Kawasaki Motorcycle Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
previous owner told me the bike ran 112bhp when he had the power comander set up on the dyno with a akraprovic exhaust system (exhaust pipe valve removed) and a k&n filter.
what i didn't ask is is this power at the rear wheel or at the fly??
i am guessing that the power is at the rear wheel as the factory state that the std 636 (uk spec) is around 130bhp @ the crank.

would the smaller sprokets on the bike alter the power, ie they may of used the incorect final ratio when setting her up?


sorry for such random questions, but i am trying to get my head around the 112bhp figure he gave me, surely it can't be a crank figure?

thanks, for any help. karl :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
definately at the wheel, not the crank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
when comparing the figure to the standard 136bhp (uk with ram air) i was 95.9% sure it was at the wheel :)
i am also guessing that on a dyno they don't use the ram air, unless the fans they use increase with engine speed, other wise the bike would run rich "on the road" at lower speeds.

with the above in mind, what is the the drive train power loss on a zx6r? i am thinking in the reigon of 10%?? which would give my bike around 123.2bhp (with out ram air) [8D]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
im not posetive but i thought it was 136, at least what the sales book at the dealer showed, at the crank. also another article said 128bhp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
yeah pretty sure it was 128 (with out ram air) and 136 with.
but that was over here in rainy old england, with lower air temps and higher octane fuels.
either way i'm happy with 112bhp if the power loss at the rear wheel is around 10% :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,447 Posts
128-136 is too optimistic numbers for 636. Now you can expect somewhere around 118 rwhp with all these mods and if mapping is custom done. I got 110.7 rwhp with slip on and wire jumper mod. But again all dynos are different and one might show bigger/smaller numbers than the other one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
very true about dyno accuracy mate, the jumpper mod, that's for american bikes only right, i read that the jumpper wire adjusts the timing in the upper part of the ignition timing and hence giving the engine the top end power of the uk (euro) bikes.
the previous owner ony ran std unleaded fuel (95 ron), so i will run shells finest (v-power) which is a 99 ron fuel we have over here and have the timing adjusted to benifit from this increased octane :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,463 Posts
That would be a rear wheel rating you got there...
Depending on bike/dyno, what you say you have that is about right...
maybe a little low...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
From what I've read in the past, power loss through the transmission on bikes is generally accepted as being around 15%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
seriosly guys....that "ram air" is more for looks than anything else.....it is less than 2% efficient at anything under mid triple digit numbers.....the airbox on these bikes is less than right for a true ram air effect. It is a really good place to put an unrestricted passage for incoming air and a good marketing tactic but far from supplying any boost in performance at street speeds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
The Ram Air system is worthwhile as far as performance goes. True, it is only really effective over about 60mph (for Kawasakis, higher for others), but it is effective.

Back when Kawasaki was the only manufacturer to use a Ram Air system, Kawasakis consistently outperformed other bikes in the same class by a fair margin. The '94 ZX-9R was faster than everything else, with the exception of only the ZZR-1100 (ZX-11). That included bikes like the GSXR-1100 and FZR1000.

Similarly, the '93-'94 ZZR-600 (ZX-6E) was much faster than the '93-'94 CBR600, despite weighing ~20lb more.

Sportrider magazine did a pretty good examination of Ram Air systems a few years ago, in which they tested the systems of a few different bikes, including a '99 GSXR750, TLS1000, Hayabusa, ZX-9R, ZX-7R, CBR1100XX, and I think they had an R6 in there too.

The Hayabusa gained the most power. The Kawasakis had the most efficient systems. They had a ZRX1100 as well, to provide a comparison to a non-ram air system.

It makes interesting reading, and I think it's still on their website.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,007 Posts
The trouble is, depending on the atmospheric conditions(air temp, humidity), who is running the dyno, and engine temp. All horse power statistics will vary. And that's just a number anyway. And it doesn't matter how much power you have if you don't know how to use it. If your bike feels fast to you. then it's fast enough. And if it's faster than the other guy's bike... Well that's even better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
i would say that the 112hp number is at the wheel and that you are good to go and the bikes great and that no matter what the dyno says, the bike isnt going anywhere without a rider
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top