Valkyrie Riders Cruiser Club
June 27, 2025, 03:52:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Ultimate Seats Link VRCC Store
Homepage : Photostash : JustPics : Shoptalk : Old Tech Archive : Classifieds : Contact Staff
News: If you're new to this message board, read THIS!
 
Inzane 17
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Send this topic Print
Author Topic: 97 Standard with IS ECM  (Read 1020 times)
Chrisj CMA
Member
*****
Posts: 14769


Crestview (Panhandle) Florida


« on: July 25, 2018, 10:12:16 AM »

Question for anyone who had changed to an IS ECM on a Standard or Tourer, what was the change?
Logged
bill-jr
Member
*****
Posts: 1034


VRCC # 35094

murfreesboro


« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2018, 05:16:22 PM »

I changed mine didnt notice any change . . .
I told myself its a little peppy’er but prob just in my head .  .
Logged

Ever danced with the devil In the pale moon light ?
99' Black tourer
Bagger John - #3785
Member
*****
Posts: 1952



« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2018, 05:34:26 AM »

I've run them on every non-I/S Valkyrie that I owned over the years. No, it's not the equivalent of putting a blower on the bike - but the power difference right off idle to around 4K is noticeable. As a bonus, you don't have to run premium gas as you do with some Trigger Wheels.

My standard recipe, as posted many times in the Tech section: I/S ICM, #38 pilots w/ air screws 1 1/2 turns out, I/S carb springs, Dynojet jet needles w/ clips in the 2nd notch from top. No other air filter, smog or exhaust mods.

So equipped, the 49-state '01 I/S gets around 30-32MPG @ 80MPH and accelerates very hard through the motor's mid-range. My CA-model Tourer (all smog plumbing intact, and CA-spec cams) accelerates harder than it did before the ICM swap...but most noticeable was the gas mileage increase. It'll now return 40+ MPG at 75MPH day in and day out...this pushing a bat wing and I/S trunk through the air.
Logged
F6Dave
Member
*****
Posts: 2261



« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2018, 08:02:43 AM »

I have both a '98 Tourer and '99 Interstate.  The IS does seem a bit stronger at low RPM despite the extra weight.  It also gets slightly better mileage.

The downside is that in hot weather, the IS engine will knock a little on regular fuel.  At this altitude 'regular' is only 85 octane, and 'mid-grade' is 87.  So I have to pay more and run mid-grade in my IS, while the Tourer is perfectly happy running that 85 octane junk.
Logged
Chrisj CMA
Member
*****
Posts: 14769


Crestview (Panhandle) Florida


« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2018, 04:35:26 AM »

I have both a '98 Tourer and '99 Interstate.  The IS does seem a bit stronger at low RPM despite the extra weight.  It also gets slightly better mileage.

The downside is that in hot weather, the IS engine will knock a little on regular fuel.  At this altitude 'regular' is only 85 octane, and 'mid-grade' is 87.  So I have to pay more and run mid-grade in my IS, while the Tourer is perfectly happy running that 85 octane junk.

Well after hearing all these comparisons I think I will crack open the timing belts cover to see if I can verify it has a stock wheel.  

I'm still learning towards the Bruce bike having a IS ICM.  I like the ride both ways. It gives each bike their own personality.  

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Send this topic Print
Jump to: