|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> they're not that much faster! /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1271340625 Message started by Rocco on 04/15/10 at 07:10:25 |
|
Title: they're not that much faster! Post by Rocco on 04/15/10 at 07:10:25 so alot of people say "that's a single wait til u get a v-twin" but i've ridden sportys, and a bunch of 750's...vulcan and a shadow....and @ low end(stop light to stop light here in west palm) i don't feel much of a difference, and in fact i kill my friend's 883..... goin 80 they still have more breath, but i don't want to go much faster then that anyway! my friend has a vtz 1800....and was shocked that mine is louder, and i could keep up with him. the best part was when we took a turn, and he practically had to make a 3 point turn while i kicked her down into second and did a little peg scraping(close but not really lol) my friend has a vulcan 750 for 800 bucks for sale, but it doesn't make sense to me to go up only to a 750, the extra cc's aren't worth the weight lol anyone else agree? |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Reelthing on 04/15/10 at 07:26:11 The Vulcan 750 is a nice bike - but I wouldn't trade the simplicity of the savage for one - noway. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by LostArtist on 04/15/10 at 07:28:56 yeah the weight of a lot of v-twins negates speed and performance, but it adds stability at speeds on interstate highways, so that's the trade off, also, apparently a lot of people like wide seats, drives me nuts cause even though the seat height is comparable, your legs are so spread out straddling the machine it's like you are giving birth to it and with pegs so far forward . . . well you get the comparison. until you go over the 1200 cc range in a cruiser the weight of other machines will really subdue the power advantage. also for me, big cruisers seem like you riding a couch, you are on top of the bike and not in it, not sure I like that yet. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by babyhog on 04/15/10 at 07:36:56 My hubby had a Vulcan 750. I never tried to ride it alone. It felt pretty heavy to me. Maybe now that I've ridden for a year, I might have tried it, if we still had it. But I definetly don't think its worth any more than the Savage. All depends on what you want, of course, I don't have anything bad to say about the Vulcan, but if its extra cc's you want, I'd go to at least an Intruder or Volusia, or bigger Vulcan. We got plenty of get-up-and-go in what we've got! |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by T Mack 1 - FSO on 04/15/10 at 09:11:13 Rocco, Yea, my friend has a Honda 750 shadow and my Savage always got him off the line. A little bit of a warning. not all Sportsters are 883's. Don't try to go against early "Large" displacement EVO Sportsters. (1986 to 199x something 1100's and 1200's). At only 455 lbs, the stock HP to weight raito's are in the 6 to 7 lbs per horse range. Later sportsters added weight and are in the 550 lbs range. The 883's were in the 10 to 11 range which is close to the LS650's 10 something, but their 4 spd tranny isn't geard as low as the Savage/S40 so the stock 883's dogged a bit and then had to try and catch up to the Savage. At 50 or 60 mph they normally catch up. ------------------------------------------------------- HP to Weight ratio's Savage / S40 33 HP at 352 lbs = 10.67 (somewher I saw ad's saying 33 HP) Early 883 Sportster 42 hp at 455 lbs = 10.83 (fm FSM) 1100 Sportster 62 hp at 455 lbs = 7.34 (fm FSM) Early 1200 Sportster 72 hp at 458 lbs = 6.36 (fm FSM) |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by LostArtist on 04/15/10 at 09:14:43 t-mack, you got those specs for a Suzuki vs800/s 50? |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by T Mack 1 - FSO on 04/15/10 at 09:15:12 4D6E7275407375687275010 wrote:
Sorry no. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by LostArtist on 04/15/10 at 09:26:15 okay, it's 50 hp and weighs 480 lbs so that's 9.6 if I did the math right new sportster 883 are 560 lbs though and 51 - 53 hp so that's 10.9 should I be using dry weight or wet? |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by T Mack 1 - FSO on 04/15/10 at 09:33:16 41627E794C7F79647E790D0 wrote:
Use same for both if comparing one bike to another. The numbers I gave were dry. EDIT: new 883's are fuel injected, so that means FI can get approx 10 HP more. When will Suzuki convert the LS650!!!! They already did the TU250. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by LostArtist on 04/15/10 at 09:43:48 if they made the TU into a 650, that'd be a sweet bike!!! :D oh, and I used dry numbers too |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by LANCER on 04/15/10 at 10:10:58 I went for a test ride this morning on my sons new bike, Black Shadow, the one he bought from Diamond Jim. It runs better than any stock Savage/s40 I've been on. DJ did a fine job of setting it up, jetting/tuning the carb and creating a really good baffle for for the drag pipe. It runs smooth, no backfiring at all, pulls strong up to 90 and then settles in at 94 mph indicated top speed. With the Progressive 418 shocks it rides quite nicely too. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Rocco on 04/15/10 at 10:22:01 i have a buddy with an 883 that i whoop on all the time, and then my neighbor has a 1200 and i rode that, and i wasn't really impressed power wise! i was impressed on how smooth they are, the way they sound u'd think they were more "clunky" the next bike i get(after college lol) will be either a bonnie or a kz1000, i'll enjoy the extra power, but i'm tryin to stay with "hey that looks different" lol |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by dasch on 04/15/10 at 10:43:44 I raced a HD fatboy with my LS. I took off in 2nd gear, beat him up to about 50-60mph... only at that point it started closing in on me. And we had to stop for traffic. Quite a surprise for a friend on the harley. Whatever the result woulda been, this thing is not slow in comparison with other cruisers. It's not made to pull 200km/h, neither are other cruisers. I'm quite happy. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Routy on 04/15/10 at 13:05:59 Back in early to middle 60s, I rode in a club w/ several Sportie riders that I remember thought they were just a class above anyone that didn't ride a Harley. And we love agitating the hell out of them by challenging them to a 0-60. Even a good running SuperHawk would rip'm a new one every time. That was when we loved to be hated. I never had a problem w/ Harleys, but most their riders in those days really had a sucked attitude. It sure is different now, as they all wave at me now. I like to think its just rider to rider, and not because they think it must be another Harley,......until till its too late ;) |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Yonuh Adisi on 04/15/10 at 13:27:26 I still get the Harley snobs around here. But not as often as I used to. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by jef.savage on 04/15/10 at 15:28:31 My S50 is a LOT faster than any of the other bikes discussed here. I'm pretty sure the 480 lb. is wet weight, not dry. A few 1/4 mile times from Motorcycle Consumer News: Savage 15.30 Vulcan 800 14.16 Shadow 750 15.03 883 Sporty 14.98 1200 Sporty 13.15 MCN hasn't tested an S50 but the reported time I read elsewhere for a stock S50 is 12.3! That's faster than every stock Harley listed except the V-Rod. And this all fits with my riding impression as well. I rode four different Harleys at Laconia last year and was very surprised by their lack of oomph. Except the Night Rod - I couldn't believe how fast that was. I have also read that a set of pipes and jets (or EFI reprogram) makes a huge difference to a Harley so I wouldn't expect to beat even a slightly modified 1200 but I believe it would take a ton of work to get an 883 near as quick as me. The S50 is also the closest of any of them to a Savage in size and so it's likely more agile than the other bikes discussed. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by bill67 on 04/15/10 at 15:44:03 I guy that worked with us years ago a had one of the first s50s it was very fast for the size motor. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Charon on 04/15/10 at 16:28:09 Magazines tend to give horsepower to weight ratios using dry weight. I think, since the motorcycle cannot run too well without a rider and fuel, the ratio should use wet (curb) weight plus a rider. I would suggest using 170 lbs for the (standard) rider, since that is the number the FAA uses to certify light airplanes. The mythical dry weight is said to omit fuel, engine oil, fork oil, brake fluid, battery acid, and anything else they could get off or out of the bike. It would not surprise me to learn dry weight also used deflated tires, and it wouldn't surprise me to find the battery was removed altogether. The currently advertised curb weight for the S40 agrees pretty well with the weight I measured for mine, using a non-certified bathroom scale. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Routy on 04/15/10 at 16:29:58 I only ever rode 1 of my bikes thru the 1/4 mile,....an almost new 1965 Norton Atlas (road model) 14.20 @ 90. Seemed perdy fast then,.....and now,.. just looking at those times. My S-40 feels just as fast, but I'm just a little older now,.....everything feels kinda fast ;D |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Serowbot on 04/15/10 at 16:47:17 One thing with bike magazine 1/4 miles.... They tend to get their hotshot rider for the bikes with high expectations.... The Savage didn't have a line of anxious volunteers to do the 1/4 mile test, and whoever drew the short straw, didn't put a lot of effort into shaving 10ths... I bet the Savage would be pretty impressive in the 1/8 mile... |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by bill67 on 04/15/10 at 16:56:24 5F747D6E73721C0 wrote:
Deflated tires would make it weight more. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by runwyrlph on 04/15/10 at 18:24:59 303B3E3E6465520 wrote:
Deflated tires would make it weight more.[/quote] you have helium in your tires? |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by John_D FSO on 04/15/10 at 18:59:15 303F3C742939352C3336363F5A0 wrote:
Yeah, I've read a couple places that the S50 is kinda the "hot rod" of their cruiser lineup. Wouldn't mind trying one out someday. On the subject of Harley snobs... I don't see a ton of them around here, but they're definitely out there. Took a ride this afternoon, up through Battleground, to Yacolt, and back, and met several bikes. All but 2 waved, and both were Harley riders, all decked out in the "hey lookit me, I'm a tough guy! :D" gear that most HD weekend warriors seem to sport... complete with non-DOT approved skid lid. ::) On v-twins... I've only ridden two. My bro's Vulcan 900, and my C50. Personally, I think the Savage has more "zip", due to the considerably lighter weight. The extra "chunkage" does add stability on the highway though. On a personal note, I've found you can't lean the C50 near as much through a corner... first time I've scraped a peg/board. :o Never did that on that corner with the Savage! ;D |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Skid Mark on 04/15/10 at 19:24:46 I concur with John D. The s40 is zippier. The c50 is no slouch with get up and go. It will get to 60mph faster. Just cranked mine on the hiway ( almost broke in) and it got up there right quick. The s40 shines right at take off. As for stability the c50 wins hands down. It's been pretty windy here and the bigger c50 is much better in the windy conditions. I did my 1st floorboard scrape too! Definately can't lean into it like the s40. The 2 bikes give 2 very different rides. Each ride is great and would love to have kept the s40 for tootin around the city. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Rocco on 04/16/10 at 08:16:28 the s50 is the intruder right? they make a 1400 of that bad boy, and that just sounds like trouble lol!! someone @ the job said "have fun on your scooter" as we all left(i park under the overhang so it's extra loud) he jumped as i pulled away lets see a scooter do that! =] |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Charon on 04/16/10 at 08:27:51 Any fool can take off a muffler and make an otherwise decent motorcycle into an loud, obnoxious machine. The trick is to get decent performance with a socially acceptable (quiet) one. I feel quite confident that anyone who wanted could remove the muffler from a Burgman and make it just as loud as he wanted. The guys with loud mufflers are just making it difficult for all motorcyclists, because the general public hears the loud ones and complains about all motorcyclists. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by JohnBoy on 04/16/10 at 08:48:55 6C474E5D40412F0 wrote:
How does that old saying go? "If it's too loud...you are too old" If we're talking about power, why not a V-Max. They have been the bad boy of the street and drag strip for 20 years. 200hp for only 17,000.00 :) |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by jef.savage on 04/16/10 at 09:11:47 They did make a 1400 Intruder/S83 through 2008. In stock form the S50 is quicker than that too! |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Serowbot on 04/16/10 at 09:16:43 163334321E33255C0 wrote:
Yeah,... I need to find a salvage V-Max motor, so I can pop it into my Geo Metro... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Rocco on 04/16/10 at 09:23:51 well i did rejet and k&n when i took the muffler off lol still moronic? the s50 is soundin better and better! it's pretty much the savage's older brother right? lol and have u seen them put hayabusa engines in smartcars? they kill ferraris!! how upsetting would that be to the ferrari owner? personally, i would rather have the monster miata, it's a miata with a 5.O mustang engine.....now that's power to weight ratio!! http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.clublexus.com/forums/attachments/non-lexus-vehicles-for-sale/92576d1160588908-fs-supercharged-monster-miata-one-of-a-kind-toy-car-car-018.jpg&ei=3o7IS5GMA4T78AbxxICGBw&sa=X&oi=image_landing_page_redirect&ct=legacy&usg=AFQjCNEY2sQsbBT9EarHDQ8YvCjag_n4eQ http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.deviantart.com/download/118498860/Smart_Car__Hayabusa_Drift_by_chopperkid44.jpg&ei=Ao_IS8CSJoGB8gb-kriHBw&sa=X&oi=image_landing_page_redirect&ct=legacy&usg=AFQjCNGmUenJZgUanNal_FR0yNR9HaCo7w |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Serowbot on 04/16/10 at 09:30:31 The S-50 Intruder is a very different bike than a Savage... The 1400 Intruder is more related,... basically a Savage with an extra cylinder... Grunty, grunty... :-?... ...but just too big and heavy for my taste... http://www.suzukicycles.org/photos/Intruder/VS1400-Intruder/1987_VS1400-Intruder_bk_450.jpg |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by jef.savage on 04/16/10 at 09:37:48 For a lot less than a Monster Miata you can add a Jackson Racing supercharger kit and get up near 200hp in a 2100 lb car. Here's mine: http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs019.snc1/4237_1005016185925_1840500456_5305_7978497_n.jpg It's a ton of fun (literally!) Here's a video: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV4ffemR0BA[/media] Actually, it's for sale if anyone's interested. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/16/10 at 09:44:10 Actually, it's for sale if anyone's interested If I had that in my driveway my drivers license would simply melt away. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by jef.savage on 04/16/10 at 09:53:54 4E584F524A5F52493D0 wrote:
I respectfully disagree. The 1400 and 800 Intruders are almost identical except for size. Unless you know to look for a radiator (800/S50) instead of an oil cooler (1400/S83) or the different tail lights they can be hard to tell apart. As the smaller of the two I think the 800 is a little closer to the Savage/S40. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Serowbot on 04/16/10 at 10:08:05 67686B237E6E627B646161680D0 wrote:
I respectfully disagree. The 1400 and 800 Intruders are almost identical except for size. Unless you know to look for a radiator (800/S50) instead of an oil cooler (1400/S83) or the different tail lights they can be hard to tell apart. As the smaller of the two I think the 800 is a little closer to the Savage/S40.[/quote] Yup,.. radiator.... makes for a very different machine... jacketed cylinders, higher revs... more of a horsepower motor... The 1400 is a low revving, big piston, air cooled, torque motor... To me,... that's more akin to a Savage... Looks wise,.. they are very much the same... and both way more power than ours... |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by jef.savage on 04/16/10 at 11:08:00 4A5C4B564E5B564D390 wrote:
I respectfully disagree. The 1400 and 800 Intruders are almost identical except for size. Unless you know to look for a radiator (800/S50) instead of an oil cooler (1400/S83) or the different tail lights they can be hard to tell apart. As the smaller of the two I think the 800 is a little closer to the Savage/S40.[/quote] Yup,.. radiator.... makes for a very different machine... jacketed cylinders, higher revs... more of a horsepower motor... The 1400 is a low revving, big piston, air cooled, torque motor... To me,... that's more akin to a Savage... Looks wise,.. they are very much the same... and both way more power than ours...[/quote] OK, I can see that. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Rocco on 04/16/10 at 18:52:04 WELL!!! if i had any other car then a taurus, i wouldn't have a license either! i love the miata, but i'm becomin a family man, and eventually there will be kids lol so i can't have 2 toys! lol i would love either the 800 or 1400, but i just love the simple nature of our bikes..... |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by einheit13 on 04/16/10 at 20:46:52 Wow, you guys must have friends that don't know how to ride, poor tune on their bikes, or are over weight. My buddys wife has an 08 S40. Its neat, light , and torquey-but it stands no chance against my 75 XLCH 1000 (451lbs, 67hp-68ft/lbs), my 98 1200 XLC (477lbs, 71hp-73ft/lbs), my 71 Bonnie chopper (287lbs 55hp, 42ft/lbs), or the 81 XJ650 (389lbs 51hp-32ft/lbs). All of them I race at the track, same with her S40. The S40 will walk the dog all over my another friends 2000 VT750 Shadow ACE, 33hp-37ft/lbs and weighs 527lbs! Her S40 is hitting 14.97 (best) to 15.15 (average). the Bonnie has a 12.8:1 first gear and takes off like a rocket. the 98 is hitting 12.73s all day long with open pipes (35" long) and chopped air cleaner, and a jet change (48 pilot, 180 main). thats the only deviation from stock. On the twisties, the only one that will hang with the S40 coming outta the turns is the Yamaha. Its got decent brakes, unlike every HD-save for the buells.... I have grown fond of that little single though. I added an open fishtail pipe (have put a small baffle in it though), does anyone make an ignition upgrade for it?? I wish the advabce came on a little sooner. And do these things have a rev limiter?? I've heard that you can screw up the timing by high/over revving...true?? |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Serowbot on 04/16/10 at 22:44:37 no rev limiter,... it just runs out of soup, naturally... ... people have talked about an ignition advance mod,.. but none have done it yet, that I know... the idea is to oval out the pickup module's mounting holes, and gain a couple of degrees... If you do it,.. take a pic and tell us if it helps... |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by BurnPgh on 04/16/10 at 23:35:20 5741564B53464B50240 wrote:
I believe Ed L did it. IIRC he said it was more trouble than it was worth. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Serowbot on 04/16/10 at 23:51:41 Oh good,.. that'll save me a lot of trouble... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by LANCER on 04/17/10 at 02:41:16 how about a 280 lb 700 Savage pushing 55-60 hp... a friend has a dyno in his shop and is ready to run the numbers; we shall see if the time and $$ has been worth it very soon. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by jef.savage on 04/17/10 at 07:00:59 4D404F4244531316210 wrote:
We are all waiting anxiously! |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by jef.savage on 04/17/10 at 09:29:52 My apologies! I posted a wrong 1/4 mile time for the S50 in an earlier post. It should have been 13.3 rather than 12.3. Even though that's a significant difference it doesn't change anything else I said about it except that it's not quicker than the H-D's except for the 883. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by Rocco on 04/17/10 at 10:09:46 we all await lancer's beast!! then i'm gonna take a roadtrip so he can make mine a 900 singe ;D |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by babbalou on 04/17/10 at 18:10:48 14372B2C192A2C312B2C580 wrote:
I'd buy a TU650 in a heartbeat! That would be one cool ride. |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by einheit13 on 04/17/10 at 22:08:35 3B36393432256560570 wrote:
Thats what I'm talikg about. I'm thinking about getting one of these for myself. I can get an '01 for $1500 with 578m on the clock. It rides around on the back of an RV. The guy just got one of those Chinese scooters to replace it. Looks good, runs good. Just needs tires-dry rot cracks. How different are these from the Brit single design. I had a couple BSA singles. I sold the last one I had a couple years ago (reluctantly) to pay some med bills. Hot TT profile cam, flipped head, bored and sleeved cylinder, stroked it to 791ccs. And got it to run rather well on an old Mikuni-Solex! Out did any Amal set up, S&S, or a CV for max power. Had to wishbone the down tube on the sock frame to clear the set up. i have yet to look at any S40/Savage manual, but can a head flip be achieved on one?? Or will they respond to 'old way' tuning (I hate the word old school ) |
|
Title: Re: they're not that much faster! Post by cornfuzed on 04/19/10 at 06:57:13 dont care if it is much faster, have a yamaha royal star (V4 verry powerful) w/detuned vmax motor slapped into it and the s40... the royalstar can smoke down the highways with gusto an is suuper comfy.. just not as fun to me as my s40 :o and i dont have to sync 4 carbs almost every week like i do the royal star... but for 2up riding id get slapped by the back seat driver riding the royal like it can be ridden :D |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |