Why does the KLR engine suck in HP

[shipwrek12001]

It is cheaper to make a ktm a klr than a klr a ktm... even after all the money, you still don't have a ktm.
when on open trails, a klr with the right rider can over take the ktm with the wrong rider... on the 690 there is a little switch making the ktm a klr...
if you want more torque put a bigger sproket and if you want more speed put a smaller one... how many riders can out preform the bike... which ever bike...

[Off the grid]

Originally Posted by beergut

My thought:
http://klrworld.com/forums/modificat...r-mods-report/

I have a guy in AZ who does a lot of cage engine head porting and has done a few Honda motorcycle heads. I will likely be sending him my head and I will also be installing a little larger valve. I am also considering doing a ceramic coating on the faces of the valves to help with heat.

At the end of the day, I will likely have all of this into a bike that will still be a KLR.


***this is on a pre-08 bike***

If you dont have access to the site, it summarizes that the 685 with a ported head and larger valves nets extra power. Patman went from a stock 34hp to 46hp with a very nice power curve to 6300 rpms. It falls of drastically at about 7100rpms.

Patman says "The 685 kit is a pretty good boost even to a stock bike and has the added benefit of lessening the vibration through a lighter piston. Also the kit I got, and I'm not sure on the production kits ) cut oil consumption by...welll 100% I guess. I haven't used any yet."

KLR Cary who built the engine says "The head is a "Stage-2". That runs about $585.00. The valves are oversize, but will clear even with the stock piston. There are options that can add, or deduct from that price. I feel that it is a practical place to stop. There is an afull lot more that can be done to the head, but the returns for the dollar start to fall off steeply. Total cost for both, if you do the assembly is just under $1000

Some other things you shoud know:
The exhaust noise level will increase a good amount, no matter what system your using.
Jetting is more difficult, and what worked before will no longer do. The piston alone won't change it. The head WILL. Slide lift hole must not be bigger than 7/64". The difference in lift hole size makes a much larger change. I'm running a stock size lift hole in mine. It will also require the KLX needle. The DJ needle will work in some situations, but the KLX needle is more likely to make it easier to jet. The stock needle will not work!
Heavier clutch springs are wise. Stock is OK, but borderline, though that depends somewhat on how you use it.

Cary"

I have spoken to Schnitz and they advised me to ship my head to
http://www.mtechmotorcycles.com/perf...5-705-kits.htm

Someone would have to be a mental patient to put that kind of money into a KLR. Better off selling it, adding the 1k and getting a 640 LC4.

[kojack]

Originally Posted by Grreatdog

So was the engine in my lawn mower. It doesn't make me want to ride the damned thing for fun.

Well, were not comparing lawn mowers....

I would totally rather ride a bike that will finish the ride instead of grenade 1/2 way through and have to be towed home by a KLR....now if your ride consists of riding in your back yard..then by all means ride your crackhead. I will take the kawi products and make it back after a LONG day in the saddle.

[NovaMoto]

Originally Posted by Grreatdog

So was the engine in my lawn mower. It doesn't make me want to ride the damned thing for fun.

I couldn't ride a KLR either. Too fat, slow & under sprung. So many other great options out there for the kind of money they go for new

[DualsportWA]

The KLR is a great bike if you don't need a lot of power. If you do want more thrills (try a KLR, I did) consider buying a used KTM 640 LC4 or Husqvarna TE610. Both have about ~55 hp at the crank, modern suspension, and weigh less by over 100lb! Both bikes will go 20,000+ miles before major maintenance...

[Off the grid]

Originally Posted by DualsportWA

The KLR is a great bike if you don't need a lot of power. If you do want more thrills (try a KLR, I did) consider buying a used KTM 640 LC4 or Husqvarna TE610. Both have about ~55 hp at the crank, modern suspension, and weigh less by over 100lb! Both bikes will go 20,000+ miles before major maintenance...

See therein lies the rub. I think there are a lot of folks that remember the Euro bikes from the 90s...fickle, fragile and rare. That was 20 years ago, folks.

Euro bikes have come a loooong way since then, and it shows because they dominate almost all offroad markets.

Fear of change. It's a common malady these days. Hell, even I had it when I was shopping for a bike.

That said, there is a place for the venerable KLR....perhaps a young, fit rider that wants to explore remote places and does not care about comfort, speed, or stopping. It is a pack hound, that's for sure.

[RoberTx]

Originally Posted by beergut

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?

Motorcyclist Magazine dyno puts the KLR at 36 hp @ 6,230 rpm. This is a screen shot of it I got off the KLRWorld site. . Dark blue is the 2008 torque numbers, light blue the 2007. Dark orange is the 2008 hp numbers and light orange the 2007. The whole article can be found in the Motorcyclist archives. I can't link to it because I'm on a government computer. Notice that the 2008 and 2007 both make the same peak hp but the 2008 makes it about 500 rpm lower than the 2007.

[warewolf]

Originally Posted by XDragRacer

I'd just note; maximum torque and maximum horsepower do not occur at the same rpm.

He didn't say that, he said they were the same (crossed) at 525rpm. See the chart below:

Originally Posted by RoberTx

[markjenn]

Originally Posted by Kommando

Your numbers are a bit off.

And the pope is a bit catholic. Just to pick two, his KTM 640 number is about 25% high and his KLR number is about 40% low.

- Mark

[warewolf]

Interesting mix of fact and fiction in this thread!

Originally Posted by DualsportWA

KTM 640 LC4 or Husqvarna TE610. Both have about ~55 hp at the crank, modern suspension, and weigh less by over 100lb! Both bikes will go 20,000+ miles before major maintenance...

Dunno 'bout the Husky but the LC4 is good for about 120,000km before major maintenance. Top end likes a freshen up at half that, but it's still double the 20,000 mile mark.

Originally Posted by kojack

I would totally rather ride a bike that will finish the ride instead of grenade 1/2 way through and have to be towed home by a KLR....now if your ride consists of riding in your back yard..then by all means ride your crackhead. I will take the kawi products and make it back after a LONG day in the saddle.

If you've got enough engine oil to stop it seizing after burning it all, or enough spare shocks because they keep blowing, or the doohickey stays put, or...

To the OP; the KLR engine as has been pointed out doesn't suck that bad compared to similar Jap machinery. But the reason they all suck in HP compared to the KTM LC4 is that the LC4 has all of the previously suggested mods and more - except big-bore kit - done ex-factory. Big valves, ported head, high compression ratio (11.5:1), high rev ceiling, cam profiles/timing, and smaller alternator and one less balance shaft to reduce parasitic losses. I'm "reserving my judgement" on which style is better.

[kojack]

Originally Posted by warewolf

Interesting mix of fact and fiction in this thread!

Dunno 'bout the Husky but the LC4 is good for about 120,000km before major maintenance. Top end likes a freshen up at half that, but it's still double the 20,000 mile mark.

If you've got enough engine oil to stop it seizing after burning it all, or enough spare shocks because they keep blowing, or the doohickey stays put, or...

To the OP; the KLR engine as has been pointed out doesn't suck that bad compared to similar Jap machinery. But the reason they all suck in HP compared to the KTM LC4 is that the LC4 has all of the previously suggested mods and more - except big-bore kit - done ex-factory. Big valves, ported head, high compression ratio (11.5:1), high rev ceiling, cam profiles/timing, and smaller alternator and one less balance shaft to reduce parasitic losses. I'm "reserving my judgement" on which style is better.

My klr never burnt anymore oil than any other bike I owned. Shock was fine even loaded. And the doo was fine as well. Your talking about the old Gen. Mine was bulletproof. Still is, I'm friends with the person who owns it now.

I'm hunting down a blue 2012 this spring I like the bike so much. I love the klr for the riding here. Nope, its not a euro trash bike, but its a tractor, that will motor through everything and not have crazy maintenance costs, or have parts that cost an arm and a leg. If something does happen to it, its nothing serious.

Sent from my ARCHOS 80G9 using Tapatalk 2

[CodyY]

Originally Posted by kojack

Well, were not comparing lawn mowers....

I would totally rather ride a bike that will finish the ride instead of grenade 1/2 way through and have to be towed home by a KLR....now if your ride consists of riding in your back yard..then by all means ride your crackhead. I will take the kawi products and make it back after a LONG day in the saddle.

[kojack]

Sorry asshat,

I gots you blocked...I dont ready what you writy because it 100 percent crap!

peace!

I figure its you still whining that I am using the dos equis guy in my avatar, god knows I have enough pms in my inbox with you freaking out over that....

time to grow up whiner!

[kojack]

No offence to the REAL KTM riders, just directed to the holy'r than thou KTM POSERS like codyY

[kojack]