633... after all the critisism from our tests last year ( in my gravel driveway, & with stop watches ), I though the drag strip would give better credibility to them... since the timer doesn't start, until the quad moves, it eliminates the driver & stop watch operator error ( for testing purposes anyway ), & on the sticky asphalt drag strip, tire spin is cut down considerably...you are correct, that two runs is less than optimum, for obtaining a standard, but we had hoped to do all the testing in the same time frame, to eliminate the other variables like temperature, etc... & had hoped to be able to run 3 runs, but track circumstances dictated that we couyld only run 2 runs, & as stated before, we were unable to run a module on each of the quads...

most of the STOCK QUADS ( for each particular module )... 60' times were with in 0.05 seconds of each other ... the deviation on 330' averaged around 0.075 seconds... on the 1/8 mile the deviation averaged around 0.1 seconds...

most of the MODIFIED QUADS ( for each particular module )... 60' times were with in 0.025 seconds of each other... the deviation on 330' averaged 0.035 seconds... on the 1/8 mile the deviation averaged around 0.05 seconds... I'm sure the lower standard of deviation, was caused by the use of the wheelie bar, & allowed WOT, off the light, where as the stock quad, had to feather back the throttle on some modules, to keep it controlable

 

FYI... the Dyna CDI, was borrowed from DIRTYWHITEBOY... & it is his second CDI ( he sent his 1st one back, because of kick back issues )... we had no kick back issues with any of the modules or CDI, but they were all likely only started twice, maybe 3 times each...

 

I'm glad to see more people interested in testing these devices. Lets let the products speak for themselves. Then we can decide which suits us best.

I don't buy the loose comments about how the "second generation " dyna is slower than the first and how it is an unrelaible unit. Anything electronic has a level of unreliability. The brand bias and forum marketing is getting old.

Did you guy notice the thread at Kawieriders where someone has reported kickback issues with their V700 ignition from Mickey? I find the coincidence interesting. I wonder what the connection is? Is it really an initial timing issue? I don't think so. Because they all would kick back then. I think it might be a manufacturing issue like Dyna reported. The manufacturer in china might just have used some poor components. Who knows. But, it seems reasonable to me.

I'm working on getting a dyno graph comparing my runs to Lonewolf's P700. If the dyno guys can get those results to me I will post it. I'm not sure how beneficial the comparison will be. But, it will be interesting to consider anyway.

 

Newbeatle, my comment about 2 runs was just a statistical comment, I appreciate all of the time you have spent to do this stuff. I think sometime people look for too large a difference in times, I mean 2 quad lengths at 55MPH is only about 15 hundredths of a second. I wish there was a way to know if your DG3 was decoding your speed though?

Dirtywhiteboy, I won't believe there is a performance difference betwwen the 1st and 2nd gen Dyna's unless someone can show it. Any electronic device should be 100% reliable over its specified working lifetime, but who knows? If the China cdi's are kicking back, maybe there is some inherent issues with reading the engine position sensor during the start-up cycle? No one seems to have kick backs at speed? Component failure seems hard to miss unless they don't burn-in or final test every cdi that ships out the door. I hope they have all of their problems fixed in time for it's use on the new Brute Force.

 

For me the bottom line is I don't need anyone to test to prove that I can out perform any of the other modules and hang right with the Dyna cdi because it has happened on the trails in the real world many times. My buddies always want to know why my fan runs so much less than theirs and I have never had a kick back issue EVER. On another forum newbeetle reported that blade connectors were used for testing instead of soldering the wires together. Diamond G does not include those connectors anymore becuse of connection issues so we dont know if there was a problem there or not but there could have been. In other testing performed by newbeetle the DG3 performed great but in this test it did not, makes you wonder. Diamond G to my knowledge has been the only company to step up and donate product to do this testing, do you think they would do that if the dg3 would not out perform there own original module. I owned the original, it was good but not even on the same playing field as the dg3. I will keep the extra 100 bucks in my pocket and go with a proven product and company with proven customer service
Tonto

 

There are a few pics, on the "other" Kawi forum...

633... I didn't read any more into the "runs" comment, than you intended... we both had flashing lights on the DG-3... I'll try to talk to Don, & see if there was a chance that it was not fuctioning correctly, since I would have expected better mid strip times / speeds than the original Hole Shot, out of the DG-3...

 

Tonto57 we are all happy you are very pleased with you module, but some people are very interested in these tests. It is very easy for someone to say how much they destroyed the other person, but unless a test is setup that tries to eleimnte some variables there is no real way measuring performance gain. You may be 140lb guy with a quad with 25" tires racing a 240lb guy with 27" tires.

I have a CDI and am happy with it. Do I think there is $100 difference in performance between the DG-3 no, but to me time is money, and it is cheaper for me to buy the CDI and take the 30 seconds to plug it in.

 

Brand loyal? I dont think so but I am entitled to my opinion just like you. The dg3 and offset key outran dirtywhite boy at the drags and was within 1/2 half a h.p. on the dyno even though he reported it was a 1 h.p. difference with no broken starter gears, no kicking back, no overheating. Once again real world vs testing, I will take real world anyday. Next month some other test will be performed and others will be bashing dyna, or whomever is perceived as the looser. I am really tired of this and going riding hopefully most of you can do the same instead of bashing.
Tonto

 

I agree with keeping an open mind, & I did contact Don... also noted, was the fact that I used new connectors, ( also on freshly stripped wire )... the same type of connectors were used on everything, but the CDI... this is NOT the type of connectors that the Hole Shot came with originally... the High Lifter ICM seemed ( seat of pants )to have as much or more agressive bottom end than the others, so the connections must have been OK... FYI... the order of the testing, was DG-3 1st, stock CDI 2nd, DGR Hole Shot 3rd, Dyna CDI 4th, & High Lifter ICM last... so IMO, there is no corolation, between the results, & the order in which they were run...

We did our best to offer as fair & unbiased a test as possible... people on these forums, are very opinionated, & this test was not intended to sway anyone from their already established opinion... only to offer as "conditions the same", a comparision as possible...

 

Talk to Lonewolf and DWB both Tonto and they will admit that the DG3 and key only beat DWB by a hair, almost to close to call....why?????? Lonewolf got the jump, the holeshot if you will, not because the DG3 was any quicker, it was who took off first......... if DWB got the jump he would have won, it was that close, not one being this much or that much faster, ....Heck even Penland won one and his bike doesn't have either the Dyna or the module