2001 Power Commander 3 Usb Maps For Stock Air Staintune Exhaust

Okay, I have a euro map that matches the bike but it has a flat spot around 7K or so. I have looked around and have found maps that I would like to try but the file exptentions do not match the PC3 usb. Some of the maps have a .map extention that does not work what I am looking for is the .djm extention. Anyone have maps from the Power commander site with the correct extensions? The Power commander sites downloads do not work.

I am not looking really looking for more performance, but that would be okay, what I want is a smooth powerband.

Failing this I will have to play some what blindly with the settings or fork over the dough to have the bike dyno'd, which I will do but would prefer to spend the cash on beer 8)

Thanks.

maxredline

Okay, I have a euro map that matches the bike but it has a flat spot around 7K or so. I have looked around and have found maps that I would like to try but the file exptentions do not match the PC3 usb. Some of the maps have a .map extention that does not work what I am looking for is the .djm extention. Anyone have maps from the Power commander site with the correct extensions? The Power commander sites downloads do not work.

I am not looking really looking for more performance, but that would be okay, what I want is a smooth powerband.

Failing this I will have to play some what blindly with the settings or fork over the dough to have the bike dyno'd, which I will do but would prefer to spend the cash on beer 8)

Thanks.

Interesting about the downloads from the D.J. site. I looked for one for my 5th gen and it had the correct extension. They may have some that are corrupted. Maybe try this link in the Downloads section. Once unzipped you should have all the maps for the 2000/2001 model.

http://www.vfrdiscussion.com/forum/index.php/files/file/11-2000-2001-vfr-power-commander-maps/

Cogs, nope I have been there. The .map extention does not work on my PC's PC3 program.

Maybe I'm missing something?

An old post of mine, might help.

Air Filter

Started with the air filter, everything you read is K&N, but on the VFR the K&N filter is the same net area as the standard filter. Reading a little more came across BMC filters, had a look and noticed that the filter pad was the same footprint as the standard filter, but they claimed better air flow. Having purchased it is pretty obvious why, the panel is at least twice as deep as the standard. I would guess the filter area is twice the standard. Dropped straight in.

Air Box

Next looked at the modification to the air box. Many recommend removing the snorkel, and disconnecting the flapper. Primary reason for their existence is acoustic, remove the snorkel and plug the flapper and the induction noise is significantly better, and compliments the Staintune. If I was planning on riding in heavy rain, don’t know that I would do it, but these days I’m a fair weather rider.

But does removing the snorkel make any difference? Found a posting where someone had run it on a dyno, with and without the snorkel. VFRWorld post. In a nutshell added about 1HP, or 1%, across most of the range. A gain is a gain, but obviously the snorkel restricts air flow, and if you bump the air filter area, then you need al the help you can get.

What to plug the flapper control hose with? I disassembled a Dynabolt, it has a tapered solid core, perfect to push into the pipe and slightly expand the end to ensure a seal.

Power Commander

Got conflicting stories on which model suited the ’99 VFR. Answer is PC III USB. I bought the PC and BMC filter from RevZilla. Much cheaper that buying in Aus. US$288 for the PCIII USB, US$72 for the BMC Air filter, US$43 for shipping.

Plug’s straight in. Instructions simply say run the cable behind the frame from the ECU connection near the front left radiator to the PC unit near the battery under the seat. Not as simple as it sounds as you have two bulky plugs on the head of the lead. I threaded some solid core electrical wire through and then pulled it from the rear to the front of the bike, fiddley, but patience will reward you a neat installation path, and you can cable tie the PC cables to the existing cables.

Next problem is that most of the maps are to suit the US models, which are set for lower octane fuel.

After looking at various maps, and considering that I don’t use the restrictor on the Staintune I opted for the M101-703 European model, Remus Grand Prix slip-on exhaust, Stock or aftermarket airfilter. At least until I get to a dyno. This map is designed for 98 octane.

Finally, read about the accelerator pump feature, so downloaded the software and set that up. Did a little digging around and found the following settings recommended.

• Sensitivity: 80%
• Engine Revolutions: 30
• % FuelChange : 15

How’s It Go?

Much smoother, revs out much better, pulls harder all the way to the red line, lots of torque down low. Accelerator pump makes all of the difference, gives a real kick when you snap open the throttle. Found this out first time I took it out for a run, took off at the lights, medium speed, got to about 5k and thought, wonder how it revs out now, snapped open the throttle, it pulled a torque wheelie. Similar experience on the freeway at around 110 in 5th gear, car in the way, needed to get a move on, snapped open the throttle, nice kick as it took off.

Sound, with the restrictor out of the Staintune, and the induction sound to match, sounds fantastic.

Recommend these mods to any VFR rider if you want to give the old girl a bit of a new lease of life.

I have all of the DJM maps plus a few I have modified. Send me an email and I can send them to you. superhawk99(at)hotmail.com

PCiii has a function called "import map file." So don't click on the map file, don't selection "open", but select this import function instead.

I think the velocity stacks are all the same size on the 5th gen. If you are not the first owner, take a peek at them in case they were changed by the prior owner or such.

Here you go, all fixed.

ca315

An old post of mine, might help.

Air Filter

Started with the air filter, everything you read is K&N, but on the VFR the K&N filter is the same net area as the standard filter. Reading a little more came across BMC filters, had a look and noticed that the filter pad was the same footprint as the standard filter, but they claimed better air flow. Having purchased it is pretty obvious why, the panel is at least twice as deep as the standard. I would guess the filter area is twice the standard. Dropped straight in.

The Pipercross air filter is the only filter offered for the VFR800 that has any improvement in air flow. The cross sectional area of the BMC and K&N air filters is tiny compared to the oem filter and the BMC air filter sits on top of the factory velocity stacks, which can not be good for air distribution. The Pipercross air filter uses all available surface area for the filter media and it has a convex shape that gives the velocity stacks plenty of breathing room.

Air Box

Next looked at the modification to the air box. Many recommend removing the snorkel, and disconnecting the flapper. Primary reason for their existence is acoustic, remove the snorkel and plug the flapper and the induction noise is significantly better, and compliments the Staintune. If I was planning on riding in heavy rain, don’t know that I would do it, but these days I’m a fair weather rider.

But does removing the snorkel make any difference? Found a posting where someone had run it on a dyno, with and without the snorkel. VFRWorld post. In a nutshell added about 1HP, or 1%, across most of the range. A gain is a gain, but obviously the snorkel restricts air flow, and if you bump the air filter area, then you need al the help you can get.

What to plug the flapper control hose with? I disassembled a Dynabolt, it has a tapered solid core, perfect to push into the pipe and slightly expand the end to ensure a seal.

Power Commander

Got conflicting stories on which model suited the ’99 VFR. Answer is PC III USB. I bought the PC and BMC filter from RevZilla. Much cheaper that buying in Aus. US$288 for the PCIII USB, US$72 for the BMC Air filter, US$43 for shipping.

Plug’s straight in. Instructions simply say run the cable behind the frame from the ECU connection near the front left radiator to the PC unit near the battery under the seat. Not as simple as it sounds as you have two bulky plugs on the head of the lead. I threaded some solid core electrical wire through and then pulled it from the rear to the front of the bike, fiddley, but patience will reward you a neat installation path, and you can cable tie the PC cables to the existing cables.

Next problem is that most of the maps are to suit the US models, which are set for lower octane fuel.

This is false. The US uses a (RON+MON)/2 octane rating scale, whereas Australia uses a RON octane rating scale. Your 90 is equal to our 87 and your 98 is equal to our 93. This is all meaningless as Honda has tuned the VFR800 to run on Regular 87 (RON+MON)/2 or 90 RON, and nothing you do with a Power Commander will change this. The only reason to use premium fuel in a VFR800 would be if you advanced the ignition map timing, raised the dynamic compression or added forced induction.

After looking at various maps, and considering that I don’t use the restrictor on the Staintune I opted for the M101-703 European model, Remus Grand Prix slip-on exhaust, Stock or aftermarket airfilter. At least until I get to a dyno. This map is designed for 98 octane.

Finally, read about the accelerator pump feature, so downloaded the software and set that up. Did a little digging around and found the following settings recommended.

• Sensitivity: 80%
• Engine Revolutions: 30
• % FuelChange : 15

How’s It Go?

Much smoother, revs out much better, pulls harder all the way to the red line, lots of torque down low. Accelerator pump makes all of the difference, gives a real kick when you snap open the throttle. Found this out first time I took it out for a run, took off at the lights, medium speed, got to about 5k and thought, wonder how it revs out now, snapped open the throttle, it pulled a torque wheelie. Similar experience on the freeway at around 110 in 5th gear, car in the way, needed to get a move on, snapped open the throttle, nice kick as it took off.

Sound, with the restrictor out of the Staintune, and the induction sound to match, sounds fantastic.

Recommend these mods to any VFR rider if you want to give the old girl a bit of a new lease of life.

CandyRedRC46

Here you go, all fixed.

ca315

Got conflicting stories on which model suited the ’99 VFR. Answer is PC III USB.

If anyone is looking to specify a PC today, the PCV is fine for the 5th gen. See my blog entry on the VFRWorld for details.

"The Pipercross air filter is the only filter offered for the VFR800 that has any improvement in air flow. The cross sectional area of the BMC and K&N air filters is tiny compared to the oem filter and the BMC air filter sits on top of the factory velocity stacks, which can not be good for air distribution. The Pipercross air filter uses all available surface area for the filter media and it has a convex shape that gives the velocity stacks plenty of breathing room."

Be that as it may, as a mechanical engineer specializing in air conditioning, I can assure you that the BMC is considerable greater filter areas than OEM. The filters are folded into a V to compress the footprint. The area of the filter media is measured by depth of the V, or if you want to trash the filter, pull it out and stretch it out and measure the area of the filter media when it is laid out flat. The BMC filter Vs are at least twice the depth of OEM.

The Pipecross is a foam filer and the BMC a paper filter. The Pipecross filter has to be the full width as they cannot fold the foam into a V, the concave shape will also increase the area, and stop it getting sucked into the stacks. The metal reinforced paper does not have the same structural issue.

To compare filter areas you would have to lay the filter area of the BMC paper flat over the Pipecross foam and compare areas. You would also have to air flow the two media to compare air flow at the maximum air intake of the engine.

Also note that the optimum area of the opening into the air box to match engine air intake is achieved by removing the snorkel and flappers.

ca315

"The Pipercross air filter is the only filter offered for the VFR800 that has any improvement in air flow. The cross sectional area of the BMC and K&N air filters is tiny compared to the oem filter and the BMC air filter sits on top of the factory velocity stacks, which can not be good for air distribution. The Pipercross air filter uses all available surface area for the filter media and it has a convex shape that gives the velocity stacks plenty of breathing room."

Be that as it may, as a mechanical engineer specializing in air conditioning, I can assure you that the BMC is considerable greater filter areas than OEM. The filters are folded into a V to compress the footprint. The area of the filter media is measured by depth of the V, or if you want to trash the filter, pull it out and stretch it out and measure the area of the filter media when it is laid out flat. The BMC filter Vs are at least twice the depth of OEM.

The Pipecross is a foam filer and the BMC a paper filter. The Pipecross filter has to be the full width as they cannot fold the foam into a V, the concave shape will also increase the area, and stop it getting sucked into the stacks. The metal reinforced paper does not have the same structural issue.

To compare filter areas you would have to lay the filter area of the BMC paper flat over the Pipecross foam and compare areas. You would also have to air flow the two media to compare air flow at the maximum air intake of the engine.

Also note that the optimum area of the opening into the air box to match engine air intake is achieved by removing the snorkel and flappers.

I am also an ME and an EE as well.

The BMC filter was not designed as a performance filter for the VFR800, it was just designed as a reusable replacement. Unfolded filter area aside, BMC purposely reduced the opening of the filter so it would not flow any more air over the oem filter, that way no fueling changes would be necessary to use the BMC filter, as most Sport touring bike owner's do not want to have to have a custom dyno tune done, just to run an air filter. Most VFR owners only buy the KN and BMC filters to save money by cleaning and reusing. There have been a few that bought the KN and BMC under false hopes of greater air flow, I was one, and they were sadly mistaken. When my BMC arrived, I was very disappointed. A few years later, my BMC filter fell apart and I found out about the Pipercross filter, ordered it and was not let down.

It doesn't matter how much filter media you fold into a given opening size or how deep you make those folds, an air filter will only flow as much air as the opening of that filter allows and the BMC opening has been significantly reduced. I have a feeling that the depth of the BMC air filter media, was not designed for more air flow, but just incompetence on BMC's end, trying to add more dirt/dust/particle capacity and not properly measuring the velocity stack clearance.

By the way, BMC is not a paper filter as you just stated, it is simply an Italian copy of K&N's cotton gauze reinforced by a metal screen, though it was a poor copy, as the BMC's hard plastic body does not support the cotton gauze filter media as well as the K&N's soft rubber body. The BMC will separate and fall apart over time and is not lifetime warrantied as the KN is. Please ask me how I know this ;)

I think you are confusing the unfolded filter media area's ability for contaminant capacity, for increased air flow potential. Unfolded filter area will possibly add some air flow to a degree if the media is highly restrictive and the opening is small, but its main purpose is to allow more contaminant filtering capacity.

"It doesn't matter how much filter media you fold into a given opening size or how deep you make those folds, an air filter will only flow as much air as the opening of that filter allows and the BMC opening has been significantly reduced. "

That's nonsense. The BMC opening is slightly smaller than the OEM, at least on the one I purchased, the K&N is noticeably smaller than OEM. The opening on all is far greater area than the opening into the housing, which is the ultimate restriction. The BMC filter is at lease twice as deep as the OEM, which makes it effectively well over the size of the OEM, can't comment on the K&N filter depth.

The free area required into the VFR engine at a maximum RPM is only around 2,500 sq mm or about 40mm x 63mm (max two cylinders are drawing air at any one time). So the size of the opening is not the defining factor in this case, it is clearly larger than this. The filter is sized to minimize resistance and to lower the air velocity across the face of the filter media sufficiency for it to trap the contaminants. So you work backwards. Take the total air flow and the desired face velocity on the media to give you a total filter area required. That is the size of the opening required, however the physical opening size can be reduced if you fold the media.

The larger the filter media area, the less resistance to air flow and/or greater air flow for the nominated resistance of the media. The greater the media area, the greater the capacity to trap contaminants and maintain air flow without imposing too high a resistance on the air flow. Air conditioning filtration design 101.

If you compare the total area of the foam media of the Pipercross, which is a flat shape to the total area media area of BMC, K&N or OEM then the Pipecross will have the least total face area of media, which means that the air velocity across the Pipercross media must be higher.

However the design of the Pipecross has the media further away from the stacks which probably results in similar performance, whereas the air flow across the paper filters will be focused on a smaller area. Even if the filter V is close to the stack, the total effective area of media through which air flows will be well above the area of the stack.

Pretty brave to call a major manufacturer incompetent. Better give the Yamaha MotoGP team a call and warn them.

Gentlemen, dyno measurements, five minutes apart, with the only change being the filter, would be the only evidence that would truly matter to us onlookers. In the process one might as well test the OEM filter too. Even if similar data was obtained previously it would behoove us to have a new result in 2016, given the hidden design changes that manufacturers make.

I would gladly help crowdsource this with a $20 donation. For a long time now I have been tired of reading marketing and theoretical nonsense about of all things, the staple air filter. The proof is in the pudding intake.

Yamaha does not have the filter media sitting directly on top of the velocity stacks.... Nor does it have the filter opening closed up on top of the velocity stacks....

The OILGuy has a good info on this.

In the top left corner is the heavily advertised K&N. Going in standard English (not Arab) book order (left to right etc.), next is the Amsoil air filter. (Click on images to enlarge.)
After that is the Napa Gold paper air filter.

On the bottom row are the Jackson Racing filter, Racing Beat air filter, and the Fram air filter I removed from the box from the previous owner. That Fram had to rob airflow seeing all the metal in the backing. It has to be blocking 30% or more of the total area for airflow. The K&N is of course a steel cage with cotton gauge lining inside the cage which is oiled. I have used K&N air filters for years on various cars. I always heard they let in more dirt. It is actually the argument over flow and filtration on the internet that inspired this test.

There are no definitive independent tests. Automotive enthusiasts have to rely on the claims of filter makers, which I feel are misleading. The Amsoil filter is a two stage foam air filter with a backing steel mesh. The first foam is coarse, and the upper foam below the cage is a very fine foam a lot like you see in HEPA filters. The initial foam is very coarse and definitely synthetic like a plastic. Think of the plastic scratch pads for pots and pans. The Jackson racing filter is almost identical in construction to the Amsoil expect it has a rubber gasket around the edges like the K&N and paper filters to fit the stock airbox. The Amsoil is oversized a small amount and just squeezes down into the airbox. The Racing Beat filter is really just one layer of very fine foam with a metal backing. The Napa filter is just their stock Napa Gold offering. It is some sort of paper and fiber combination with a metal frame down the middle and the rubber ring around it.

Everyone says Fram air filters are not that good, but I have no evidence for or against them. I’m not testing one, however I did use a Fram filter to make the 2nd stage filter. I hacked up a new Fram filter to do it. I used some of the screen wire as backing and the paper / synthetic fiber filtration material to make my test filter. This filter is placed behind the test subject to trap any particles (most of them anyway; no filter is 100% efficient) passing through the test subject. I placed the 2nd (made from the Fram) filter with screen (don’t want to suck a piece of paper into your engine or air meter) between the airbox and air meter.

Here is the view of the second filter from the air box:

[image: test2-300x225.jpg]

The next photo shows the pieces apart. You can see the screen used for the 2nd filter. You can see a dirty 2nd filter after a test. You can also see the flapper door air meter (vane air meter), and the airbox top. The main filter sits between the airbox top and bottom.

Pieces and parts:[image: test1-300x225.jpg]

Did you see the dirty 2nd filter? Well that is the result of experiment #1. The test subject was the K&N air filter. Yes it let many particles pass through. The K&N was tested for 501 miles. For those that are curious, the test was conducted in Western WA state during the last week of November and December. All of the driving was on public paved roads. The climate here is damp during this time of the year and definitely not dirty or dusty. This is probably the best case scenario in all honesty. I was shocked by the look of the 2nd filter. I drive this car 6-8K miles a year. Many have asked if the black left on the filter is dirt or is it possibly oil residue. It is indeed dirt and not oil. The same type of deposits were left using a paper Napa filter which has no oil on it at all. That should be the end of that theory.

K&N air filter 501 miles, test 1:[image: kn1-300x225.jpg]

The filtration test portion for the Amsoil air filter has also been completed. This was my first experience with an Amsoil air filter. I can say without hesitation that it is by far harder to service than the K&N air filter. You have to wash the filter using warm soapy water. Then you have to literally wring the water out, rinse, wring…. And then you have to let it dry which takes a long time. After that you have to impregnate it with the Amsoil filter oil which means squishing it into the foam pores by hand. Then you get to sop up the excess oil with a rag. It was messy and tedious. According to all the information I’ve ever read published by Amsoil and on their web sites their filter is the best at flow and filtration. Well the filtration portion is done, and the pictures don’t lie. The filter was serviced properly. Here is the first photo of the test filter by itself.

Amsoil air filter 503 miles, test 2:[image: amsoil1-300x225.jpg]

The first photo is using no flash from the digital camera and the 2nd photo is using the flash. The flash tends to really show how thin the dirt layer is, but the 2nd photo shows a better difference in the amount of dirt on the filters. In the Navy we often use color comparison as a valid test in various chemistry analysis procedures. One of the tests in particular has you distinguish between shades of gray and black. The test are accurate, and there is no way this test is false in this regard either. Let’s have a look at those photos.

Comparison photos of the Amsoil test filter next to K&N test filter:
[image: amsoil2-300x225.jpg]

So are you surprised by the results? I was. I figured the Amsoil filter probably would filter better. At best, it is just as good as the K&N. According to the photos it is slightly worse. My wife who is a business major in college and sure has no stake in which one is which stated the Amsoil one was darker too. I put them both in front of her with the hand written sample text covered. She picked the Amsoil filter darkest, and she sure doesn’t care about the results.

The results are in for the Napa paper filter. I always heard on the ‘net that paper filters best. It does, but it isn’t as superior as I thought it would be. The K&N doesn’t filter nearly as bad as the horror stories say, and again the Amsoil was a disappointment. Here are two pictures comparing all 3. The first is with no flash, and the 2nd uses the flash in the same exact location and same wattage lighting as in the K&N / Amsoil comparison photos from above. My wife again established an order for filtration based on color not knowing which test filter is which, not caring, but putting up with my silliness anyway. She said the Napa filtered best, followed by the K&N, and last the Amsoil. She again reiterated that the Amsoil and K&N are very close as well. The Napa was clearly the lightest in color with the least particulate deposited.

NAPA air filter 498 miles, test 3:
[image: napa1-300x225.jpg]
[image: napa2-300x225.jpg]

Also tested were the Jackson Racing two stage foam filter, a Mazda factory replacement, and a Baldwin filter. The Mazda is a fiberous filter, and so is the Baldwin. The Baldwin filter is the red one in the picture below and the Mazda one is white. The Jackson racing filter performed very similar to the Amsoil foam filter, and the other two fiberous filters (Mazda and Baldwin) performed much like the Napa filter. Using the shade of gray comparison test, the Baldwin may have a slight edge in filtration. A longer duration or bench test may show a more significant difference.

The next contenders:
[image: mazbal-300x214.jpg]

After 3500 miles of filtration testing, I am done. 3,500 miles of horrible power is more than I can bear. The secondary filter really kills flow and power above 4500 rpm, which is when a Miata starts to come to life. I’ve actually been done for a few months now, but haven’t bothered posting the results until now. I tested the Baldwin filter twice and observed the same results both times to verify repeatability. Anyway, here are the final 6 test filters all gathered together with a picture, and another picture using the flash. From top left to bottom right, the test filters were: Jackson Racing, Amsoil, K&N, Mazda, Baldwin, and Napa. The Mazda and Baldwin filters were also tested for 500 miles.

[image: final1-300x225.jpg]
[image: final2-300x225.jpg]

Well there is a clear pattern on filtration ability compared to both flow and the type of filtration media used. The “high performance” cotton gauze and foam filters do not filter as well as some have claimed. I actually received an e-mail from K&N stating their filters filter within 99% of the OEM filters. This may be true, and 1% may not sound like much. I contend that 1% over many miles, may be important. Really, it is up to each individual to decide. The poorer flowing filters remove more particles, and the better flowing filters remove less particles. If you think about it, that conclusion passes any and all common sense tests, so it is not surprising. There are many that will be shocked by the results, though that should not be. I’ve used high performance filters in the past, and I might again in the future. At the same time, I know that the stock OEM type filters perform very well in filtration and don’t inhibit flow nearly as much as some think.

I know it will be asked…. The K&N was properly cleaned and serviced using a K&N filter recharging kit which I personally own (owned quite a few K&Ns). The Amsoil filter was serviced with Amsoil filter oil. The others will be serviced with the appropriate oil as well. The paper air filter will be installed…. I did have a question regarding the deposit on the filter possibly being oil. It is dirt. I took a piece of my 2nd filter test stock and put a few drops of K&N filter oil on it. The oil stays bright red on the filter as well. One person even mentioned the dirt in their area isn’t that black. Well this is Western WA state where everything grows lush green. I live 90 minutes from full fledged rain forest and the soil here is black like topsoil. I guess I could take a picture of my white powder coated wheels turned black from road dirt if I had to. If you have a HEPA filtration air purifier in your home and have ever changed the HEPA filter, you will notice that it too is black. The Napa paper filter tested showed the same black deposits. Paper filters have no oil on them, so the oil hypothesis is a dead issue. In the e-mail I received from K&N, I actually got contradictory information on this point. They claimed that the deposit on my test filter was oil (it isn’t), and then they said oil does not leave the filter and damage mass air sensors. Honestly, you can’t have it both ways. Either oil leaves the filter or it doesn’t. Oil will damage a mass air sensor if it gets on the sensor wiring. This is highly documented by TSBs easily available online.

Some have asked that additional filters such as Wix, Fram, and ITG foam be tested. Only the filters listed above will be tested. I do not have the funds, time or desire to test every possible filter. A clear pattern already exists. Foam is foam no matter who makes it. Fibrous filters are still fibrous filters, and paper is still paper. Sure there are minor differences, but in this test a clear pattern emerged based on basic filtration media rather quickly. I personally do not like the difficulties associated with servicing foam filters. I do enjoy the simple drop in of an OEM style filter. Imagine servicing and changing 5+ filters in one day for pressure drop testing. You begin to dislike serviceable filters quickly.

Tags: Air Filter, Testing

• Air Filtration Test
• Air Filter Filtration Test
• Air Filtration Test Disclaimer
• Air Filtration Future Testing

• Max Online: 2862 members
• Occurred: 07/07/14 03:10 PM

maxredline

Okay, I have a euro map that matches the bike but it has a flat spot around 7K or so. I have looked around and have found maps that I would like to try but the file exptentions do not match the PC3 usb. Some of the maps have a .map extention that does not work what I am looking for is the .djm extention. Anyone have maps from the Power commander site with the correct extensions? The Power commander sites downloads do not work.

I am not looking really looking for more performance, but that would be okay, what I want is a smooth powerband.

Failing this I will have to play some what blindly with the settings or fork over the dough to have the bike dyno'd, which I will do but would prefer to spend the cash on beer 8)

Thanks.

I am having the same problem.

Corkey

maxredline

Okay, I have a euro map that matches the bike but it has a flat spot around 7K or so. I have looked around and have found maps that I would like to try but the file exptentions do not match the PC3 usb. Some of the maps have a .map extention that does not work what I am looking for is the .djm extention. Anyone have maps from the Power commander site with the correct extensions? The Power commander sites downloads do not work.

I am not looking really looking for more performance, but that would be okay, what I want is a smooth powerband.

Failing this I will have to play some what blindly with the settings or fork over the dough to have the bike dyno'd, which I will do but would prefer to spend the cash on beer 8)

Thanks.

I am having the same problem.

If you mean you are having problems opening a map, see my post #6 above.