Why does the KLR engine suck in HP

[Grreatdog]

Originally Posted by kawagumby

Yep, when I was a kid I used to do a lot of tractor work on the farm, sometimes using and old John Deere one-lunger. My KLR always reminded me of that tractor, LOL....

Which is exactly why you always want at least one guy along for the ride on a KLR. Sure you gotta wait for the guy every time you stop because tractors aren't fast. But somebody has to carry the cooler and tractors are steady.

You sure as hell don't give the cooler to some psycho on an orange bike unless you want the chaser and/or beer exploded or strung along the trail in pieces. So slow and steady is good. No finer machine ever made for that job.

Trust me, this is what you never want to see. Opening that cooler brought grown men to tears. If only he had been poking along on a KLR we would not have had to man up with spring water instead Coke.

[East Coast Rider]

[Myfuture_yourdebt]

Originally Posted by CodyY

I got no shame.

some electrons were mildly inconvenienced in the sending of this message

[itsatdm]

You would hope you could get some knowledge out of a bike forum. We are down to poking fun at one another, so I think it is time to stick a fork into this thread.

The OP asked why the KLR makes such low HP. I answered that, low compression and low RPM's. I do not agree with with Off the Grids examples of what are Dual purpose bikes, but there are some modern versions out there.

BMW X bikes, Husqvarna 610/630/650 Terra and KTM 690's come to mind. They have engine management systems that make high compressions possible. I threw in Static vs Dynamic compression, because hotter cams, change cam timing. The compression rating they claim is theoretical not real, but does allow the engine to spin faster.

More revs means more wear, I doubt 15 years from now we will have a discussion on the merits of these bikes, because if high mileage, I think they will be worn out. Something to consider if buying used.

No bike makes its advertised HP. What it is at the crank, does not make it to the wheel. You can get 45 hp out of all the old school bikes, the manufactures have already made those mods and more on the new ones.
You can add better suspension to the old bikes. Whether any of those mods are worth it, is up to you.

My biggest beef with the new bikes is as they have improved the engines they have decreased the amount of the fuel the carry. Part of that shows up in weight savings. Most of them carry the fuel low in the frame for better handling. Getting 200 miles out of any of them is expensive if doable at all.

My last post, so I can confess that a KLR does not make my top 3 in old school choices.

I mentioned my bike being a KLX650. Here is why I like it. The engine is fairly modern by old school standards, it has a gear driven balancer. It made more HP stock than the competition. The suspension is not bad for that era, the forks are 43mm USD with cartridge type. The rear kind of sucks, but a DRZ 400 shock is a bolt in and works fairly well if you re spring and re valve. At least it is fully adjustable.

The engine got a bad rep because the dirt version did not have a fan the first year and over heated. So much for internet wisdom.

The other misconception is no aftermarket. Mine has a big bore. You can achieve that with a piston from a Kawasaki 1500 vulcan or go modern with a Wossner forged and coated aluminum piston. The loss of 79 grams of piston weight makes the engine purr like a kitten. Low compression means regular gas.

I don't pimp it, because I got one of the last 5 gal tanks and it is heavy. Fully fueled it weights 390lb. But it works for me because I did not buy/build it to do single track. It does fine on fire roads and will cruise pavement at 70mph and get 50 mpg. It is a Dual Purpose bike.

[larryboy]

Originally Posted by warewolf

Where? Even the new model is only 44 PS.

2013 KLR650 Specifications

The KLR is dead to me after 2007 and Kawi called it 48 HP back then, complete rubbish just like a 61 HP KTM. I've read the new slower one is about 31 HP at the wheel, so that makes even the 44 PS on the Kawi NZ website very optimistic.


2012 Kawasaki KLR650
Horsepower: 31.6 HP @ 6100 rpm
Torque: 30.13 lb-ft. @ 3500 rpm
Weight: 434 lbs.
MPG: 38.8 mpg
Price: $6299



The new Husky-BMW/KLR with better suspension might force the KLR into extinction.

Except: “While the weakling of the bunch, the KLR’s motor is smoother and more user friendly than the Sertao’s shaking, vibrating hotrod powerplant.”

[Adv Grifter]

Originally Posted by larryboy

The new Husky-BMW/KLR with better suspension might force the KLR into extinction.

Except: “While the weakling of the bunch, the KLR’s motor is smoother and more user friendly than the Sertao’s shaking, vibrating hotrod powerplant.”

I agree. The new Husky/BMW Terra and Strada are really the first modern, true dual sport bikes we've seen in a long time. Reasonable prices that fulfill at least part of what a well set up KLR can do. If the Loncin, China motor turns out to be trouble free ... then Husky/BMW will have a hit. (IMHO)

The Husky reviews I've read are very positive so far, but early days for these bikes. I read about sharp and light handling, decent power, good brakes ... and very good MPG. If Terra/Strada sales take off then we could see the aftermarket stepping up to provide bigger tanks, better seats and who know what else? Could sway a lot of KLR guys to the Dark Side. Then again, some will never, ever support BMW. The real question is: Will they be reliable over the long term and say 50,000 miles?

Bringing KTM into this thread from Trolls who only trailer their race bikes ... and have never actually ridden anywhere, is patently absurd. It's not a HP contest or a Hare Scrambles.

How many KTM singles have ridden RTW? Or to Tierra del Fuego and back?
And how many KLR's have done the same? KLR's have been a solid RTW choice for many going back to the mid 90's. They are not race bikes and don't make a lot of HP. Why even go there? Who gives a Rat's Ass?

The KLR needs a lot of mods to be a good travel adventure bike .. but it eventually will get there. A 500, 520, 525, or 530 KTM can't really be a good travel bike. Even the 690's present problems.

Two different worlds that rarely overlap:
Expensive, Race bike for sporty and aggressive single track riding = KTM
Cheap, fully loaded travel bike. Commute, two up, mild trails and lots of highway = KLR ... It's as simple as that.

I think the Orange G string girls should get back in their own Cat Box and quit abusing the poor KLR acolytes. Can't believe the mods haven't banned these trolls.

[CodyY]

I cant believe soap and water wont get the sand out of your vagina.

[jasonmt]

Originally Posted by Adv Grifter

...Can't believe the mods haven't banned these trolls.

Seems to me that YOU are the one that HAS been banned from here (more than once??) and for more than just a one week "timeout".

[wheatwhacker]

Well people, how much power do you really need.
I had a KTM 950 and the power was awesome but, working on it was a pain in the butt.
I have learned a lot from riding various bikes over the years and looking back, I have learned one valuable lesson. Simple and slow will get you there faster than fast and complicated.
I see the same thing in farm tractors.
My current line up of equipment are as follows,
1999 John Deere 6810 130 horse.
1981 Ford 8200, 120 horse.
2002 Toyota Hilux 2.5 turbo diesel
1999 Africa Twin.
2003 KLR 650.
2003 TW 200.

All of the above are almost zero depreciation, all paid for and simple to maintain. To be content with old simple tech is to be content when you sleep at night knowing that you don't have to keep up with anybody.
I have based my farm equipment decisions from the lessons I have learned owning the KLR and the fancy, fast and money sucking KTM.

[michael1968]

Originally Posted by itsatdm

BMW X bikes, Husqvarna 610/630/650 Terra and KTM 690's come to mind. They have engine management systems that make high compressions possible. I threw in Static vs Dynamic compression, because hotter cams, change cam timing. The compression rating they claim is theoretical not real, but does allow the engine to spin faster.

More revs means more wear, I doubt 15 years from now we will have a discussion on the merits of these bikes, because if high mileage, I think they will be worn out. Something to consider if buying used.

The BMW X bikes and the new 650 Terra both have engines very closely related to the one in my bike (F650). My bike is exactly 15 years old and has 110k km / 68 k miles and has only had regular maintenence done on it, this is pretty normal for these bikes.

It also makes 48 hp (at the crank).

Higher revs are OK if the engine has been deigned for it.

[seabee1]

i've never owned one, but klr's rock!

[itsatdm]

Originally Posted by michael1968

The BMW X bikes and the new 650 Terra both have engines very closely related to the one in my bike (F650). My bike is exactly 15 years old and has 110k km / 68 k miles and has only had regular maintenence done on it, this is pretty normal for these bikes.

It also makes 48 hp (at the crank).

Higher revs are OK if the engine has been deigned for it.

1997 BMW Funduro. CR 8.84 48hp @ 6,500rpm
2007 X Challange CR 11.5 53hp @ 7,000rpm
2013 Terra CR 12.3 58hp@ 7,250rpm

[BigSingle]

The KLR doesn't suck..Weak little bitches suck that can't pwn up to the awesome power of the KLR suck.

[Grreatdog]

Originally Posted by BigSingle

The KLR doesn't suck..Weak little bitches suck that can't pwn up to the awesome power of the KLR suck.

Finally, a KLR guy that might be cool to ride with. You mind carrying the cooler?

[michael1968]

Originally Posted by itsatdm

1997 BMW Funduro. CR 8.84 48hp @ 6,500rpm
2007 X Challange CR 11.5 53hp @ 7,000rpm
2013 Terra CR 12.3 58hp@ 7,250rpm

Try 9.7:1 on the 97 F650 and 11.5:1 on the 2000 and up F650 GS which also easily last a hundred thousand km. As do the X bikes.

I'm not dissing on your KLR, I know they go forever also, but you don't have to try and prove that your bike is the best by trying to crap on everyone elses.