Hit s sensitive area heh. New multi another trip to the tuners. A twin will not be as smooth as a four period.
Unless you change your pipe, or add a filter, or remove the cat after you have it mapped. The only downside of a custom map; once its done tuning and easy bolt on changes are expensive. With a PC its half the cost for a full dyno and you can just sling an interim map of there to do most of the job
you mean there's not a built in sat nav in all that weird and presumably wonderful electrickery doodaah John?!... Oh.... and what with all the new acronyms and everything - and the lights which can see around corners - I'm keen on the new Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) thing that they seem to be calling their valve things as well - I was getting excited!....I'm a little disappointed now!....:Asshat: I'm looking forward to trying it out with my short-arsed little legs at the NEC though, DVT or not!...I'll just wear support tights...
I total agree that twin will never be as smooth as a four nor will a four be as smooth as a six. My only reason for a remap "tune" if you like is to remove the low down roughness, which it does easily. It's got nothing to do with wanting a Honda. My brothers fireblade is a wicked machine and I only sold my urban tiger as it wasn't being ridden. I'm not aware of any one on any forum us asking Ducati for variable valve geometry! This is sometimes Ducati have come up with to smooth out the bottom end while maintaining EU regulations. My 2010 s model was virtually unrideable below 3000rpm compared to my 998S. Change the pipe, filter and a remap transformed the machine. My 2013 PP is superb, but way too quiet. New termis, decat and remap on the way, but for difference reasons than before.
Act, there is an answer to that : keep it above 3 instead Yes Mt 2010 and 12 for that matter won't pull a higher gear smoothly below 3, so I pick a more appropriate gear, and if in town use a bit of clutch now and then. It's no big deal imo. Try a guzzI and see how smooth the duc is in comparison. I didn't want or need the twin spark head, or now the dvt, but it's continuous improvement. Without it, it's difficult for a company to maintain or increase its market share. The fact people are discussing the new beemer etc shows we are a fickle bunch in general, and like new things. I think the new features will be enough to take sales from those that may have gone elsewhere, or possibly upgrade because the timing is right. It may also help to satisfy those who have come from in line 4s and find the lumpiness easier to complain about than to modify their riding to suit (not saying your complaining mate, but I know others who are). The timing isn't right for me, regardless of how much I would like some of the upgrades, so although I will try it, I doubt I will change.
I'll try one. Not for the gozmos, tbh I dont ride mine like I need the gizmos, almost never see the flashing dash lights come on, but the seat height adjustability (with a low seat pitentially dropping it further) may mean I can keep longer term
Hear hear! to the remap. Getting rid of the exhaust valve and fitting a decat. made vast improvements. Having the cylinders mapped by CJS transformed the bike. A twin will never be as smooth as a four but I can now ride it round town quite happily and it will pull smoothly from 2k without stuttering. All this means that, despite the expense of a belt service looming, I won't be rushing to trade my 2012 Mutley for a 15 model just yet.
Thank you for your insight @John W however you've missed my point. With a Remap the 2010 model is a dream from 1200 RPM, mainly due to the lack of exhaust valve and correct fuelling. My 2013 PP Twinspark is being remapped as it will be too lean with the new Termis and new air filter. You can have a smooth 2010-2014 Multistrada without compromise and I'm sure the DVT will be even better.
Not a helpful or relevant post. Did I argue that a twin was as smooth as a four?...No. 2+2=4 Just another correct, but irrelevant fact for this thread, it has no place here; the same as post #21.
Act I think you missed my point too. For some of us we don't need the level of smoothness your after. I could be wrong ( and am sure will be corrected if I am ) but a side effect of the tune is increased fuel consumption. I do a lot of trips so economy is more important to me than having smoothness at low revs. The twin spark is more fuel efficient and maybe the new dvt will be better still. They might have even fixed the atrocious fuel economy when it's cold too, and tune doesn't seem to fix this, according to others I ride with who have had a remap. cheers John.
On my evo it used no more or less fuel mpost map than before. Given the richness still at the bottom emd, you could smell it around town, I reckon urban was worse but extra urban and on the throttle better mpg I did benson before and after. Both had the fuel light come on at around 50 miles
Fuel economy is not a concern, however the twin spark is at least 10-15% better than the remapped 2010 model, but this considerably more powerful. 32k miles on the 2010 and 3.5k on the recent twin spark so I'm not a shrinking violet when it comes to miles.
My 2010 averaged around 30mpg, regardless of how I generally rode it on the road, or how cold it was. My 2012 is atrocious when it is cold out, dropping to around 30mpg even when taking it easy. I posted about it back in May. A couple of my mates had been saying how poor mpg wise their bikes were in the cold, and until I got this bike I thought they were mistaken. The bike smells so rich it is unbelievable, it's like the bike is not warming up and permanently on choke settings. This is the one reason I may get a remap.
Afaik mine does 130 miles to 14l fuel ish. Seems be very little change regardless how I ride it. Unless I have panniers fitted and tour at a ton. Or on track.
My remapped 2010 does +35mpg unless I'm trying to loose my license. The twin spark is always +40 to 45mpg. I must admit that the temperature on both models appears to stick around the 70-80C only going higher in traffic.
Just noticed the typo in my earlier post. The 2010 did 39mpg, not 30. My bike often shows 60 degrees when it's colder. I reckon it generally shows 10 degrees less than my old one did. my mates is the same. He has tried blocking off part of the rad and it makes little difference. His is a 2011 bike. 130 miles to 14 litres is what the 2010 used to do, and the 12 does if it is warm. It's nearer 120 to 18 litres if it's cold though.
