2013 Husqvarna 650 Terra

Larryboy you sly dog. You know it is crank HP. Good point though, as a lot of enthusiast do not, when proving their bike is best. A 2012 KTM 690 Super Moto rated at 72hp only shows 61 on a dyno. Your experience may vary.

If there is going to be a pool, my money is on 48hp at the wheel. I cheated though, the g650gs lost 10hp between the spec sheet and the dyno.

I really don't think they have done any favors for us; Take a 300 lb bike with 52 HP and turn it into a 400 lb bike with 58 HP:huh

Sure it will be reliable and the price is right. It just makes the TE610's more valuable.

DR650 is 328lbs wet FTR.


I'd like to see torque numbers compared. I cant help but feel this is just, derivative. If I buy a Husq, I want it to come with an IKEA catalog, to make me meatballs and for parts to be strange mysterious objects which are often sought but rarely found.

If I wanted to buy an F650, I'd just buy the F650.

And your wallet would be $3k lighter

See what I am talking about If wet means with a tank of fuel your bike weighs 366# per Suzuki: http://www.suzukicycles.com/en/Product Lines/Cycles/Products/DR650SE/2012/DR650SE.aspx#Specs

... and when was there a 300 lb bike using this rotax engine? The earlist Pegasso's were the lightest Pegasso's at about 360 wet. BMW's first modification of the Pegaso brought it to closer to 400.

The X challenge is maybe 340 ready to ride? I'm sure that's the lightest bike using this engine.

On the 654cc 690 enduro (probably the strongest single out there now) cycle world got 46 hp at the rear world where motorcycle USA published 56 for the duke. The cycleworld article was more specific about it being rear wheel hp. Motorcycle USA usually just passes along manufactures claims adding some legitimacy to fallacy when they are not being clear in the #' s they post.

I got about 34 hp on my 690 enduro... Isn't that less than KLR territory? It was running great, but that was with a full knobby, at the rear wheel at 9,000 feet above sea level. Really darn close to 50% of the manufacturer's claim. That's why it's so important to explain your numbers!

But it really was 34 hp where it was and so I'm not a fan of using "corrected hp #'s" - ecspecially when you don't explain that. I.e. the bike could not do a power wheelie in 1st gear (KLR territory) where at sea level it would does one easier in 3rd gear.

So who is gonna be the brave soul and get one first?

I need to see if BMW screwed up the electronics with this one too before committing.

I'm in the market for a reliable Baja runner (to and from home). It's either something like the Terra or really build-up my DR650.

EDIT: There is no way a stock DR650 is under 350lbs wet. More like 370lbs from my bathroom scale.

Here's a good (but incomplete) summary of measured weight/performance numbers:

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

The 2 DR650s tested came in very close to Suzuki's claimed curb weight of 366 pounds (full tank of fuel, ready to ride) -- 358 pounds and 368 pounds.

X2 - The stock Dr650 is 365+ with no fuel. I weighed mine before stripping it, it is now 330 with no fuel and nothing left to reasonably remove or exchange for lighter parts. Any more weight loss has to come from the rider....

DR650SE wet no fuel weight is 347 lbs, X-Challenge is 330. Both are actual weights from people who have put them on a scale.

Taking the Terra's official wet weight and subtracting the 90% full tank you get right around 380 lbs.

So a 50 lbs weight gain over the X. If you consider that both need a steel subframe for ADVtouring, and that the Terra can lose one muffler, you are down to 40 lbs.

It's still quite a lot of extra fat but not horribly so, and after all it is much cheaper and offset by significant power gains.

Someone will develop and sell a single muffler exhaust system for the TR650 soon. The bike screams for a single muffler exhaust. Hopefully, that will shed a few more pounds. I'd spring for a Ti system if it were available. I see lots of stuff that can be removed but I have no use for passenger pegs and barends. Those will go off mine. That won't drop much weight and I'll add handguards and a windscreen, so it's a trade off. I'd still bet there is more to remove under the skin of the TR. There is no serious thinking that this bike will be a lightweight but every little bit helps. Rear racks, panniers, a skidplate and other necessities will drive the weight back up to 400lbs and I can live with that.

Thanks for passing that along! I'm such a numbers geek I devoured it. I am having a tough time believing they were all compared in the same way.

Of interest to me on that list was:

Difference in rear wheel hp between the KTM 690 duke and enduro 59.6 vs 46! What do you dyno guys think? An error there, or does a knobby tire make that big of a difference.

Also I found interesting but believable was how much wind affects the top speed of Dual Sport bikes. Compare the Honda CBR250R (same engine as the new CRF250L dual sport) and the tried and true XR650L.
CBR250 = 366 lbs, 21.92 hp, 14.6 ft/lbs torque yields a top speed of 91.2 mph.
XR650L = 349 lbs, 33.3 hp, 31.1 ft/lbs torque yields a top speed of 89.05 mph.

Interesting that 17 lbs less, 50% more hp, more than double the torque has a lower top speed I'm assuming because of the drag.

Just notice that they have the Suzuki DR400 putting out 3 more hp than the Husky 449 - 33 vs 30 at the rear wheel? I'm having a tough time believing those #'s. As the Suzuki will probably last 5X longer than the husky why would anyone use a high maintenance, short life engine if it put out less hp with 50 more cc's?

Not a numbers geek so I did not read the posted data sheet. However I did in a past life run a dyno and do all kinds of testing on one. And the bottom line is that a dyno is a tuning tool and nothing more. The only way to get good data is to do multiple test runs under the same conditions. That means all the bikes would have to be shod with the same tire, strapped down the same way (with the same force on the rear tire), at the same operating temperature (oil and coolant), the same atmospheric conditions, and ridden on the dyno by the same operator. They should also be run in the same RPM range and 1.1 gear if possible. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

If all those things were not done, especially not the same tire then the numbers don&#8217;t mean squat and really in the grand scheme of things they don&#8217;t mean squat anyway. We all know a TE449 is faster and snapper then a DRZ400. That alone leads me to believe that tires were not changed as im sure the TE DOT dirt tire would spin much more then DOT tire on a DRZ. <o></o>

I look at Touratech's stuff and I see cheap and flimsy with stamped and bent thin aluminum. JMO

Been looking at this bike as a potential first dual sport. I'm not the kind of guy to dig deep into the weeds, but I want my bike to be able to get off the pavement and into some modest terrain. But I want it to be able to handle a few hundred miles of highway, too.... which is why this Husky is so appealing.

Hoping it sells and husky keeps the line around.

Early test ride...

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=26322

Exactly! I have a TE 310 for off-road riding and DS events. As been said a thousand times, there's no one quiver bike.. I had a 690, and it was very close to a one quiver, but not really all that fun on tight stuff, especially for a small dude, but very awesome on the two-track and open road.

Great discussion and info on this bike. I really want one..

-C

Rather than a platform to modify into a good adventure bike it seems more like they combined the worst of all dual sports into one bike.

Small gastank
Heavy
No wind protection
No attempt at even a plastic skid plate
Luggage looks to be difficult and expensive


It's kinda like if you took a XR650R and added 100 lbs without actually improving anything. Or maybe added power to a KLR but removed the fairings and made parts more expensive. Am I missing something?

You forgot cheap short travel suspension, and a steel swingarm, I still cant believe it's got a steel swingarm.....it's a red bmw, if that's what you want that's fine, I just want Husky around so if I need a part for my TE630 it's on the shelf. I'd complain about this more but it won't do anygood, bmw will do what bmw wants to do. I'd say the short suspension is because this was really intended to be a street bike but the US dealers told them they couldn't sell it without a 21-18 tire set. And if you travel at any speed on a two track road and come upon some rocks or a ledge you will be wishing you had more that 7.5 inches of travel imo