SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> 2010 Savage/S40
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1260070598

Message started by Yonuh Adisi on 12/05/09 at 19:36:37

Title: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by Yonuh Adisi on 12/05/09 at 19:36:37

http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/photos/2010models/2010-Suzuki-BoulevardS40.htm

http://www.suzuki-bikes.com/2010-suzuki-boulevard-s40/

Looks like our beloved Savage/S40 will be pretty much unchanged for 2010.

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by fretman on 12/06/09 at 00:32:19

4C7A7B607D54717C667C150 wrote:

Looks like our beloved Savage/S40 will be pretty much unchanged for 2010.

Hallelujah! Ain't broke, don't fix it :) Some new stock colors would be nice tho, just to keep things interesting...

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by kimchris1 on 12/06/09 at 03:51:33

yeppers looks exactly like my 09.. I have the red and she is a beauty... :)

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by marotajo on 12/06/09 at 05:06:19

That is a 2009 - Suzuki still does not show the S40 in the 2010 lineup.

Mark
1995 Savage Bobber
Central FL USA

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by savagedml on 12/07/09 at 08:06:52

FYI:
According to an internal source, Suzuki will import no GSX-Rs or other streetbikes into the American market for 2010 as the unsold 2009 models on dealer floors are expected to satisfy demand. Overall, US motorcycle sales through the first three quarters of this year total just 434,370 compared to 771,950 during the same period last year, a drop of 44 percent. Suzuki has announced no new street models for the 2010 model year. Word has it 2010 models are available for order should dealer stocks unexpectedly be diminished. Good luck getting one in the U.S.A.

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/07/09 at 09:05:14

363F3E3321213B263720520 wrote:

Lets hope the economy rebounds,,tho, I dont see it. I see a great decline coming in the American standard of living, It may slide down on us or crush us quickly, but either way, with the $$$ weve created, all the toxic investments( read: derivatives), our debt so high & greater & greater numbers of people taking govt assistance, I cant envision going back to days of money left over at the end of the month for the blue collar types.

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by T Mack 1 - FSO on 12/08/09 at 06:19:28

7E77767B6969736E7F681A0 wrote:

My local dealer can't keep S40's on the showroom floor. They sell in about a week.

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by T Mack 1 - FSO on 12/08/09 at 06:23:10

Still there in 2010, Yea.

One year to the 25th anniversary!!!!! ;D

I wonder if Suzui is going to celebrate it some how. :-?

One of the articles made me laugh........"And when you're up to cruising speed, you'll really appreciate the engine's smooth performance. " Smooth :o ??

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/08/09 at 09:10:29

"Smooth" is a function of ones definition of "cruising speed". If the writer cruises at 40,,, smooth is fair enough.

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by Routy on 12/09/09 at 05:44:22

Seriously, you all don't consider these engines to run smooth ?

If not, coulda fooled me. At 45-55 I have been very impressed how smooth running it is. I did push it to 80 once, and recall not liking anything about 80 mph, and maybe including a noticable tingling vibration. But I'll take this slow turning torquer over them short stroke hi revin bees anyday. ;)

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by Charon on 12/09/09 at 10:49:35

Routy, you need to get together with Bill67. You describe the S40 as a
"slow turning torquer" and he is vehement in claiming it turns way too fast at highway speed. Some time back I put together a listing of about a hundred motorcycles, using data from tests in Motorcycle Consumer News, showing RPM at 65 MPH. It is still on here, somewhere. Lowest were a couple of Harley models at about 2100; highest was a 250 Ninja at just over 8000. Right in the middle, at about 4300, was the S40. Someone else calculated the average, and the S40 was right there. Try http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1236605350/0#0 and see what happens. I don't actually know how to post the link, so I typed it and maybe got it right.

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by bill67 on 12/09/09 at 11:02:19

Harley is a twin the s40 is a single,singles should turn 1/2 the rpm of a twin of same ccs. Really all motorcycle are geared to low.

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by Moofed on 12/09/09 at 11:03:16

http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1236605350/7#7

Just need to include the http:// part.

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by serenity3743 on 12/09/09 at 13:04:46

010A0F0F5554630 wrote:

Harley is a twin the s40 is a single,singles should turn 1/2 the rpm of a twin of same ccs. Really all motorcycle are geared to low.

I don't think number of cylinders equates to RPMs, does it? There are too many other factors such as displacement, gearing, & weight to name a few. It's just that the single cylinder has to carry the full load, whereas a twin divides the work.

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by bill67 on 12/09/09 at 13:13:20

S40 is a very light bike one other reason it should have been geared higher

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by Charon on 12/09/09 at 15:38:38

To a first approximation, engines of the same displacement make about the same torque, whether they are singles or multi-cylinders. That being so, engines of the same displacement ought to turn about the same rpm to make the same horsepower. The required horsepower is about the same for any motorcycle running the same speed. That would tend to make me think motorcycles of similar displacements should be turning roughly the same rpm at the same speeds.

Motorcycles with bigger displacement engines make more torque. Horsepower is the product of torque and rpm, so to make the required highway horsepower they can be geared to turn slower.

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by bill67 on 12/09/09 at 17:50:02

You don't think the S40 has good low end torque compare to twins and 4s.

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by Charon on 12/09/09 at 21:06:01

An old rule of thumb says an engine, breathing well, will make about a ft-lb of torque per cubic inch of displacement. The S40, as its name indicates, is a 40 inch engine. The literature I have seen shows about 30 ft-lb of torque, which isn't too spectacular. True, there is a percentage loss from crankshaft to rear wheel, usually estimated at about 15%. Even so, the S40 ends up a little on the low side. And its torque curve isn't very wide, either. It only runs from maybe 3000 to maybe 4500, with the peak about 3700 - about 55 mph. The long stroke limits its top rpm to about 7200, and the rev limiter cuts off at 6500 according to the reports. It is also a little inflexible, in that it will not pull cleanly below about 35 mph in high gear, probably about 2400 rpm. I know it is easy enough to downshift. But the much-higher revving engine in my 250 Ninja WILL pull out from 25 mph in high gear, then go on to outrun the S40 easily.

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by LANCER on 12/10/09 at 03:13:47

An old rule of thumb says an engine, breathing well, will make about a ft-lb of torque per cubic inch of displacement.
It is not hard to make it happen with a little tweaking, which should have been done by the factory in the first place.
When the Savage engine is tweaked as far out as the Ninja engine the result is a bike that will absolutely run the Ninja into the ditch.

The S40, as its name indicates, is a 40 inch engine. The literature I have seen shows about 30 ft-lb of torque, which isn't too spectacular. True, there is a percentage loss from crankshaft to rear wheel, usually estimated at about 15%. Even so, the S40 ends up a little on the low side. And its torque curve isn't very wide,
huh ? since when ? 3000-4500 rpm ? your engine must be really sick

either. It only runs from maybe 3000 to maybe 4500, with the peak about 3700 - about 55 mph. The long stroke limits its top rpm to about 7200, and the rev limiter cuts off at 6500 according to the reports. It is also a little inflexible,
since when ?

in that it will not pull cleanly below about 35 mph in high gear, probably about 2400 rpm. I know it is easy enough to downshift. But the much-higher revving engine in my 250 Ninja WILL pull out from 25 mph in high gear, then go on to outrun the S40 easily.
The little Ninja has 2 tiny 125cc pistons so is it any wonder that it feels smoother than 1 650cc piston ? By the way, mine will pull top gear from as low as 30 and of course you feel the power pulses.

Title: Re: 2010 Savage/S40
Post by Charon on 12/10/09 at 06:21:50

I was using for reference the torque curve published in the Motorcycle Consumer News issue of September 1996. The lowest number shown on their curve is at 2500, and is 12 ft-lb. It is 22 ft-lb at 3K; 30 at 3500 and 4K, down to 25 at 5K (the highest shown and also the horsepower peak at 24.6 hp). The lowest shown number is fairly often the lowest RPM at which the engine will run at wide-open throttle. Their numbers, like most magazine reports, are rear-wheel measurements probably made on a Dynojet.

My S40 will also pull out from 30 mph in high gear, and as you say one can clearly feel the power pulses. I know that, but I use as an indicator the feeling of drive-line play. The belt absorbs some of that, especially since there is very little backlash in the belt itself. When the engine rpm gets too low one can feel (and hear, with a quiet muffler) the backlash in the drive train.

You are correct - the 250 Ninja is a much more "tweaked" engine. Its highest torque is said to be up around 11000 rpm. Many magazine reviews claim it has to be revved up to 4K or so before it will leave a stop light. At least on mine, that is untrue. Although it does not have a really strong low end torque, it doesn't require that sort of revving and it is tractable enough that it can make ninety-degree turns on ordinary city streets without downshifting. The S40 will not do that. I would also add that the 250 Ninja costs about a thousand dollars less than the S40.

There was an interesting article published a few months ago in one of the motorcycle magazines, probably Cycle World. I cannot reference it because I donate my Cycle World magazines. It referred to the history of the Dynojet and the Yamaha V-Max. Apparently, when the V-max came out one was tested on a very accurate water-brake dynamometer, and produced a pretty impressive horsepower. The engineers designing the Dynojet were sure their unit was accurate, but for some reason the showroom V-Max they tested produced a lot less horsepower as measured on the prototype Dynojet. The software in the Dynojet was "adjusted" to make the numbers jibe better, since no one seemed willing to admit Yamaha might have slipped a ringer in for the original testing. Ever since, it is said, Dynojets read more horsepower than is really there.

You also commented on tweaking the Savage/S40 engine. Sure, it should have been done at the factory. But that would likely have made the motorcycle more costly and thus destroyed one of its appealing features. And I point out that aftermarket modifications, if they increase either exhaust or noise emissions, are illegal under Federal law. It can be modified, BUT NOT LEGALLY.