for sale: 99 klr650

[cav_wolverine]

Hello, I am hoping to contact Devon Jarvis who submitted to dyno results on the FAQ. I was just curious 1) Do you have A/F ratio data from that run? 2) Did you do a run completely stock (no jetting mods), or with an aftermarket exhaust, or any other runs? 3) I assume you were at sea level? thank you Charles

[Walter Mitty]

Have y'all seen the dyno result the Patman posted on the other KLR site? http://www.patmanracing.com/klrdyno.htm">The Patman Dyno Results cav_wolverine wrote: Hello, I am hoping to contact Devon Jarvis who submitted to dyno results on the FAQ. I was just curious 1) Do you have A/F ratio data from that run? 2) Did you do a run completely stock (no jetting mods), or with an aftermarket exhaust, or any other runs? 3) I assume you were at sea level? thank you Charles Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo! Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[klr250not]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Walter Mitty wrote:

> Have y'all seen the dyno result the Patman posted on the other KLR

site?

> > http://www.patmanracing.com/klrdyno.htm">The

Patman Dyno Results

> > cav_wolverine wrote: > > > > 3) I assume you were at sea level? >

------------------------------------------------------ I'm not sure theres any consistency among these dyno runs in whether or how they adjust for altitude. Ideally, results would be converted to sea level where torque and hp are higher than at altitude. Theres a formula, but I dont know what it is. The results referenced above didnt seem to mention altitude adjustments unless I missed it. 33 to 34 seems very low for a bike claimed by Kawa to have 47 to 48 .

> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo! Personals > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Thor Lancelot Simon]

On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 03:37:58PM -0000, klr250not wrote:

> > I'm not sure theres any consistency among these dyno runs in whether > or how they adjust for altitude. Ideally, results would be

Devon lives in New York City; it's hard to get far from sea level here no matter how hard you try.

> converted to sea level where torque and hp are higher than at > altitude. Theres a formula, but I dont know what it is. The > results referenced above didnt seem to mention altitude adjustments > unless I missed it. 33 to 34 seems very low for a bike claimed by > Kawa to have 47 to 48 .

The result doesn't surprise me much -- there should always be a significant loss of horsepower between the countershaft sprocket on the motor and the rear wheel where you actually put the power onto the road. The factory likes to quote c-shaft figures...

[klr250not]

I see a lot of 15 percentish reductions in the motorcycle press, like about 100 claimed at crankshaft for the Triumph Tiger, 86 measured at rear wheel. A 15 to 20 percent reduction for KLR650 would still leave 38 to 40.5 hp. Motorcylce.com did a dyno run on a 2000 KLR650 somewhere out in California and got 37.5 hp. Still a little low but sort of in the ballpark. I'm guessing they adjust for altitude but not sure. I'd insert a link to the motorcylce.com run but its a pay site now and I'm not sure they want their stuff copied. -------------------------------------------- --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

> The result doesn't surprise me much -- there should always be a > significant loss of horsepower between the countershaft sprocket on > the motor and the rear wheel where you actually put the power onto > the road. The factory likes to quote c-shaft figures...

[Jud Jones]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "klr250not" wrote:

> > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Walter Mitty > wrote: > > Have y'all seen the dyno result the Patman posted on the other KLR > site? > > > > http://www.patmanracing.com/klrdyno.htm">The > Patman Dyno Results > > > > cav_wolverine wrote: > > > > > > > > 3) I assume you were at sea level? > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > I'm not sure theres any consistency among these dyno runs in whether > or how they adjust for altitude. Ideally, results would be > converted to sea level where torque and hp are higher than at > altitude. Theres a formula, but I dont know what it is. The > results referenced above didnt seem to mention altitude adjustments > unless I missed it. 33 to 34 seems very low for a bike claimed by > Kawa to have 47 to 48 .

There is no point in trying to compare horsepower figures from one dyno to another, and even less in trying to correlate dyno readings with a manufacturer's claimed HP ratings. The dyno operator is not going to bother to correct for altitude, because he doesn't care what number a different bike, or even the same bike, might give on a different dyno, or on the same dyno on a different day. The point of most dyno work is to maximize the output of a given bike. You test that by getting a baseline reading, and then measuring the effect of various tuning changes. The actual number doesn't mean much; the interesting figure is the delta. However, I tend to have more confidence in the horsepower numbers generated by people who use the dyno as a tool of inquiry, like Devon and Patman, rather than a tool of advocacy, such as bike manufacturers, or purveyors of tuning parts. The latter, especially, are notorious for throwing out big numbers without reference to any baseline, in order to sell snake oil. For this and a number of other reasons, it is probably more appropriate to think of the KLR as a 30 horsepower motorcycle than as 40 horsepower motorcycle. But it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

[kawasaki99klr650]

http://www.geocities.com/kawasaki99klr650/