wheel on ebay

[S. B. Lawrence]

Finally did it! Got me a KLR650, a 2003 model. Looking forward to riding it some thru the winter enough to figure out what it may need to go way the hell out somewhere in the spring, turning off on roads I didn't dare on a streetbike. Funny thing, the MSO states that it is "48.0 hp." Really?! IME most MSO net SAE hp figures are much *less* than actual. Figures read elsewhere indicate a KLR is closer to 38 than 48 bone stock. Does anybody know how they come up with such numbers, or did they do something to the 2003's resulting in substantial ponies? (I don't think so since that would definitely be something to puff and Kaw's website doesn't show any changes but that cool black/green paint job).

[Judson D. Jones]

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., "S. B. Lawrence" wrote:

> Funny thing, the MSO states that it is "48.0 hp." Really?! IME

most

> MSO net SAE hp figures are much *less* than actual. Figures

read

> elsewhere indicate a KLR is closer to 38 than 48 bone stock.

Does

> anybody know how they come up with such numbers,

They just go to sleep at night, and the numbers come to them in their dreams.

[Dave Sumner]

My 2002 had the same 48 on MSO. --- "S. B. Lawrence" wrote: or did they do

> something to the 2003's resulting in substantial ponies? (I don't > think so since that would definitely be something to puff and Kaw's > website doesn't show any changes but that cool black/green paint job).

===== Dave Raleigh NC 2002 KLR650 A16 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com

[steve pye]

----- Original Message ----- From: "S. B. Lawrence" > Finally did it! Got me a KLR650, a 2003 model. Congrats on the new bike. > Funny thing, the MSO states that it is "48.0 hp." Really?! IME most > MSO net SAE hp figures are much *less* than actual. Figures read > elsewhere indicate a KLR is closer to 38 than 48 bone stock. Does > anybody know how they come up with such numbers, or did they do > something to the 2003's resulting in substantial ponies? My service manual describes the the horsepower/torque of the KLR using several different measures. The line that mentions "48", states: 35.5 kW(48ps) @ 6500r/min (rpm) Since the term SAE is not mentioned, I don't think they use they standerd system of measure used in North America to rate horsepower i.e. SAE Net. Steve A11

[Devon Jarvis]

They get 48hp with the engine on a test stand, hooked directly to a dyno. The bike actually delivers 36hp at the rear wheel. Devon A15 "S. B. Lawrence" wrote:

> > Finally did it! Got me a KLR650, a 2003 model. Looking forward to > riding it some thru the winter enough to figure out what it may need > to go way the hell out somewhere in the spring, turning off on roads > I didn't dare on a streetbike. > > Funny thing, the MSO states that it is "48.0 hp." Really?! IME most > MSO net SAE hp figures are much *less* than actual. Figures read > elsewhere indicate a KLR is closer to 38 than 48 bone stock. Does > anybody know how they come up with such numbers, or did they do > something to the 2003's resulting in substantial ponies? (I don't > think so since that would definitely be something to puff and Kaw's > website doesn't show any changes but that cool black/green paint job). >

[Alan L Henderson]

At 12:28 PM 10/3/2002 -0300, you wrote:

> >----- Original Message ----- >From: "S. B. Lawrence" > >> Finally did it! Got me a KLR650, a 2003 model. > >Congrats on the new bike. > > >> Funny thing, the MSO states that it is "48.0 hp." Really?! IME most >> MSO net SAE hp figures are much *less* than actual. Figures read >> elsewhere indicate a KLR is closer to 38 than 48 bone stock. Does >> anybody know how they come up with such numbers, or did they do >> something to the 2003's resulting in substantial ponies? > > >My service manual describes the the horsepower/torque of the KLR using >several different measures. The line that mentions "48", states: >35.5 kW(48ps) @ 6500r/min (rpm) >Since the term SAE is not mentioned, I don't think they use they standerd >system of measure used in North America to rate horsepower i.e. SAE Net. >Steve >A11 >

As I remember most bike makers rate horse power at the crank, not turning all those pesky gears, chains and sprockets clear back to the wheel with all the accompanying friction loss. They probably left off the air cleaner and muffler for the test also. Alan Henderson A13 Iowa

[wdsrc]

Heya Gang, There's a front wheel with a tire in the motorcycle related parts and accessories section of ebay. There's also some gas tanks and radiator protectors too... Swampy

[Devon Jarvis]

Every dyno is different. Every operator is different. Also, you can bet they dynoed the engine under absolutely optimal conditions. My 36 rwhp dyno run was on a hot, humid day, much like riding in summer. Several people have gotten roughly the same number I did, with a stock bike on totally different dynos. In the end, if some is really into the penis-measuring of comparing dyno charts, there are far more satisfying bikes than a KLR. Devon "S. B. Lawrence" wrote:

> > Yeah I thought about that but it's a big percentage to lose going > from bhp to rwhp on a bike. Maybe they use last week's lottery > numbers or something. I once had a car that said 20hp. Now it > wasn't real peppy but I think it had more than 20 at the flywheel! > > --- In DSN_klr650@y..., Devon Jarvis wrote: > > They get 48hp with the engine on a test stand, hooked directly to a > > dyno. The bike actually delivers 36hp at the rear wheel. > > > > Devon > > A15 > > > > "S. B. Lawrence" wrote: > > > > > > Finally did it! Got me a KLR650, a 2003 model. Looking forward > to > > > riding it some thru the winter enough to figure out what it may > need > > > to go way the hell out somewhere in the spring, turning off on > roads > > > I didn't dare on a streetbike. > > > > > > Funny thing, the MSO states that it is "48.0 hp." Really?! IME > most > > > MSO net SAE hp figures are much *less* than actual. Figures read > > > elsewhere indicate a KLR is closer to 38 than 48 bone stock. Does > > > anybody know how they come up with such numbers, or did they do > > > something to the 2003's resulting in substantial ponies? (I don't > > > think so since that would definitely be something to puff and > Kaw's > > > website doesn't show any changes but that cool black/green paint > job). > > >