RCU Forums - View Single Post - another darn ryobi post (ryobi performance modification, analysis and comparison)
Old 04-22-2009 | 08:30 PM
  #375  
combatpilot's Avatar
combatpilot
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: springfield, MO
Default RE: another darn ryobi post (ryobi performance modification, analysis and comparison)

You failed, that is how you come across .......
yea thats what i was affraid of. That sure isnt what i want to do. Im just so damn sick and tired of that website being thrown up here. it seems everytime it comes up and gets posted again its like non of the information we here have put together was even read by the individual posting it. To some extent it even feels like a personal insult like all our results are bull and this guy or any other site on here is the authority on this subject. Im not saying thsat we are but i think our cumulative results are very interesting and speak for themselves. I know their just trying to help when linking these sites and I do appreciate that but the info on these sites just dont work. Course that is my opinion also and should be taken as just that as I have always said to begin with.

Oh god here i go again (somebody stop me lol)

It is curious that pereivers performance RPM numbers are so far below what we are getting.

The date/update on his page dates back to June of 2001. There may have been a lot of design/re-design work done by the factory on the motor since then that would make the newer ones perform that much better. I have no performance experience with the older Ryobi motors but just from looking at the piston/ring design it is clear that there is a great improvement from the old single ring piston to the newer two ring piston. BTW pereivers mentions nothing about pistons or rings on his page.

We know nothing about the ambient conditions prevailing during his tests but even if they were vastly different than the conditions of our tests it would only be several hundred RPM and not a 1000 RPM difference.

pereivers mentions exhaust back pressure as being a detriment to the motor's performance and mentions that he's using tuned pipes, but other than that doesn't say much about it. In his photo there is the header of what looks like a tuned pipe. I wonder if his pipe design is what has made his motor perform so poorly. Jennings accounts clearly that if you mess up the design of the pipe you'll cause the motor to perform worse than with a properly configured one, and by inference maybe worse than a modified stock muffler!

Maybe his tach was not working correctly. There is only prop speed data and no thrust data to cross check the RPM data.

diceco
Or maybee its that none of these mods really work as we have discovered. the most important factors of ryobi performane is already in this thread.