SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1229917172

Message started by savagedml on 12/21/08 at 19:39:32

Title: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by savagedml on 12/21/08 at 19:39:32

Can anyone verify that the '03 Savage was offered with a 4-speed transmission? Also performance wise I would appreciate any info you guys could give me on a 4-speed vs a 5-speed transmission. Does the VIN number on the bike frame indicate type of transmission?

Thanks

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by verslagen1 on 12/21/08 at 19:42:40

to my knowledge, anything post 95 has a 5 speed tranny.
If it doesn't then someone swapped out the engine.
none
and no.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by savagedml on 12/21/08 at 19:45:35

Thanks for the info.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by BurnPgh on 12/21/08 at 23:19:24

95 + is all 5 speed from the factory. The 5th gear on my 95 is unnecessary. It's nice to have but really doesn't drop rpms. It's more like an overdrive. Get up to speed in 1-4 then just cruise in 5th.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by Ecclesnz on 01/05/09 at 03:31:23

Ok, I know I'm a mechanical nublet but here's my question.

I have an '87 LS650 with 4 speed box, but find it rev's way too high for me on the open road. Is it possible to put a 5 speed box in? If I'm able ot get one from a wrecker that is.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by Paladin. on 01/05/09 at 05:01:55

Yes, but your RPM drop would be negligible.
Far easier and far more effective to switch to a chain drive final so you can adjust the final drive ratio to suit your preferences.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by Paladin. on 01/05/09 at 05:10:31

5A53525F4D4D574A5B4C3E0 wrote:

Can anyone verify that the '03 Savage was offered with a 4-speed transmission?

An '03 with a four speed transmission? If you find one then quite likely someone with an '80's vintage Savage, with many miles on the engine, bought a low mileage '03. He then swapped engines and sold the '03. That would be the cheapest way to get a fairly new engine. You might even make money on the deal.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by bill67 on 01/05/09 at 06:14:08

Ecclesnz the five speed rev's way to high too,why with all the torque and going to a 5 speed they didn't have it rev less,I can't figure out.I think thats why you see a lot of low mileage S40 for sell.It my biggest disappointment of the motorcycle.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by Charon on 01/05/09 at 17:28:42

According to the owner's manual for the five-speed, it turns 4000 rpm at 60 mph in fifth (Page 4-2 under the break-in procedure). For a motorcycle engine that isn't particularly high rpm. If one seriously desires lower engine rpm, displacement needs to be increased to increase torque, then change overall gearing so the same torque ends up going to the drive wheel. In the part-throttle range (cruising) one can increase torque by simply opening the throttle a bit more to make up for the taller gearing. You end up with an engine operating at lower speed, but higher cylinder pressures.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by bill67 on 01/05/09 at 17:51:30

I had a Suzuki GR 650 geared it 1000 rpm less than stock in high gear,drove it 25000 miles never had a problem with it,Never even had to clean the carbs. Used pure gasoline in it.Torquey engines can be geared high, High speed engines geared low.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by Stimpy on 01/06/09 at 11:58:27

Ecclesnz

You basically have 2 options

- put on the biggest rear wheel you possibly can (I managed
to put on a 140/90/15 Kenda challenger w/no problems)
look here: http://www.bikepics.com/pictures/1062017/

or

- lose the band and get a chain & sprockets (custom job),
this way you can get any combination you want

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by Charon on 01/08/09 at 06:44:36

Back in September of 1996, when Suzuki reissued the Savage, Motorcycle Consumer News ran a test on it. I happen to have kept that issue, because of that test. In it they published their rear-wheel torque and horsepower curve. The torque curve looks rather "peaky" to me. Max torque was 30.5 lb. ft. at about 3700 rpm; max hp was 24.6 at 5000 (the high end of their published curve).

Reading from their graph:
2500 rpm (bottom); 13 lb-ft and 6 hp.
3000 rpm; 22 lb-ft and 12 hp.
3500 rpm; 30 lb-ft and 20 hp.
4000 rpm; 30 lb-ft and 23 hp.
4500 rpm; 28 lb-ft and 24 hp.
5000 rpm; 26 lb-ft and 24.6 hp.

Vehicle designers typically like to gear their vehicles so that, at what they consider to be cruise speed, the engine is turning just a bit over the torque peak. This makes the vehicle easier to operate, as whenever speed drops from some increase in load (up a hill) the engine "automatically" moves to a speed where it develops higher torque. The stock Savage seems to like cruising at 60 - 65 mph, which is just over the max torque speed. I'd have to say they did their homework. By the way, maximum torque speed is also the speed at which the engine is most efficient (least internal losses). One must bear in mind that torque curves are always generated at wide-open throttle, it always being possible to reduce torque by closing the throttle.

EDITED TO ADD:

Some time back, in another thread, I calculated that the Savage develops about 12 horsepower at 60 mph. From the owner's manual the Savage is turning about 4000 rpm at 60 mph. Using my old D-4 circular slide rule (Property of U. S. Army Air Forces) that comes to about 16 lb-ft of torque, roughly half the available torque at that speed. If we change the gearing to slow the engine while keeping the same road speed, we must increase the torque so the product of torque and speed (power) remains constant, or else the speed will change. Dropping the speed to 3500, the torque must increase to about 18 lb-ft, closer to two-thirds of the available torque. Dropping the speed to 3000, the required torque increases to about 21 lb-ft. But at 3000 the available torque is only about 22 lb-ft. Almost wide-open throttle would be required. In terms of pumping loss this is pretty efficient, but wide-open throttle results in pretty high cylinder pressures and temperatures. My guess is it might result in detonation and short engine life, but I'll happily defer to those with actual rather than theoretical knowledge for the definitive answer.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by bill67 on 01/08/09 at 06:55:50

Cars are geared a lot higher now than they were in the 50's and 60's and their torque and horsepower is at a lot higher rpm,and they get a lot better mpg now.A 1980 Dodge truck straight 6 had maxs torque at 1200 rpm.that was about 20 mph in high gear

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/09/09 at 00:54:58

042F26352829470 wrote:

I sure would like to see your thinking on the chain conversion & the approximate 10% increase in gearing.
Would that be enough to put the engine at risk?
What about the jetting/exhaust changes? How do they impact the torque @RPM? Have to hit the dyno to know?
Its about 3 am, I am pooped & brain uis scrambled, so, if this is too disjointed to bother with, Ill try to ask again in a way thats decipherable.maybe.. Thanks./

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by Charon on 01/10/09 at 09:18:22

Moving from "4 vs. 5 speed transmissions" to "Thoughts on Chain Conversion and Dynamometer Testing" seems like a bit of a thread hijack, but if no one objects...

Chain conversion and gear ratio changing are two different, but related, subjects. The chain allows easier ratio changes (because sprockets are more readily available than pulleys and because changing the length of a chain is easier), which is why it is almost universal on racing bikes. Compared to a belt it is also noisier and messier, but narrower and less subject to damage from rocks getting caught in it. The Savage seems notorious for squeaking belts, so the noise issue may be moot.

The 10% change in ratio will probably not cause damage, and might just possibly give better fuel mileage. It would move the engine from about 4000 at 60 mph to about 3600 (coincidently, the governed RPM of an awful lot of Briggs & Stratton engines), still near the torque peak. But it will also raise the ratios of all the other gears, and might result in such things as having to use third instead of fourth in traffic, or having to use more throttle and clutch to start up a steep hill.

I have been suspicious of dynamometer tests for a long time. My main concern is that they are always run at wide-open throttle, so the only carburetion issue they check is main jet size. If the engine isn't operated at part-throttle, the needle jet and needle position, let alone the pilot jet, is never checked. Since few motorcycles are operated at wide-open throttle for any significant time, it seems to me the dynamometer tests don't bear much relation to the way people use motorcycles.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by bill67 on 01/10/09 at 09:58:23

25% change in gearing causes no damage to engine,I've done it,the bike now has 35000 mikes on it with no problems. But they were torquey, GR 650 Suzuki.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by SV og LS on 01/10/09 at 11:34:43

614A43504D4C220 wrote:

I have been suspicious of dynamometer tests for a long time. My main concern is that they are always run at wide-open throttle, so the only carburetion issue they check is main jet size. If the engine isn't operated at part-throttle, the needle jet and needle position, let alone the pilot jet, is never checked. Since few motorcycles are operated at wide-open throttle for any significant time, it seems to me the dynamometer tests don't bear much relation to the way people use motorcycles.

It depends. Usual quick dyno run only gives a torque curve (from which a hp curve is drawn) and a/f curve at full throttle. This is because most people only want that. I suspect all types of dynos can be used to give you torque and a/f ratio data at any throttle opening. Just tell the operator you want a measurement at a given throttle opening and he'll keep it there, injected bikes have throttle position sensors which can be monitored during a dyno run to make it easier. British Bike Magazine publishes torque and hp curves for two or three throttle positions so people can see what a bike can do at 25% or 40% throttle, also they monitor a/f ratio at different throttle openings and rpm to see if there's an issue with fuel mixture which could be optimized.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by Charon on 01/10/09 at 11:35:29

I used to have a GR-650, too. Allow me, if you will, to make a few comments.

1. The GR-650 Tempter was a twin with oversquare bore, not a square-bore single. It was made in '83 - '84, just prior to the first Savages in '85, so its emission requirements were not quite as strict. However, it backfired just as the Savage does now.

2. It had an 8500 rpm redline, at which it was running just over 100 mph. That means it turned about 5000 at 60 mph, 1000 higher than the Savage.

3. It was reported to have a higher torque than the Savage, 45 lb-ft at 3500 rpm, although I suspect that to be crankshaft torque instead of rear-wheel torque. Over 40 lb-ft for a 40 inch engine may be optimistic. It would imply exceptionally good "breathing".

4. Bill67 has reported two different numbers for his ratio change. Taking the 25% one, the engine would then be turning 3750 at 60 mph, nearly the same as the stock Savage, and slightly above its maximum torque. As he reported, it would probably be quite happy there. Taking the '1000 rpm less than stock' number, it would be turning 4000, just like the stock Savage. In either case the engine is still spinning right along.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by bill67 on 01/10/09 at 12:11:04

Stock the gr 650 turns 4700 the way I had it geared it turn 3700 at 60mph, It turned less in 4 gear than the stock did in hight gear.With the higher gearing it still pulled good from 40 mph in high gear.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by mpescatori on 01/12/09 at 06:11:07

6E6560603A3B0C0 wrote:

Bill, you sure ?

I once had a lot of specialist books on US cars, and remember their "specific horsepower" rating was more or less equivalent to European diesels of the time.

Mind you, I am talking "specific hp", meaning "hp/cu.in" or "hp/liter"
Both European diesels and US sedans would rate 28-35 hp/liter, which was very little - meaning low revs, low consumption (*) and very long engine life.

My current truck is the last of the Mohicans of that school of thought: rather than a 16 valve, DOHC hi-pressure jobbie with an easy 70 hp/liter, my truck has an old, long stroke, pushrod, low pressure diesel running an official 38 hp/liter... and redlines at a mere 3000 rpm.
Max. Torque at 1800 rpm.

I'm talking 4-pot 3 liter engine; so a straight six would equate 4.5 liters, or 280-290 cu.in. (289 ? Now, where did I hear that ? :D )
But it still delivers max torque at 1800...

My Savage is an '89 4 speed, and feels best at 90Km/h = 55 mph.

110 Km/h = 70 mph is the fastest I'm willing to ride her without any kind of wind protection and longer gearing (chain& sprocket, here I come!!!)

I know US cars from 50's - 70's were road barges with often single digit mpg figures...
But I'm talking of the performance and mpg you would expect from a straight 6 US engine VS. similar European engine.

(*) As an example :
1973 Jaguar XJ6 4.2, 270 bhp and 15mpg
1973 BMW 3300 sedan, 190 bhp
1973 Mercedes Benz
1973 Ford Custom 6 cylinder engine, 160 bhp and (?)mpg (my dad's)

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by bill67 on 01/12/09 at 06:55:10

1950 chevy 6 215 92 horsepower 21 mpg . 2001 olds aurora 6 215 210 hp 28 mpg,and about 1970 they changed the way they rated hp.which would have made the 1950 chevy about 70 hp. Redline of the olds is about 1500 rpm higher,yet turn a lot less rpm at 60mph.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by Paladin. on 01/12/09 at 08:42:59

02090C0C5657600 wrote:

Cars are geared a lot higher now than they were in the 50's and 60's and their torque and horsepower is at a lot higher rpm,and they get a lot better mpg now....

I don't know about the better mpg. My '67 Spitfire consistantly delivered 30+ mpg hard city driving. What is on the market today that will deliver an honest 30+ mpg city, and would be be as nearly as much fun as that little British "sports" car.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by bill67 on 01/12/09 at 10:34:09

Those English cars where the biggest junk cars ever made.My brothers gf had one kept it about a year and got rid of it,My wifes brother had brand new one going down the road the muffler fell off with 5000 miles on it he got rid of it too.JUNK JUNK JUNK.Of real cars the cars today get a lot better mpg and are a lot faster.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by kamelryttarn on 07/30/19 at 23:31:03

I have 1994 Savage with model number NP41B and Suzuki confirms the model year. The "problem" is that I have a 5 speed transmission on my bike. I haven't checked and compared VIN number on the frame and the engine but was the 1994 available with 5 speed transmission or has my engine most likely been replaced?

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by Dave on 07/31/19 at 04:34:43

392A3D3C232E282A217E4F0 wrote:

to my knowledge, anything post 95 has a 5 speed tranny.
If it doesn't then someone swapped out the engine.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by batman on 07/31/19 at 05:22:14

The savage was not sold in the USA between 1987 and 1994 ,it was sold again from 95 to the present, so we have no real proof of when the bike actually got the 5 speed. comparing frame and motor numbers will do little good as they have never matched.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by kamelryttarn on 07/31/19 at 06:39:01

Thanks guys. Guess I should focus on riding and enjoying the bike instead :)

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by Gary_in_NJ on 07/31/19 at 06:55:55

It's a 25 year old bike - God only knows what has been done to it and what it has been through. Most important is it's condition today. My bike was a train wreck when I got it, and now its beautiful. That's all that matters

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by kamelryttarn on 07/31/19 at 07:05:06

Sounds like my bike as well. Everything is corroded together. Just managed to change the fork seals and it was a real pain :/ My rear pulley is pretty much worn out which makes me wonder what shape the engine is in, or if may even have been replaced. Something feels "off" with this bike, hence my question about 4 vs 5 speed transmission. If the 1994 model did not come with 5 speed transmission we can say for certain that it has been swapped for a newer engine.

Title: Re: 4 vs. 5 speed transmissions
Post by BrokeAss on 08/02/19 at 07:33:12

Jeesh...simplest motorcycle on the market, most complicated/technical/in-depth analysis of a particular model of motorcycle anywhere on the internet...

:o