Motorcycle Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Horsepower = Torque x RPM / 5,252.
16 Road King 102 ft/lb /3500rpm >>>>>>>>> 68 HP/3500
I guess highest HP is aroung 5000 RPM, probably 90-95HP
Found this:
"Harley says the engines make 10% more torque than the previous versions, but the factory did not release horsepower numbers. According to the EPA release, though, the new 107 produces 92.53 horsepower (69kw) @ 5020 rpm, and the 114 produces 100.57 horsepower (75kw) @ 5020 rpm for the 114."
 

·
Registered
Buells, Hardley, Suzuki, Beemer, and a big Katoom
Joined
·
71 Posts
My 2001 FXDX on the dyno put out 60 HP and 71 lb-ft torque.
At 655 lbs, it is no speed demon.
That's why I ride Buells ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,030 Posts
Harley knows what HP actually is.......they will not advertise treadmill hp because it is a complete lie, praying on those obsessed with hp ratings........the equations have been changed in order to raise advertised hp.

Let's assume all the correct procedures were done getting to testing for tq at 3500rpm

HP is(horse).....the ability to lift 550lbs straight up 1ft in 1 sec.......this can be ex: 110lbs 5ft in 1 sec

HP is(automotive).......the addition of all the tqs produced in 1 sec divided by 550ft*lbs/sec

Your example would be 21.6HP.........(102 x 2(cyl) x 3500/60sec)/550

If you use the modern inflated for the ego selling hp methods, you end up with little motors being rated 5hp that couldn't keep up with the work of 1 horse

Up in the 80's Missouri used actual HP on titles of automobiles......a 350ci V8 was rated at 50 something HP

883 HP treadmill rating is 50 something.......do you think it could do the work a 350ci V8 is capable of doing?......do you think a treadmill rated 113HP gsxs750 4cyl could match a 350ci V8?

Of course people obssessed with way over inflated Tq and HP numbers will remain obssessed and will make their decisions based on over inflated Tq and HP numbers instead of what they feel from behind the front wheel

BTW Harley also uses a Tq reduction formula to publish the actual Tq of their motors
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,030 Posts
My 2001 FXDX on the dyno put out 60 HP and 71 lb-ft torque.
At 655 lbs, it is no speed demon.
That's why I ride Buells ;)
My GSXS750 is rated 113HP......My M90(rated 79HP) will beat it in 1/4mile, 1/2mile I doubt it, (they both reach my limit in less than 1/2mile)
My FXDWG 96ci will beat the M90 in .1mile.......and it will handle the curves better.

The C90T isn't slow, but its not the same as the M90, they are not the same engine, just the same size. And the M90 is geared lower(probably on the wheel side of the shaft)

And I'm looking to trade off the M and C for 03 88, 03 1200, and 06 883........the GSXS is the Suzuki keeper

M is a definite license loser, thats the main reason I got ride of the Yamaha Stryker, come out of curve 50mph in 3rd gear and twist the throttle and you're gone......its so much fun I've got to do it every time, eventually I'll get caught.

I might let him talk me into a 01 1200 Buell instead of the 883.....they're listed at the same price.....either would be going to my son
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,583 Posts
My GSXS750 is rated 113HP......My M90(rated 79HP) will beat it in 1/4mile, 1/2mile I doubt it, (they both reach my limit in less than 1/2mile)
My FXDWG 96ci will beat the M90 in .1mile.......and it will handle the curves better.

The C90T isn't slow, but its not the same as the M90, they are not the same engine, just the same size. And the M90 is geared lower(probably on the wheel side of the shaft)

And I'm looking to trade off the M and C for 03 88, 03 1200, and 06 883........the GSXS is the Suzuki keeper

M is a definite license loser, thats the main reason I got ride of the Yamaha Stryker, come out of curve 50mph in 3rd gear and twist the throttle and you're gone......its so much fun I've got to do it every time, eventually I'll get caught.

I might let him talk me into a 01 1200 Buell instead of the 883.....they're listed at the same price.....either would be going to my son
I've heard mixed results on the Buells. Some people love them. Other guys say they were horrible. It makes me leery.
 

·
Registered
Buells, Hardley, Suzuki, Beemer, and a big Katoom
Joined
·
71 Posts
most folks don't like the short wheelbase, it will give you butterflies at triple digits.
Buells are made to go around corners, FAST. That's what Erik designed them to do. Short wheelbase, and centralized mass, will go around corners fast.
Many don't like the lump of a Sportster motor stuffed in them, But during the last 2 years before HD shut them down, Erik was putting Rotax motors in the 1125's and making 135hp at the crank.
Compared to the air cooled Buells making 104hp at the crank, it's what most buellers were asking for. water cooling and more HP.
I'll admit, it's an acquired taste. I've been drinking the Buell koolaid since 1995. Good stuff.
I have other bikes that are faster, more comfortable, can carry more, But the Buells, they make me smile...

It's like owning an old BMW airhead, or a Triumph Bonneville, all classics that are an acquired taste.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,030 Posts
I've heard mixed results on the Buells. Some people love them. Other guys say they were horrible. It makes me leery.
I had a Buell Blast, not so fast but you couldn't beat it in the curves.....acceleration coming out just wasn't there(its just a 1cyl 500cc)
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top