did look fine, according to me (if, by anything, could be a little bit too rich, but I'll take a look later with some extra miles on it and decide from there)

SPYE 27 Apr 2009 18:23

Thanx for the info. I've been doing a little research on the older model KLE carb and cam/timing specs. It seems like the cam and ignition timing is the same as the new KLE. They dont have the "Kawasaki Clean Air System" on the older models. So I will probably remove it and blank it off on the tappet cover like the older model. Don't see the point of this gimmick, only extra maintenance (reed petals, vaccuum switch etc...). As far as the carbs are concerned, the only difference I can see is the main jet (112), jet needle (N96J) and perhaps the vacuum spring stiffness.

I am sure if you restore the carb to these settings you will just about be there. PS The headers on the old bike are the same as the new one. Not sure why the compression on the old bike is more.

I am looking for the Kawasaki Part numbers the old carb parts. I only have the new parts manual for the 06 ~ 07 model.

Mollrik 27 Apr 2009 18:38

Ahh, think I will do just that; get two new needles with the markings N96J, which should probably be fine, and could get two 112 main jets, though i doubt that will do much difference from the 110s I am using now (as I am quite sure the older KLEs are rich on the top). By getting the needles and open up the airbox to something similar as the older KLEs (well, the snorkel on the older ones are bigger, but I have to take it into consideration as the DNA filter means that I can not have an opening as big as the older one). With those settings, one shouldn't have to worry about the jetting balance, as it most likely should be good :cool4:

SPYE 27 Apr 2009 19:44

I would like to do the same on my bikes carbs. Do you have the Kawasaki part numbers for the 112 jets and N96J needles? I can't seem to find them anywhere. My local dealer works in Part Numbers only. Dont forget to check the vacuum slide springs as they might be a different stifness to the newer one.

I have a genuine parts manual if you are interested. It covers 06 ~ 07 KLE 500. Can email it. Quite handy.

Forgot to mention that I placed two 3mm spacer washers under each needle. It definately made a differance. There's a bit more torque, but the fuel economy has gone down a bit. (Jets still standard 95;92.)

Mollrik 27 Apr 2009 20:56

OK, I found the part number for the 112 main jet, and it is 92063-1117 , but it seems more or less impossible to find any part number for the N96J needle - really impossible. I found the info about the main jet at Kawasaki's spare part page, but searching for N96J doesn't give any results back :thumbdown:

(Couldn't even find KLE 500 as an available model, so I had to look for other models with 112 main jet, so I went for EN-500, which should work fine)

The following URL gives all spare parts for 500cc bikes from kawasaki, and as you can see, KLE 500 does NOT exist :(
https://www.kawasakiepc.com/SystemSe...SearchBy=Model

Update: The part number for the N96J jet needle is 16009-1657 :clap:

Update2: It seems like the older KLEs are using the same vacuum spring as the newer one, as you can see from these two sources
KLE -92 : kawasaki carburetor parts partsmanual fiche 1992 a2 kle500 (this page can also be used to look for carburator parts on the older KLEs)
KLE -00 (as in 2000) kawasaki carburetor parts partsmanual fiche 2000 a10 kle500

I hope this is what you (including me, as this have been of great interest to me as well) have been looking for :cool4:


Extra note: b.t.w. 2x3mm washers on each needle? If I am not incorrect, that should make a huge difference, and I mean huge (as in going really rich); sure you do not mean 2x0.3mm? If you really used 2x3mm washers, did you not feel any kind of stumbling? How much did it affect your milage? I only used 1 single 0.5mm washer on each needle, and think it improved the performance (ofcourse, in the middle range) noticably, but not sure if it's enough


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:03.


vB.Sponsors