fish_antlers
Administrator
The Truth is Out There
Posts: 21895
|
posted February 07, 2006 05:51 PM
 Edited By: fish_antlers on 7 Feb 2006 18:16
OFFICIAL ZX-14 SPECS! 197 BHP! LINK TO PDF...
OFFICIAL ZX-14 SPECS.....
Click here to download the PDF! ....
MAX POWER WITH RAM AIR = 197 BHP 
____________
What business is it of yours where I'm from, Friendo?
   
|
fish_antlers
Administrator
The Truth is Out There
Posts: 21895
|
posted February 07, 2006 05:58 PM
"B" model is non-US ABS equipped.
____________
What business is it of yours where I'm from, Friendo?
|
chez
Expert Class
Posts: 134
|
posted February 07, 2006 06:08 PM
I want the B Model please with fries...........
____________
Chez
|
gunner
Needs a life
Posts: 5778
|
posted February 07, 2006 06:08 PM
Hmmm???????? Seems like that will probably be about 181 or so at the tire eh?
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted February 07, 2006 06:14 PM
some surprises in there (at elast to me). only 12:1? single piston rear caliper? can't imagine these things were done for cost savings so i assume they're onto a new design theory.
|
Fulltilt
Expert Class
Posts: 105
|
posted February 07, 2006 06:14 PM
It ain't real until a dealer sells one and the buyer rolls up to a dyno.
Numbers don't mean shite till then.
That being said, I'm sure it will be a stout figure.
|
dubious
Needs a life
Needs more time to ride!
Posts: 8442
|
posted February 07, 2006 06:20 PM
Edited By: dubious on 9 Feb 2006 20:09
9-12% drive losses?
Figure it out boys!
Was hoping for 25RWHP more than busa.
____________
natural selection.....
destiny will overcome intervention.
Some are not worthy of the effort.
|
dubious
Needs a life
Needs more time to ride!
Posts: 8442
|
posted February 07, 2006 06:31 PM
Edited By: dubious on 9 Feb 2006 20:11
??????????????????
____________
natural selection.....
destiny will overcome intervention.
Some are not worthy of the effort.
|
phil
Expert Class
Posts: 420
|
posted February 07, 2006 07:01 PM
Ok Rob, now whats the figures with a pipe and fuel map??????
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted February 07, 2006 07:10 PM
quote:
Thats 13 feet more torque than zx12 at peak, and..................
60 ftlbs more at 7500rpm!
Torque monster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It will pull like a frieght train.
Roll on king!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
a little more power than the 12 at peak, but gobs more power & torque over the rest of the powerband? if so, i definitely like.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 07, 2006 07:19 PM
Well, apparently in this case the correction factor for no-Ram-Air vs Ram Air is 5%, as the figures given are 200 PS with Ram Air, and 190 PS without.
At the crank.
Not that 12% is engraved in stone or always right for conversion between crank and Dynojet rear wheel hp, but using 12%, 190 PS at the crank (no Ram Air) suggests 167.2 Dynojet PS.
Converting 167.2 PS to SAE gives 164.9 hp at the rear wheel.
Which don't have my eyes bugging out 
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 07, 2006 07:36 PM
Edited By: trenace on 7 Feb 2006 19:37
However, for a more direct comparison, the ZX-12R B2 was rated at 178 PS with no Ram Air, so the Fourteen represents an improvement of 12 crank hp (PS) and if using a 12% correction for the rear wheel and converting to SAE, then about 10.3 hp at the rear wheel on a Dynojet.
So, if a given dyno would read the ZX-14 at 164.9 hp (and quite possibly there's one out there that would) then it should be assumed that that dyno would read a ZX-12R at about 155 hp.
And there are dynos that read ZX-12R's at around there.
So anyway, looks like about a 10 hp improvement which is not bad particularly given the peak torque and low-end (and presumably midrange) improvements.
|
dubious
Needs a life
Needs more time to ride!
Posts: 8442
|
posted February 07, 2006 07:57 PM
Edited By: dubious on 9 Feb 2006 20:09
Can someone confirm ram air / non ram air HP figures for zx12?
I think these zx12r figures were right from kawasaki service manual.
____________
natural selection.....
destiny will overcome intervention.
Some are not worthy of the effort.
|
dubious
Needs a life
Needs more time to ride!
Posts: 8442
|
posted February 07, 2006 08:08 PM
quote:
Ok Rob, now whats the figures with a pipe and fuel map??????
Bump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
____________
natural selection.....
destiny will overcome intervention.
Some are not worthy of the effort.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 07, 2006 08:10 PM
Edited By: trenace on 7 Feb 2006 20:15
If correct that's just a monstrous improvement of torque at 7500, which would really affect performance.
But wait a sec... the 12R make only 74 ft lb of torque at 7500? True you don't get near peak till 8000 but that still sounds low... going to go find a chart...
Yoshimura's chart for the stock 12R shows about 88 ft lb of torque AS DERIVED FROM REAR WHEEL MEASUREMENT.
The corresponding figure, if measured at the crankshaft, would be (on a 12% correction factor) about 100 ft lb.
So the improvement is not that utterly monstrous amount, but from about 100 to 113 ft lb. Very nice but now something not overly surprising.
|
supra5677
Pro
Posts: 1279
|
posted February 07, 2006 08:26 PM
Okay folks..Kilowatts gives us a perfect starting point.. On bikez..com The 2000 zx12r is rated at 135kw @10,000 rpms.. multiply by 1.34 to get crank horsepower and its 180.9 at the crank.. subtract 12% for drive train loss and you get 159.12 SAE.. The zx14 is rated at 140kw.. multiply by 1.34 and you get 187.6 crank horsepower.. Subtract 12% for drivetrain loss and it 165.08SAE. 6 more peak than zx12r but 13 more torque due to the massive plus 7mm stroke about. It will beat a hayabusa but then so do lots of bikes...
Not impressive considering pre production zx12r was rated at 176 p.s. at the wheel on the KHI dyno run..
supra
|
supra5677
Pro
Posts: 1279
|
posted February 07, 2006 08:29 PM
sorry folks not impressive.. It is not an "R" bike it was built to beat the hayabusa at the strip top speed war is over...I'm going to kiss my 12r in my garage 
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 07, 2006 08:38 PM
Edited By: trenace on 7 Feb 2006 20:39
Comparing the non-ABS to ABS models, apparently the ABS adds 6 or 7 lb.
That's right in the gray area... if it were 3 or 4 lb it would be commendably light, if it were 9 lb or more I'd call it a pig... I guess 6 or 7 lb is not too bad but it's not outstanding either. Of course the real question will be whether it really works right, which means, never interfering, only preventing what is actually excessive (and who wants what is actually more retardation of the wheel than gives maximum slowing of the bike.) That, is iffy, but sooner or later someone will do it.
|
fish_antlers
Administrator
The Truth is Out There
Posts: 21895
|
posted February 07, 2006 09:06 PM
The converted HP #'s are (from KMC)
quote:
190 ps = 187 bhp
200 ps = 197 bhp
____________
What business is it of yours where I'm from, Friendo?
|
dubious
Needs a life
Needs more time to ride!
Posts: 8442
|
posted February 07, 2006 09:12 PM
why can't I edit my posts?
it says my username does not correspond,.......... obviously i'm logged in.
Sorry everyone, my zx12r figures at 7500 rpm are wrong.
I hope Kawi is posting lower #'s than actual.
Now I'm really dissapointed.
Whats the point of calling it the:
" most powerful bike ",
"unparalleled levels of engine and chasis performance",
"a supersport machine the likes of which the world has never before seen"
etc etc ....
I could write a short story with all their statements
All the hype.....................................
WTF?
____________
natural selection.....
destiny will overcome intervention.
Some are not worthy of the effort.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 07, 2006 09:16 PM
Well, being most powerful by a modest number of hp like 10 hp is still the most powerful.
As for the "sell," it's how bikes are "sold." So long as the statements aren't factually false there's nothing to complain about.
|
gunner
Needs a life
Posts: 5778
|
posted February 07, 2006 09:19 PM
hehehehehehehehehehehehehe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't help it...
|
dubious
Needs a life
Needs more time to ride!
Posts: 8442
|
posted February 07, 2006 09:46 PM
Edited By: dubious on 9 Feb 2006 20:14
Trenace do you work for Kawi or what?
Glad I did not pay more than $14, 700 Canadian OTD, GST included
I said it before and will say it again, If they burn me it would be the last time.
With all the hype
(go now and read the internet sites Kawi .ca, and Kawi.com, an read the brochures)
they may as well have been lying to us all.
10 more HP is a joke.
You know Suzuki will fix that next year.
I almost feel like telling them I want a zx10- last years its lighter and more HP or, buying a GSXR1000.
I wanted dragster power not dads touring bike.
When I heard the mediocre peak #'s I was expecting a humungous fat curve and could live with that.
I'm paying 1400cc insurance premiums, while 1000 rockets pull away?
How dumb is that?
I'm just getting started.
I'm going now before I start to Rant.
____________
natural selection.....
destiny will overcome intervention.
Some are not worthy of the effort.
|
gunner
Needs a life
Posts: 5778
|
posted February 07, 2006 10:05 PM
Hell, Trumpet makes that screwed up lookin 3 cylinder thing that makes 147 Ft pounds of torque.. Whoo Hooo!!! It's ugly as hell so who would want it. Now Kawasaki makes this thing with what 113? It's also ugly and FAT! Yea that's what I'm going to do trade my beautiful super model ZX12R for a Tug Boat anchor ZX14 
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 07, 2006 10:26 PM
Gunner you know you cannot make that comparison validly, because since the Triumph produces the figure at 1/2 the rpm or less, the torque enjoys less than half as much multiplication through the transmission, and the torque at the rear wheel is therefore less not more.
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC