|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> Horsepower /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1252524025 Message started by rl153 on 09/09/09 at 12:20:25 |
|
Title: Horsepower Post by rl153 on 09/09/09 at 12:20:25 I have a stock 2005 s40. I can't find anywhere how many horsepower the bike has .Can you tell me? Thanks! |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by jabman on 09/09/09 at 12:25:35 im looking aswell |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by JohnBoy on 09/09/09 at 12:48:09 I think stock it is about three :) |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by prechermike on 09/09/09 at 13:02:21 I think the savage was rated about 30. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by verslagen1 on 09/09/09 at 13:21:41 it has a sh!t load of grins per mile HP? who cares. |
|
Title: moar ponies....mmmm, what for? xtremehillclimbing Post by Stimpy on 09/09/09 at 13:27:17 Some ppl trade the kevlar band for a chain and sprockets and get more top speed and the cost of some torque, good trade. I personally rebuilt my exhaust valves and this made a huge difference; a larger main jet, carb intake flow and an open exhaust seems to work too, but fine tuning this is trickier than it sounds. And finally, if Lancer can't help you, then you need to look for a different bike :D thttp://suzukisavage.com/cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6&products_id=9 |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by rl153 on 09/09/09 at 13:43:52 I found this on Wikapedia. The Suzuki LS650 Savage, or LS650, is a lightweight custom cruiser motorcycle. The Savage utilizes Suzuki's "Big Single" power plant, a ~30 horsepower, 40 cubic inch, four-stroke, single cylinder, air cooled, single overhead cam engine. Single cylinder engines like the one used in this motorcycle are sometimes affectionately referred to as a one-lunger or thumper. This engine is considered to be a geared-for-in-town performance torquer style of motor, delivering good performance at moderate revs compared to most Japanese motorcycle engines |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by EJID on 09/09/09 at 14:04:41 2D2437282F2470737878410 wrote:
+1 |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by jabman on 09/09/09 at 15:58:58 yer, ive just passed my test in the uk and im only 19, so im only allowed up to 33bhp for two years. theres no limit on torque tho :) |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by WebsterMark on 09/09/09 at 16:36:52 You're only allow 33 hp???? what the fxxxxxxxxxx??? |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by kimchris1 on 09/09/09 at 16:51:31 Some states I have learned do limit the size bike for a new rider to a certain cc or horsepower. Here in Wa State I am endorsed for any 2 wheel vehicle. With NO limits. I have friends that have told me that years ago they did limit. I am very glad that is a thing in the past... :) |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by Serowbot on 09/09/09 at 17:11:46 I think it's a good idea,... a 16 yr old newbie has no business on a 100hp squid bike... |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by dasch on 09/09/09 at 17:45:12 Germany used to have a 27Hp for beginners and 100hp general limit!!! |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/09/09 at 17:49:30 The State has no business telling ahyone what to drive./ Mom & Dad tell the kid what can be had. Mom & Dad dont NEED no Daddy telling them what to do. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by King Kashue on 09/09/09 at 18:49:42 4A555354494E7F4F7F47555912200 wrote:
Sure they do. The explicit responsibility of the State is to protect the rights of the citizenry and promote the general welfare. Given that inexperienced drivers on high powered bikes are involved in a grossly disproportionate percentage of accidents, limiting such situations protects the "other party" in all those potential accidents. The basis for regulation is exactly the same as the basis for licensing all drivers and making sure they're competent. While driving or riding, you have the capacity to be supremely lethal; that provides the basis for both licensing and restriction. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by Serowbot on 09/09/09 at 18:50:02 The state has to scrape up the pieces.... |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/09/09 at 19:48:31 The basis for regulation is exactly the same as the basis for licensing all drivers and making sure they're competent. You havent a clue.. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by Charon on 09/09/09 at 20:24:35 Can anyone cite a study showing a correlation between young and/or inexperienced motorcyclists and a higher crash rate on high-powered motorcycles? I think it is generally agreed that inexperienced drivers, regardless of the type of machine, are involved in a disproportionately high crash rate. But I do not believe anyone has ever established any correlation showing high-powered machines are more likely to crash than low-powered ones. After all, there doesn't seem to be any demand to restrict inexperienced auto drivers to low-powered cars at first, and surely a teen in a Ferrari must be more dangerous than that same teen in an econobox. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by Serowbot on 09/09/09 at 22:51:01 527970637E7F110 wrote:
I can't think of how to phrase a query to find such a stat... If you can, post it. But, other countries have graduated licenses,... I would guess they have a reason for it. And insurance rates are higher for both younger riders, and more powerful bikes... They use stats to determine these things... You do the math... 2 + 2 =?... Heck,.. don't even bother!... try common sense... |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by John_D on 09/10/09 at 01:38:02 3230343A312B302A68590 wrote:
That's good to know, as I live in WA too! :D That is, if I ever decide to (and can afford! :P) another, bigger, bike. Never fear, not considering trading off the Savage. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by voldigicam on 09/10/09 at 03:35:16 http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/pubs/bulletin9/b9p3.htmlhttp://health.state.ga.us/pdfs/prevention/MotorycycleFactSheet-Professionals.pdf But the really nice paper I can't read right now: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3882939/Moped-Moto-Riders-Swov I'll have to peruse that one. On a strictly rational basis, I could see proposing: 1. 50cc and below for those less than 18 years old. 2. 250 cc and below for those with less than 1 year experience 3. Abrasion resistant clothing required 4. High top abrasion resistant boots required 5. Training course required 6. Refresher course required every 5 years 7. Eye test required every 5 years 8. Retest required every 5 years 9. Full face helmet required 10. Neck brace required So I don't think we're saddled with much compared to what we could be stuck with! Someone read and summarize that European article. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by Steel-Cowboy on 09/10/09 at 03:37:03 Well justin_o_guy2.....what are you comunist??!! The Gov has more rights than we do already!! that's why we left England. Are you running for office? What the h__l? >:( |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by LANCER on 09/10/09 at 05:39:35 313A39363A355B0 wrote:
There you go, you have the correct perspective. It is torque that moves you down the road and allows the really fun acceleration. Focus on those tweaks & mod's that enhance torque and you will have a great ride. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/10/09 at 06:09:27 2F28393930713F332B3E33255C0 wrote:
No, Ive studied this & as I said, that person hasnt a clue about WHY we are licensed. The Supreme Courts says we dont have to have one. I leave it to you to do your own homework. Ive got years in it. I am more of a Libertarian.Constitutionalist than anyone else I know. PS, A License is permission from the State to do what would otherwise be illegal. Following the "logic" of why drivers are Licensed, I would guess people fishing at the lake are licensed so they know what they are doing & newlyweds are licensed so they know how to be married? |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by Charon on 09/10/09 at 06:24:22 Tell me, Justin, do YOU have a driver's license? If, as you say, the Supreme Court (of the United States, of of one State?) holds a driver's license to be unnecessary, are YOU willing to be the test case? This isn't meant as an attack, by the way. I have seen and read some of the stuff about various court cases holding that a driver's license is unconstitutional, and I suppose I can agree. But, if I were the State govenment, I would simply change the name of the required document to something like "Certificate of Demonstrated Proficiency" and continue to require it. For other stuff such as fishing licenses, I would go in either of two directions. I would declare all fish in State waters to be State property and then sell a license to take those fish, or I would find a way to call the license fee a "user fee" instead. I was stationed in England many years ago, and knew the then requirements for a Learner Permit for a motorcycle. One was restricted to 250 cc, could not carry a passenger, and had to display "L" plates (learner plates). In those days the fast 250s were yet to come. Nowadays, I don't think a 250 Ninja meets the spirit of the limitations. Nor would the Suzuki X-6 Hustler of the '70s. I did notice that there were no displacement requirements for autos for learners, so one could learn in a Ferarri if one had the money. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by dinsdale on 09/10/09 at 07:47:55 475E5D5558565852505C310 wrote:
What the first study shows is that ages 25-44 make up the majority of non-fatal crashes (51%), and that 45-55 is the next highest age group followed by 19-24. It also states that 50% of crashes involved learners or unlicensed drivers. Now without knowing the numbers of drivers in each age category you cannot make much of that but at the very least it seems to indicate that age is not a factor rather experience is. No time yet to read the long one. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/10/09 at 08:07:12 No, Charon, I KNOW the way things are, & In spite of my knowledge of & understanding of the licensing issue( It is required for a commercial application, note, stagecoaches had Drivers, Trucks Have Drivers, the word is a commercial word) I also know that those who tell me "Ignorance of the law, yadda yadda yadda" are ignorant of the true law & will ticket me & Ill lose in court, unless I have the time & $$$ to press it, & I dont, so I have a license. Yep, call me a wuss. I feel like a shop owner, paying protection $$$ to the mob, so my store doesnt get robbed, or burned down or vandalized.. Again, a license is permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal,. Gotta go back to when marriage licenses came into effect, They are not required for all marriages, according to the base law that created them, they are applied evenly, to hide the real purpose. You dont really believe people had to have a license to be a plumber back in the early days, do you? What changed? When? It wasnt about protecting the public, it was because the peoples legal standing changed in the eyes of the govt. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/10/09 at 08:09:40 I am not advocating untrained people driving, I am arguing against a permission slip, paid for every few years,( A right, taxed) & a right being made into a privilege. I could have a copy of my "Graduated from driving school & passed State approved test" certificate with me, thats not an issue. When DID travel become a privilege? |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by King Kashue on 09/10/09 at 08:41:18 56494F4855526353635B49450E3C0 wrote:
You're welcome to believe so. You're also welcome to actually cite the Supreme Court decision(s) that you claim supports your position. As for the statistics, the Hurt Study, though old, bears it out very clearly, as do subsequent DOT/NHTSA reports. Searching on either term should find you multiple copies of each. If you can't find them, I can try to provide links. Finally, as for my specific claim, I didn't make a claim as to the "actual" basis for licensing (i.e., whatever shadowy reason you've left unstated, but are sure exists), but said that there is a perfectly legitimate legal basis in the explicit text of the Constitution (which I mentioned). Now, if you want to argue that the government isn't using that basis, but instead have a (sinister?) ulterior motive in their regulation, you're welcome (heck, I've no problem believing the government is using the facade of legitimacy to collect revenues)...However, that won't change the fact that the Constitution provides more than enough legitimate basis for the regulation (which is the only thing I said). |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by King Kashue on 09/10/09 at 08:42:42 332C2A2D30370636063E2C206B590 wrote:
Riding a motorcycle is a right? Precisely what legal precedent or principle establishes riding a motorcycle as a right? |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/10/09 at 08:48:54 TRAVEL is a right. Using commonly available means |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by ls650v on 09/10/09 at 08:59:11 Look near the bottom of the list. 24.6 HP. http://www.users.qwest.net/~ghakala/bike%20fastest1.htm |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by bill67 on 09/10/09 at 09:45:59 Its not on the bottom theirs bikes with less horsepower. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by LANCER on 09/10/09 at 10:22:19 I see a license as being not an issue of the right to drive or ride, but simply as another means of exacting another TAX. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by Oldfeller on 09/10/09 at 10:44:07 Taxation is the power to raise revenue. The power to regulate or (set requirements) was originally held by the States but was taken over by the Fed in order to even out interstate commerce. Bureaucrats make regulations supposedly to support the laws (regulations carry the weight of law but is actually created without any of the built in Constitutional checks and balances). Czars are bureaucrats, not Constitutionally based at all. The issue that you folks seem to be arguing about is "social engineering" or "manipulative regulation" something that hasn't existed in America to the odious degree it does now except for the last 15-20 years now. ==================== You ain't seen nothing yet -- unless we all get smart and intentionally hamstring our central government by intentionally electing a president of one party mated to a split congress that cannot functionally pass any more manipulative laws for arguing with itself then run-away social engineering and manipulative regulation will make our lives very very uncomfortable in short order. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by Serowbot on 09/10/09 at 11:21:09 This thread has gone from belonging in the cafe, to belonging at the Tall Table.... Anyway,.. I've heard estimates of 29 to 33hp... could be high for a stocker, but 24hp sounds low.... |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by 4carbcorvair on 09/10/09 at 16:33:57 Wow. 30hp to this.... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by diamond jim on 01/20/10 at 18:01:47 29-31 seems to be the average I've seen. I got 33hp on my dyno run. More importantly, though, was the 36ft lbs of torque. With a bike this light, each additional foot pound of torque makes a difference. Shift the bulk of that extra torque to the lower revs where you usually ride and the smiles get progressively bigger. And the cam, carb and other goodies and you're really rockin' then. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/20/10 at 18:21:20 5D4B5C41594C415A2E0 wrote:
You go from cool to constipated hall monitor in milliseconds |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by Serowbot on 01/20/10 at 18:49:10 342B2D2A3730013101392B276C5E0 wrote:
You go from cool to constipated hall monitor in milliseconds [/quote] and you're a little slow on the uptake... I made that post 4 months ago... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by bill67 on 01/20/10 at 19:01:28 Bot can do in milliseconds what it takes JOG 4 months to do. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by diamond jim on 01/20/10 at 21:44:27 For me, I'm all about torque. There are not many LS650 dyno slips on the net. About half are from the portable dynos that only show hp. So I keep a look out for those that show the torque curve and look especially to see which mods effect how early, how flat, where and how wide in the powerband the torque curve remains above about 28 ft lbs. From the limited dyno slips posted, it seams that adding a supertrapp and rejetting is the quickest way to gain an easy 10% on the torque side. A supertrapp has the advantage of a short pipe and long pipe. The section where the cone begins to widen fools the bike into thinking it has a shorter pipe thus more torque in the midrange and higher parts of the powerband. However, the cone and discs also imitate the dynamics of a longer pipe and this also helps provide torque in the same manner as a concentric longer pipe. The discs allow one to emulate the restrictiveness of a longer concentric pipe. Viola, best of both worlds. The benefit of a supertrapp on the LS650 cannot be argued. However, the price sometimes sometimes can. I managed a 15-20% torque increase, albeit after tons of testing and messing around. Consider it the poor man's method. But to me it's all about flow. Intake and exhaust length with appropriate cross-sectional dimensions effect max torque as well as where in the powerband the torque is most prominent. Longer intake and exhaust paths, up tp a point, equal more torque and torque that is shifted more into the lower to midrange portion of the rpm band. Shorter intake and exhaust lengths shift the torque more into the midrange and higher rpms. A cone filter directly mounted to the carb mouth combined with a shorter pipe (one that ends say 4-5 inches before the rear axle bolt, will have torque shifted more into the mideange to upper rpm. This is the best setup for WOT but at the expense of low to midrange torque. If most of your riding is highway and interstate miles, then this is a pretty good setup for you. However, I ride in neighborhoods, downtown and stoplight traffic. I do a lot more stop and go and riding under 60 mph. So I want my torque focused in the low to midrange instead so I can get that grin when I turn the throttle. On the LS650, a longer intake track and longer exhaust, both geared towards increasing air velocity, provide that lovely oomph with the tstyle of riding that I do (or did!) When I first started modding I did the standard cone filter directly on the carb and a sportster muffler. I really thought I was getting all of the grin inducing torque that this little thumper is capable of providing. I certainly didn't realize what I was missing til after the mods. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by Charon on 01/21/10 at 05:49:19 If you have a horsepower versus rpm curve, it is easy enough to draw your own torque curve. Take the horsepower from the curve, divide it by the rpm at which it occurs, multiply the result by 5252, and you get the torque in ft-lbs. 5252 is the rpm at which the torque and horsepower are equal (in the English measurement system). It is not a magic number, but is derived from the definition of a horsepower, 33000 ft-lbs/min, and the circumference of a circle, 2*pi*radius. As a check on your calculations, below 5252 rpm the torque is higher than the horsepower. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/23/10 at 08:17:30 6771667B63767B60140 wrote:
You go from cool to constipated hall monitor in milliseconds [/quote] and you're a little slow on the uptake... I made that post 4 months ago... :-?[/quote] So, youve changed & no longer would have made that post? |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by DesertCat on 01/15/20 at 14:43:23 227577647475796460777F64160 wrote:
======================================== Sorry to resurrect an old thread but the HP of the LS650 was what I was looking for too. I did find it on the net (30 HP) but I have a question about that figure. I didn't want to start a new thread for this and I definitely don't want to re-start the arguing . . . I have a 2017 DR650, completely stock, that claims to have 45 HP. If this 45 HP rating is measured the same as the LS650 (crank or rear wheel) then I can assume that the stock LS650 I am buying will have 33% less power than my DR650? That doesn't seem right. If the LS650 "feels" like it has close to the same power on the street as my DR650, I'll be a happy man . . . Any one have any (street) performance comparison experience between the DR650 and the LS650? Just curious, BTW. know the LS650 is not a racer and probably couldn't do 90 MPH top end. I know what I'm getting, I think. From review videos I've seen on YouTube, it looks like the LS650 gets up to 80 MPH pretty easily. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by IslandRoad on 01/15/20 at 15:45:39 DesertCat, I can't do a comparison but I can give some feedback on the LS650. I did a lot of 'seat of the pants' testing with a tach installed when I installed the Dyna muffler and rejetted (I don't think the mod added heaps of power so the info is still spplicable). Yes the bike will hit 80 miles per hour easily. I got to about 90 (on the Speedo, so allow for error) at about 6000 rpm. The acceleration rate dropped off considerably for those last 10 miles per hour until it pretty much peaked out at 93 miles per hour. The very first thing I noticed about the bike is you don't need to get the revs up to feel the pull. The acceleration/torque 'curve' just feels like a straight line right from the start up to 80 miles per' hour - in general riding in the street. In testing for acceleration and top speed in a straight line. WOT, and paying close attention, you can feel the torque at its peak somewhere between 3500 - 4500 rpm (I think theres a chart somewhere on this site that confirms that). But for the most part, considering the kind of riding you describe, there's not really a discernable 'power band' as such. Just twist, go, and glance in the mirror, as you're about to click into third gear, to see the cars looking small behind you ;D |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by DesertCat on 01/15/20 at 15:53:24 Thanks IslandRoad. I have read reviews that say the torque/power is at lower RPMs. I'm just curious about the power -- I've only sat on one but never ridden one. Have you ever ridden a DR650? Its engine has also been around a few years . . . |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by DesertCat on 01/15/20 at 16:06:56 This is promising, because I weigh about 210 lbs. This video shows a guy and his wife riding a 2015 S40, stock, and he gets it up to 80 MPH indicated. He states that their combined weight is as much as the bike (381 lbs). I also noticed his mirrors were pretty clear (no horrible vibes) at speed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKomhsXxjbA |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by IslandRoad on 01/15/20 at 18:21:58 Sorry, I haven't ridden the DR600. As for the power - I sometimes carry a pillion and honestly I forget she's on there sometimes. Except those moments at a stop when she needs to adjust her position and pushes on the ground with one foot!!! The power of the bike is kinda interesting. It's not gonna throw you off the back or pop the front wheel - it just digs deep and pulls. As for the mirrors, I can't remember what they were like with the stock tall risers and stock drag bars. But with every other setup I've run the mirrors vibrate a lot. I was riding with a friend. When they were behind me it looked like 4 or 5 bikes in the mirror. Keep in mind the stock drag bars have very substantial weights welded into them for anti-vibration. I'll be adding something similar to my next set as the vibration, at speed, currently can make my thumbs numb. |
|
Title: Re: Horsepower Post by DesertCat on 01/15/20 at 18:42:14 @IslandRoad -- thanks again! |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |