C5 Install

[C5Performance]

dan filipi » Sat May 24, 2014 10:42 am[/url]":2r81gx8z]

mcgovern61 » Sat May 24, 2014 8:40 am[/url]":2r81gx8z]
Tough thing here......C5 is a great idea AND my engine is out and on the floor right now, but no finances for that right now! :whip: :head bang:

Paul, do you have a "Lend Lease" program available? :hihihi:

Well Paul has told me he's open to taking payments.

We do accept payments. I have several Goldwing kits on "layaway" right now. I do charge more if I have to hold the trouble light while you install it though :smilie_happy:

 

[chilidawg]

That is awesome Brian, so do we have a deal? next winter, you talk to HOTT, and I talk to Paul!

 

[brianinpa]

chilidawg » Sat May 24, 2014 12:33 pm[/url]"8q9c1ja]
That is awesome Brian, so do we have a deal? next winter, you talk to HOTT, and I talk to Paul!

Not sure if I am waiting for next winter for the single carb oriject.. When I get the 1200's carbs right, I am parking the 1100 again to go the route of a single carb. I know I have problems with my 1100 carbs and with 112000 miles I have no desire to rebuild them. The 1200... that is different, that one I am keeping stock looking.

 

[brianinpa]

I have spent a few weeks with this ignition running around town so I wanted to give an update as to what I have found in case you might still be on the fence. If you remember, this is where I started at

brianinpa » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:29 pm[/url]":35gza89n]
My starting points are:

Fuel economy - 35 mpg
(all in 5th gear)
35 mph = 2400 rpm
40 mph = 2600 rpm
60 mph = 4000 rpm
65 mph = 4400 rpm
70 mph = 4700 rpm
75 mph = 5000 rpm
80 mph = 5400 rpm
85 mph = 5600 rpm

This gives me something to compare it to when I am done (not that I am too concerned) :mrgreen:

I just spent all afternoon on the bike and rode 100 miles to say hi to Gerry and then rode another 100 miles home. In the process I was able to get some figures...

60 mph = 3800 rmp
65 mph = 4200 rpm
70 mph = 4500 rpm
75 mph = 4800 rpm
80 mph = 5100 rpm

Keep in mind these readings are all calibrated to the nth degree according to my eyes as I am traveling down the road and using just a stock 33 year old analog tach, so they could be wrong :head bang: :mrgreen: HOWEVER! I think the thing that surprised me the most during today's ride is that I was able to get 40 mpg. For most people that isn't anything but my average is around 33 to 35. I know I have carb issues and I specifically did not want to fix them yet so I had something of a comparison. Today I was able to get 150 miles on a tank and never worried about switching over to reserve. When Gerry and I rode out to Joe's, at 130 miles we were looking for a gas station so I could get a fill-up. Did my carb synch help that much? I don't think so as I had synched them probably two months before that trip.

When I was in the Boy Scouts, my Scout Master would always say: "The proof is in the pudding." I grew to hate that phrase so I am amazed that I am referencing it today, but Paul and the rest of the gang has built one hell of an ignition system!!! In the past when I was riding up the same hills that I rode on today, I would be grabbing the clutch and going for 4th or even 3rd gear. Not anymore! Now I just give it a twist and the bike just accelerates away. It is nice to know that a bike with 113,000 miles on it still has the power in reserve. So yeah, to quote my Scout Master, the proof is in the pudding. It may be something that is best felt by the seat of your pants, but that's where it needs to be felt.

 

[dan filipi]

I'm looking forward to the day I get the C5 back on mine. I sure miss the increased torque and smoothness.
Not too much longer.

 

[C5Performance]

dan filipi » Sat May 31, 2014 8:38 pm[/url]":10mpjo83]
I'm looking forward to the day I get the C5 back on mine. I sure miss the increased torque and smoothness.
Not too much longer.

Dan your parts are in the mail. You should see them early next week.

As for Brian, I don't know where to start. I have been told about mileage increases on a few locally owned Goldwings but they could only tell me total miles on a tank.
Your recording of mph versus rpm shows a substantial increase in torque. You are the first person to record such changes, and it's an amazing thing.

Not only are you running lower rpm to push the bike at the same speed, your mileage has increased by a whopping 14.3% !!!!
Thank you thank you thank you....for your input and the sharing of this information.

I am speechless. :hi:

 

[Steve83]

brianinpa » Sat May 31, 2014 6:07 pm[/url]":2x6bi3q9]
I have spent a few weeks with this ignition running around town so I wanted to give an update as to what I have found in case you might still be on the fence. If you remember, this is where I started at

brianinpa » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:29 pm[/url]":2x6bi3q9]
My starting points are:

Fuel economy - 35 mpg
(all in 5th gear)
35 mph = 2400 rpm
40 mph = 2600 rpm
60 mph = 4000 rpm
65 mph = 4400 rpm
70 mph = 4700 rpm
75 mph = 5000 rpm
80 mph = 5400 rpm
85 mph = 5600 rpm

This gives me something to compare it to when I am done (not that I am too concerned) :mrgreen:

I just spent all afternoon on the bike and rode 100 miles to say hi to Gerry and then rode another 100 miles home. In the process I was able to get some figures...

60 mph = 3800 rmp
65 mph = 4200 rpm
70 mph = 4500 rpm
75 mph = 4800 rpm
80 mph = 5100 rpm

Keep in mind these readings are all calibrated to the nth degree according to my eyes as I am traveling down the road and using just a stock 33 year old analog tach, so they could be wrong :head bang: :mrgreen: HOWEVER! I think the thing that surprised me the most during today's ride is that I was able to get 40 mpg. For most people that isn't anything but my average is around 33 to 35. I know I have carb issues and I specifically did not want to fix them yet so I had something of a comparison. Today I was able to get 150 miles on a tank and never worried about switching over to reserve. When Gerry and I rode out to Joe's, at 130 miles we were looking for a gas station so I could get a fill-up. Did my carb synch help that much? I don't think so as I had synched them probably two months before that trip.

When I was in the Boy Scouts, my Scout Master would always say: "The proof is in the pudding." I grew to hate that phrase so I am amazed that I am referencing it today, but Paul and the rest of the gang has built one hell of an ignition system!!! In the past when I was riding up the same hills that I rode on today, I would be grabbing the clutch and going for 4th or even 3rd gear. Not anymore! Now I just give it a twist and the bike just accelerates away. It is nice to know that a bike with 113,000 miles on it still has the power in reserve. So yeah, to quote my Scout Master, the proof is in the pudding. It may be something that is best felt by the seat of your pants, but that's where it needs to be felt.

Question: I don't doubt the increase in MPG with better ignition, along with an increase in torque, and overall performance...but - how is it possible that he's running lower RPMs at the same speeds without changing gearing or tire circumference?

 

[chilidawg]

All looks pretty damn good to me, and believe me I know all about messed up 30 year old tachs.

The extra smooth is what it's all about to me. Anything else is a bonus.

I'm still talking to Paul next Autumn!!

 

[brianinpa]

Steve83 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:15 am[/url]":q91vy58s]
Question: I don't doubt the increase in MPG with better ignition, along with an increase in torque, and overall performance...but - how is it possible that he's running lower RPMs at the same speeds without changing gearing or tire circumference?

That's what was bothering me and why I put in there that it could have been my eyes or the analog tach, The other possibility is the vacuum advance was off???

 

[joedrum]

its running so smooth now the tach is in shock LOL

 

[dan filipi]

brianinpa » Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:19 am[/url]":m8omtunm]

Steve83 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:15 am[/url]":m8omtunm]
Question: I don't doubt the increase in MPG with better ignition, along with an increase in torque, and overall performance...but - how is it possible that he's running lower RPMs at the same speeds without changing gearing or tire circumference?

That's what was bothering me and why I put in there that it could have been my eyes or the analog tach, The other possibility is the vacuum advance was off???

Maybe your viewing angle, maybe a flakey tach, but theirs no way rpm's to mph can change without gear ratio change.

 

[brianinpa]

Yea Dan I didn't put much behind the rpm/mph, but I was really impressed with the mpg. I had check my fuel around town on the first tank, but I think I need to recheck that again because the odometer may have been moved and affected what I thought was a poor mpg around town reading.

 

[Ansimp]

+1 on rpm to mph. Faulty tacho or slipping clutch is the only way I can figure that relationship can change :headscratch:

 

[zman]

Nice numbers, I will be getting one in the near future, hopefully by summers end. On the RPM change I keep thinking more torque at lower RPM`s pushing the rear wheel faster but I cant get past the gearing either, unless you were slipping at higher RPM`s. I assume you put in a new clutch while it was out.

 

[joedrum]

well brian that one post sparked my memory ...were clutch did slip some at meet and greet ...didnt it ...did you fix that ?

 

[Steve83]

Maybe all that extra torque is pulling you back so hard you can't see the gauges!! :hihihi:

Most inportantly, you have a much more efficient and complete combustion, increasing MPG and power,, decreasing emissions and carbon build-up, and simply an all-around better ride! Enjoy - and congratulations on a job well done!

 

[brianinpa]

Well now that is an interesting thought because I did have the clutch out also and cleaned up the basket a little. Maybe I had a little more slipage during the warmer months and not only when it was cold.

 

[Mysteryrider]

ok kinda wondering been reading this thread and while mostly lost on what c5 was I googled and found the setup your referring too now for the million dollar question. I read the installation instructions for the gl1000 kit and it does not look like you have to remove the engine to install it so wondering if removal was to make it overall easier to install or other reason? or is this one of those deals where to do it without removal you need the hands of a three year old to get in there

 

[wilcoy02]

1100 you need a three year old hand. or engine removed.
1000 it sits in a different place and no engine removal is needed.

I still love my c-5 on my 1100

 

[Mysteryrider]

from everything that's been said here about this conversion this has now made it to my list of upgrades to do in the future. just have to convince the wife it is a must do item lol