Do you believe SLP's hp gains?

pura vida · Mar 17, 2015

PDP Racing said:
Just because you are running more clutch weight does not mean you are building power. That is what some people justify as a dyno. This makes me laugh cause same helix same spring ect ect is BS in mountain riding in my opinion. Let's put some numbers out here just for the ease of understanding. Remember this is mountain riding not lake racing

If I were to take a sled that made 160 HP stock and it was running 60 gram weights with 140/340 primary spring 140/240 secondary spring and a 60/40 helix. Ok this setup runs up a test hill at 40mph track speed and in let's say 3rd gear taching 8400 RPM. Now let's take the same sled and add a big bore and that is the only thing we change. Same clutching same gearing and we go to the same test hill now we are doing 60mph track speed and now we were able to pull the hill in 4th or 5th gear while still taching 8400 RPM. But you say oh that big bore didn't build any more HP because we didn't add and weight to the primary. :face-icon-small-con everyone has theories and there seem to be a million of them on clutching.

Uhhhh, don't remember mentioning anything about BBs, track speed, springs, helix, fueling, timing, or anything of the massive number of possibilities that effect the function and performance of a complete snowmachine in the endlessly various conditions we ride them, but maybe I should go back and double check my post just to make sure. There is always a possibility I could be mistaken...

Anyway, if you make a change (ie., a pipe) AND add weight to the primary while keeping EVERYTHING else on the sled EXACTLY the same AND still see an increase in consistent RPM, then I'm not sure how there is a lot of question as to if there was or was not an increase of power??? Again, I'm a simple man, I could easily be missing something...

PV

HSR · Mar 17, 2015

The SLP resistor only adds fuel above around 7300rpm where the pipe needs it. Ethanol mode adds fuel to the entire curve. SLP claims 9hp but independant dynotesting done at Dynotech didn't have the same results. Also the clutching slp recommends for flatlanders doesn't indicate that much of a HP increase either. And yes I believe we all have a dyno built in on our sleds,,,,the primary clutch and tach.

800poodragon · Mar 17, 2015

HSR said:
The SLP resistor only adds fuel above around 7300rpm where the pipe needs it. Ethanol mode adds fuel to the entire curve. SLP claims 9hp but independant dynotesting done at Dynotech didn't have the same results. Also the clutching slp recommends for flatlanders doesn't indicate that much of a HP increase either. And yes I believe we all have a dyno built in on our sleds,,,,the primary clutch and tach.

Ethanol mode changes (retards) timing as well doesn't it?

HSR · Mar 17, 2015

800poodragon said:
Ethanol mode changes (retards) timing as well doesn't it?

No.

JUDGED · Mar 18, 2015

HSR said:
The SLP resistor only adds fuel above around 7300rpm where the pipe needs it. Ethanol mode adds fuel to the entire curve. SLP claims 9hp but independant dynotesting done at Dynotech didn't have the same results. Also the clutching slp recommends for flatlanders doesn't indicate that much of a HP increase either. And yes I believe we all have a dyno built in on our sleds,,,,the primary clutch and tach.

In defense of SLP, that sled was running Ethanol fuel. Not sure what non-ethanol fuel would do exactly, but an SLP pipe may make 9hp in ideal conditions. Not sure. I was and still am hoping to have a 170hp+ sled weighing under 400lbs for under 1000 bux in mods, but still waiting. Out of respect for DTR's work I wont share more details.

jmaxdox · Mar 19, 2015

I have a 2015 Axys Switchback with the SLP Stage 2 Kit installed. I ran 700 miles stock and have put over a 1000 miles on with the SLP Kit. Well worth the money in my opinion. Can't vouch for any actual HP gains but I will say this to the best of my knowledge. The clutching that comes with this kit smartens it up right from take off and pulls harder all the way through the middle range. At 7700rpm the she gets extra gas supplied to the motor and YOU KNOW IT. It spools up faster, pulls harder and screams when Wide Open. The difference over stock was totally worth the $$$. The tone was more rumbly at an idle, running through the mid-range she is only a little louder. Easy to get through areas without pissing people off that don't like pipes. Once you outright touch her off she screams. Not as loud as all the other cans but my buddies say they can now here me behind them when I'm on their *** applying some pressure. I love the sound, I love the power improvement and the weight loss is always worth mentioning.

Reg2view · Mar 19, 2015

Kraven said:
On the bold, call SLP, they'll confirm that you CAN run the STOCK can on the AXYS 800 HO in conjunction with their SLP pipe

Thanks, if you've called, I'll take your word for it, but I'm also not buying an SLP pipe right now, either. If anyone is going to buy an SLP single for an Axys RMK, it would be a worthwhile call to confirm the requirements - they might be changing between now and final release later this year.

I've never seen SLP advertise their pipes as exclusive to their cans, but I know what I've been told by them on poo 800 and doo 800ho applications. Are they just selling cans - dunno. I know my doo 800ho SLP pipe, ported motors only, had a visibly larger stinger, which was a dead giveaway that stock pipe designed cans were gonna be an issue, regardless of fuel. I know some IQ RMK CFI4 700 singles did not require more fuel, but that looked like the rare exception from SLP. Your point - call - is always valid - know what you're buying, and know what questions to ask.

sledheader · Mar 19, 2015

If it voids warranty, it's pretty much out of question for 4 years for me. I don't want to take the chance with a new motor.

Jmax, have you had any issues on the 1700 miles you have on? RPM fade at all?

sledneck_03 · Mar 19, 2015

Thing about pipes is that they can easily be changed back to go to dealer. heads.......nope. controllers? depends on dealer but dont leave the velcro stuck to air box, polaris knows what thats for.

Xgraphite · Mar 19, 2015

My thoughts on the extra HP from SLP pipe and can. Didn't see any advantage from the pipe. Had the same exact sleds Polaris, same track length, same weight in rider. One sled was bone stock the other had the pipe and can added. Raced up up a hill neither sled had an advantage raced on the flats no change. I didn't see any difference in either sled. If you were looking for extra power from the pipe and can you might might not get the HP claimed. The SLP pipe and can did sound better than stock FWIW.

Kraven · Mar 19, 2015

Reg2view said:
Thanks, if you've called, I'll take your word for it, but I'm also not buying an SLP pipe right now, either. If anyone is going to buy an SLP single for an Axys RMK, it would be a worthwhile call to confirm the requirements - they might be changing between now and final release later this year.

I've never seen SLP advertise their pipes as exclusive to their cans, but I know what I've been told by them on poo 800 and doo 800ho applications. Are they just selling cans - dunno. I know my doo 800ho SLP pipe, ported motors only, had a visibly larger stinger, which was a dead giveaway that stock pipe designed cans were gonna be an issue, regardless of fuel. I know some IQ RMK CFI4 700 singles did not require more fuel, but that looked like the rare exception from SLP. Your point - call - is always valid - know what you're buying, and know what questions to ask.

Personally I'm on the fence about pipe and heads. Looking at trading my 2013 PRO-R 800 with 3,500 trouble-free pull -the-rope-and-go miles on it for a 2016 AXYS 137" SB.

I can't run any after market silencer in the areas we ride (U.P. Michigan) as they ticket those - $ 180.

That's why I called SLP to ask.

BTW, I thought the SLP pipe for the 2008++ 800 Dragons (CFI-4's) HAD to use THEIR silencer, as the output end of their pipe was different than stock ??????

CForest · Mar 19, 2015

For those of you questioning the lack of fuel controller, slp sells all three ski-doo etec kits without one also. Fwiw.

Dartos · Mar 19, 2015

I have no way to tell if the actual number is true and correct but I can tell you there is no way in hell I'm paying that kind of money to get marginally better power that is limited to the last 500 RPM of the power range.

mountainhorse · Mar 20, 2015

Dartos... I all depends on how many RPM's you're making

.

06redrevx · Mar 20, 2015

mountainhorse said:
Dartos... I all depends on how many RPM's you're making

.

Eric, I bet you have been holding that in your pocket ready to use it for ever lol

Dartos · Mar 20, 2015

Have no fear for Mountainhorse knows I speak RPM truth!

mountainhorse · Mar 21, 2015

HA HA.... Dartos... your peeve is my peeve... Just razzing ya!

.

Dartos · Mar 21, 2015

I figured that:face-icon-small-hap

I'm off to find another thread I can post in to help educate the unknowing on Revolutions Per Minute usage.

sledheader · Mar 21, 2015

Not to pick a fight but there is absolutely nothing grammatically incorrect about "Rpms" when a single word is pluralized in an acronym, pluralizing the acronym itself is grammatically correct. In other words, "Rpms" is not "revolution per minutes" but rather it pluralizes the acronym and is correctly, "revolutions per minute"

Dartos · Mar 21, 2015

You are correct that RPM may be pluralized but 99% of the people using it that way are doing so improperly. They are not trying to indicate multiples of RPM, they just don't know any better.

But none of this discusses the original thrust of this thread: Is SLP lying? Or simply publishing results of a controlled test for marketing purposes?

:argue:
And don't even get me going on the widespread use of the word Got. Almost no one can use that word properly in a sentence.

Do you believe SLP's hp gains?

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads