Rubber Pants
Zone Head
Posts: 798
|
posted March 10, 2005 03:21 PM
05 GSXR 1000 Dyno # s With Yosh Pipe!
I found some accurate info on this GSXR for those who really care anyways. Here it is:
2005 GSXR 1000 stock 150 HP Yosh's dyno with Full titanium race pipe 160 HP
2005 ZX 10 R stock 152 HP with their system on 157 HP
Just some food for thought for those of us getting bored etc.
____________
"Ya Gotta Have Big Ones!"
speeddemons.com
   
|
sp500
Expert Class
Posts: 195
|
posted March 10, 2005 07:34 PM
Im very bored so ill reply.
|
sp500
Expert Class
Posts: 195
|
posted March 10, 2005 07:35 PM
 Edited By: sp500 on 10 Mar 2005 19:35
Having said that though i think the gixxer has much better torque right across the rev range.
|
thonczarenko
Novice Class
Posts: 61
|
posted March 11, 2005 05:59 AM
At least they are not making 164 at the wheels (stock) , like everybody was saying.
____________
Far Beyond Driven
|
k bryant
Needs a job
Sponsor
Posts: 2911
|
posted March 11, 2005 12:07 PM
Edited By: k bryant on 11 Mar 2005 12:18
Those numbers are essentially accurate. The GSXR I ran put out a few more stock.
The 05, R1 was almost 4 down (hp/tq).
When you overlay the graphs (I tested with a 04 ZX10) on them, the GSXR & ZX10 are almost a mirror image. They pull strong and linear from 2k on up. Very smooth graphs. The R1 has lots of dips/valleys in both hp/tq. It also peaks much later.
All the open bikes are within a few of each other. Choose whatever makes you happy and hang on for dear life. 
|
thonczarenko
Novice Class
Posts: 61
|
posted March 11, 2005 02:07 PM
"Choose whatever makes you happy and hang on for dear life."
I can't wait for the snow to melt so I can get those feelings again!!!
____________
Far Beyond Driven
|
boman
Expert Class
Posts: 410
|
posted March 11, 2005 02:23 PM
The ZX10 make me very happy.......
____________
Don't hate me because I own a 10 Hate me because you cant ride it !
|
SP8
Novice Class
Posts: 72
|
posted March 11, 2005 06:43 PM
I figured it wouldn't have more hp. Did you guys see Tommy's ZX6RR just walk the hell off on everyone at Daytona. That bike has some juice over the other 600s. Roger Lee was taking postions also until his coolant leak.
|
blade954
Parking Attendant
Posts: 30
|
posted March 12, 2005 07:20 AM
All about the same unless you own a Honda. I guess 5-10hp down isnt that bad  . Just think that the 1000RR was their clean sheet design too. I think they targeted the '04 Suzuki and completely underestimated the competition. Either that or they dont care. Good thing they have deep pockets to 'heavily' modify the superbikes. i'm hoping for more (stock) in '06 but I'm not holding my breathe. .
|
k bryant
Needs a job
Sponsor
Posts: 2911
|
posted March 12, 2005 01:02 PM
The CBR is right there with the R1. Nothing bad about that. When you "Superbike" mod any of them, the stock baselines mean nothing. Obvious example would be in trap speeds (roadracing), the Hondas come out on top. On the street, they come out 4th. Overall, the CBR is a really good package.
Suffice to say, on the street it's mostly rider on any flavor (again, I'm talking about canyon carving).
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted March 12, 2005 01:47 PM
SP8, if i'm not mistaken, the main reason for the 6RR's performance is not actually superior power, but better aeros. of course, top power is pretty standard fare for kaw too.
|
blade954
Parking Attendant
Posts: 30
|
posted March 12, 2005 02:56 PM
"On the street they come out 4th" ....exactly, I agree and I wish Honda would do something about it. They never go for class-leading power on the big bikes. They design their openclass bikes conservatively, dump more money than what's in fort knox to make them somewhat competitive in superbike racing, and then try to have every customer think their street bike is the same as a race bike. Maybe it works for them, but I think that producing a class-leading streetbike would be an even better approach. I also understand the whole better-rider-wins argument but just for once I wish Honda would take their 1000cc engine output more seriously. In this day and age, a newly designed engine delivering 145hp-ish/76ftlbs to the rear tire with a 11,650rpm redline is substandard. That's where suzuki was in 2001.
Kerry, I'm sure you talk to the Honda guys. Do they recognize the situation? Do they care that they are 4th on the street yet declare themselves as being "performance 1st" oriented? Where do they truly assess themselves relative to the competition when it comes to their production 1000cc machine?
|
Rubber Pants
Zone Head
Posts: 798
|
posted March 12, 2005 09:46 PM
Honda Smonda.......they have no reason to care about a class leading street bike. They are doing well with what ever their plans are IMHO. But that does not mean it's right other than for the bottom line. That's why I've always loved Kaws for the most part.
They are different ,but still ample power and unique looks and not that "stamped out" Jap/Chinese manufactured look!
____________
"Ya Gotta Have Big Ones!"
speeddemons.com
|
mach10
Novice Class
Posts: 38
|
posted March 13, 2005 02:54 PM
Unique looks?
____________
Put it in your mouth, you don't know where it's been
|
k bryant
Needs a job
Sponsor
Posts: 2911
|
posted March 13, 2005 03:10 PM
Blade - Good questions
Honestly, I think they simply go for the overall package and don't get caught up in all the hype of a few hp or a few mph on the street. I think they've always been fairly conservative when it comes to that. Racing is racing and the baseline doesn't mean nearly as much, because you are allowed so many mods. So again, the overall package of the CBR1k is really good, as are the 600's.
Far too much is read into the most hp, most top-end for street bikes. I really don't go any slower or faster on any of the open bikes in the mountains. And on the track, we're talking really small differences. Same goes on the 600's. It really comes down to your personal brand choice.
|
blade954
Parking Attendant
Posts: 30
|
posted March 13, 2005 04:08 PM
Kerry,
I agree that the overall package is pretty good but I'm sure they realize that power is a major "why buy" for 1000cc bikes these days. I hear the overall-package argument but I don't think they'd have to sacrifice the package to provide class leading (or at least ZX10/K5-equivalent) power and rpm. The 600CC engine is competitive if not best-in-class. I just wish the same philosophy held true for the 1000cc bike. Why the two different philosophies in the same company? I understand that the power of the base bike means nothing to the factory superbike guys but it does mean something to the customer. Sorry for the rambling but I figured you had the best insight as to what the heck they are thinking. Hopefully some of the Honda product planners read the customer feedback around the web and make some positive changes. Thanks for the feedback.
|
k bryant
Needs a job
Sponsor
Posts: 2911
|
posted March 14, 2005 09:53 AM
All good points. The "overall package" philosophy applies equally to the 600. On paper, the 600 is the slowest and heaviest of the bunch. It's a second or two slower around the race track in stock trim as compared to the other 600's. But yet they sell every single one they make. How can that be???.....
Then when transformed into race trim, it's dominant in the FX class. But that's after an extensive weight loss program, along with major engine mods. When we raced the Supersport class, other than the wins at Daytona and Brainard, we really weren't competitive. We couldn't take off the weight needed to be competitive, which cost us dearly in the acceleration department. Top end was fine, it just took longer to get there...
I think their history seems fairly consistent. I'm not sure I can recall the last time they ame out on top of a hp shootout on the stock bike.
|
blade954
Parking Attendant
Posts: 30
|
posted March 14, 2005 04:22 PM
The 1000RR suffers from both weight and power issues. Of course at 210lbs, a couple more pounds of bike aint gonna matter that much to me. I'd just like a little more go when I hit a straight section of road, that's all. Help me overcome my extra mass. I'll have better luck just loosing weight rather than hoping for more power. Time to through out the twinkees and get on the treadmill!
Thanks
|
Rubber Pants
Zone Head
Posts: 798
|
posted March 14, 2005 05:26 PM
quote:
The 1000RR suffers from both weight and power issues. Of course at 210lbs, a couple more pounds of bike aint gonna matter that much to me. I'd just like a little more go when I hit a straight section of road, that's all. Help me overcome my extra mass. I'll have better luck just loosing weight rather than hoping for more power. Time to through out the twinkees and get on the treadmill!
Thanks
Shouda bought a 10R then.It dont care about yer weight!
____________
"Ya Gotta Have Big Ones!"
speeddemons.com
|
lrg
Novice Class
Posts: 61
|
posted March 25, 2005 04:04 PM
Edited By: lrg on 25 Mar 2005 16:06
This is from lees
looks kind of high but I like the shape of the curve no dips at 5500 like last years
Kws dyno'd one at 165 stock but its the same dyno that had the 10 at 158 so it to seems high-
Regardless a dyno is a tuning tool to me, not a I got a big- dick- and- don't- know- how to use-it slip.
My 03 had enough hp for me with a ti-force
I just like some of the upgrades like bigger radiator,slipper(ala kawi), radial master, new swingarm, gear indicator, titanium valves , shot peened rod ends
Don't really dig the US Yosh stuff anyway seems kind of weak-The Japanese stuff rocks but who can afford it-
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted March 25, 2005 04:33 PM
Hard to debate the numbers with almost no SAE correction factor (0.99 vs 1.0) to compensate for conditions and altitude. Also, I find it interesting that he used a Smoothing Factor of "5". I just assumed that a factor of "3" was the norm for most dyno runs. Though a "5" may reduce the overall numbers just a tad, it does create a very (VERY) smooth line by averaging out the reading of the sampling rate (from what I understand - I could be wrong).
All the same, no matter what Smoothing Factor was used, it would not be enough to hide obvious dips, which seem to be fairly absent in this case (with a slight exception of the stock run). Equally, though the numbers might seem high to some, you could take off 7% and use a factor of "3" instead of "5" and still have 180+ RWHP. Very impressive.
Being more of a "fan of the torque curve" myself, I can admire the smooth, gentle rise shown above. The stock curve seems to have more of a dip at 5,700 and climbs harder up to 75 ft/lbs than the other two (not too surprising) , but what is interesting as how the stock curve soon after peaks and then falls off while the other two just flatten out and then rise slightly before dropping off.
Bottom line is that from the majority of what I have seen and ridden, Lee's work has never been anything to sneeze at.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
k bryant
Needs a job
Sponsor
Posts: 2911
|
posted March 25, 2005 08:14 PM
Those are some really high stock numbers. I dyno'd several stockers; one with with 300 miles on it at 152 hp, and the other with 11 miles at 150.8. I've see several others in SoCal with the same basic numbers that mine put up. If those are Dynojet readings, man thatz a big difference between dyno #'s.
Redelk - You are essentiall correct. And yes, Lee's does have a good reputation.
|
KawaKatman
Novice Class
Posts: 43
|
posted March 29, 2005 12:52 PM
Well, Dammit I'm not changing my email address, AIM & Yahoo! Messenger SN, forum memberships, and gear logos. Keep kicking ASS, Kawasaki!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ninjas for everyone!
|
blade954
Parking Attendant
Posts: 30
|
posted April 02, 2005 01:39 PM
Here's more data from actual customer bikes. 143-155rwhp. This is coincides with the results that Kerry described. Obviously a powerful bike but not in a class by itself as originally thought.
http://www.gixxer.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=1479230&an=0&page=0#1479230
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC