ADVrider

ADVrider (http://www.advrider.com/forums/index.php)
-   Thumpers (http://www.advrider.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Why does the KLR engine suck in HP (http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=845169)

beergut 11-30-2012 09:03 PM

Why does the KLR engine suck in HP
 
KTM 640adv:
625cc, 54hp

KLR 650
649cc, 20hp

Honda XR650
644cc, 30-35hp

Suzuki DR650
644cc, 43hp

All of these are estimated and from QUICK google searches and are unmodified engine ratings. One thread said the XR can hit the 45-50hp target pretty easily, the DR isnt far off and the KTM makes everyone laugh.

WHy does the KLR suck so bad? What can make serious improvements?

Echo1 11-30-2012 09:30 PM

I think the info you have is wrong. Here are some MCN dyno tested rear wheel HP specs from the 2012 edition of the MCN performance index:

'10 KTM 690 Enduro R, 46HP

'08 KLR650, 36HP

'07 Honda XR650L, 33HP

'07 Suzuki DR650, 35.6HP

http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/technical/2012JanPerfIndx.pdf

beergut 11-30-2012 09:32 PM

it still sucks.

:freaky

I own one and am trying to make it suck less

jtw000 11-30-2012 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beergut (Post 20154150)
it still sucks.

:freaky

I own one and am trying to make it suck less


Sell it and buy a bike...:rofl

beergut 11-30-2012 09:37 PM

yeah that option is looking very slim at the moment. I had intentions but they are slipping away and if I am going to make it half way not suck, now is the time.

ParaMud 11-30-2012 09:37 PM

You guys bought a klr to go fast??


lol

beergut 11-30-2012 09:40 PM

no

SloMo228 11-30-2012 09:46 PM

Not specifically about the KLR, but I have wondered along these lines - what is the reason for dirt-oriented bikes having these relatively low power outputs? I mean, just about any 650cc road bike has at least 20hp more than these numbers. I'm honestly not trying to start an argument here, just honestly wondering about what I perceive as an odd discrepancy. For instance, an 80s CB650 has at least 60HP at the crank, why would a Honda 650 dirt bike almost 30 years newer have just barely more than half that HP?

oldxr 11-30-2012 10:27 PM

My Honda xr650r on the dyno.Top trace is the oem carb rejetted.Bottem is an edelbrock carb with a 21e needle.Most of the weak/poor driveability is from carbs jetted for emissions so the bike can be imported.The oem carb has poor throttle response at low rpms.I have since found a 20e needle for the eldo and pulled 43 mpg on combined highway/dirt road touring with a giant loop pack on back.I forget but I found a company that can build a 50hp klr motor some where on the net.Its is a modern dohc 4 valve engine.Problem is most klr riders dont want to drop $2k in the engine.Usually you deduct %20 for the difference between rwhp and crankshaft hp http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r...t/xrrcarbs.jpg

Tosh Togo 11-30-2012 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SloMo228 (Post 20154200)
Not specifically about the KLR, but I have wondered along these lines - what is the reason for dirt-oriented bikes having these relatively low power outputs? I mean, just about any 650cc road bike has at least 20hp more than these numbers. I'm honestly not trying to start an argument here, just honestly wondering about what I perceive as an odd discrepancy. For instance, an 80s CB650 has at least 60HP at the crank, why would a Honda 650 dirt bike almost 30 years newer have just barely more than half that HP?

Because the singles (1) don't have the ability to rev in order to make the horsepower that a similar-sized four-cylinder is capable of producing. It will, however, produce more torque than the multi, and have a broader spread of torque. (2) Singles don't have the valve area that an inline does. Same effect. :deal

Fyi, I've ridden a few early 80's CB650... they're nice little streetbikes, if you don't mind a medium-bore that needs revs like a 250 Ninja does. It's the opposite of a KLR's powerband, and there's a very good reason for that. :1drink

Engines produce torque, not hp. The torque curve is what a dyno measures, and the shape of it is what your butt feels when you whack the throttle.

Mid-range rules, even if you don't have enough of it.

Off the grid 12-01-2012 12:29 AM

The KTM 690 makes 61hp stock.

Unstable Rider 12-01-2012 02:52 AM

It's slightly faster in the 1/4 mile than a new Dodge Durango.... and a 2009+ KLR is 37 hp, not 20......

Your "fast google search" was not on task I am afraid. :deal

The KLR will easily haul three times it's own weight. It's a donkey, not a racehorse.

Grinnin 12-01-2012 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unstable Rider (Post 20154785)
The KLR will easily haul three times it's own weight.

I think you've exceeded its GVWR.:(:

The engine is VERY similar to the KLR600. When people say the bike has been around since '87, it is only warmed over from '84. It was a modest engine then.

As for improvements: I REALLY like the 705 piston. I didn't put it in expecting it to be like an inline 4 or even my revvy twin, but it does make the bike more willing. And fun. I'll admit it, I have fun on an underpowered old design.

I am not even considering hot cams, but there's more help there. Total cost of piston, sleeve, boring, and cams would be more than buying a different bike.

GAS GUY 12-01-2012 05:38 AM

I think you may be a candidate for a FCR PUMPER carb.
That will give you that initial hit from the accelerator pump when you twist the throttle that you are probably longing for.

Wallachian Spikes 12-01-2012 06:08 AM

The KLR is still early '80s technology & it was designed with a "utilitarian" purpose, not as a race bike. When I got my first KLR an '00 in Marine Corps green I was shocked by it's lack of power & very dissapointed...... At first. The bike slowly grew on me & out of twenty different bikes the KLR is the only one I bought a second time.

As a KLR owner I'm painfully aware of it's short commings & lack of H.P. is way up there on my list. When I heard Kawasaki was finally going to upgrade the KLR in '08, I was thrilled to death. However the end result was a heavier bike that looked (IMO) bulbus & silly. It still had the Doohicky & Thermobob problems, it is still only a five speed & cranks out basically the same underwhelming power. I wish they had left it alone, as I prefer the old look & it was already too heavy from the start.

The appeal of the KLR is that it is the ultimate "Bargan bike" & I never fail to enjoy a ride on it. Sure other bikes are more fun at single purpose uses or at a much (KTM 690) higher price. Perhaps the Husqvarna 650 Terra will change that & hopefully Kick Kawasaki in the butt & be the inspiration to build the KLR I'd hopped for in '08.

As it stands now, you either "get" the KLR or you don't but, it's the guys that "don't" get it that keep so many low milage KLRs on the used market at bargan prices that make guys like me love them so much. Still after 25 years, a modernized KLR with improvements on the flaws that actually matter to me would be nice.


Times are GMT -7.   It's 05:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014