Triumphrat

11-27-2005

Hi,

I will get my new R3 in the next weeks and obviously I want to do some " minor " modifications, just to keep in the border of the legal or ilegal line here in Spain.

Some of you can give me the standard rwhp for the R3 as it comes from the factory ? Really measured data please.

Of the innitial 142 HP how much of that goes to the rear wheel ?

I will start changing the exhaust and eliminating the catalytic converter and re-maping de EFI. But I don´t really know how much extra real rwhp this will give me.

After this innitial mods to start riding, I plan to add some type of ECU reprograming and/or by-passing, that will aslo add some extra rwhp. But again, how much ?

All the mods will be done step by step and dyno tested if possible.

Any help, comments and info are wellcome and if you ever come to Spain, don´t forget to send a message to me !

Regards,

MadRock

speedmerlau · 11-27-2005

Most of the dyno values that I have seen on stock r3's have shown horsepower at the rear wheel between 117-124 bph and torque values 124-132 ft/lbs. My r3 with TOR (cat removed), stock air filter and dynoed custom power commander tune is sitting at 150:150 (bph:ft/lbs.) at the rear wheel.

Jamie · 11-27-2005

Close to 130 rear wheel ponies with Mad Dog pipes (although I have kept the cat litter on as the thing is ALSO a silencer) , the TOR pipes-compatible tune and a snorkel-less (Corbin) saddle. Torque not measured but felt to be slightly better than stock. 13 months later, that's still enough to rock MY soul, MadRock.

I'd submit to you that the standard Rocket III should deliver enough to rock yours, at least initially. WELCOME

mikev · 11-27-2005

Hey MadRock,
My Rocket is currently being tested by K&N on their dyno as they develop a new air filter. The bone stock engine put out 143.5 HP and 121.3 ft. lbs. torque at the rear wheel. The new replacement filter we are testing (See This Posting) resulted in 127.6 HP and 149.3 ft. lbs. torque at the rear wheel. This motor is completely stock and has about 1600 miles on it. After I get a Power Commander, Jardines, etc., they will re-test and I will post results.

Mike :-D

Aussiebikerdave · 11-28-2005

Mikev, 143hp bone stock???? I know there is some variation due to ambient temperatures and different Rockets etc but this seems like a typo! Since the improved figure was 127HP, can we assume that you meant to report 123hp bone stock?

My bike, bone stock coughed up 117hp and 129 ft/lb of torque on a very hot and humid day of 34degC. With Mad Dogs and DNA high flow air filter it is now showing 134.8 rwhp and 139 ft/lb of torque, but on a cooler day.

Davo

Trackerjack · 11-28-2005

The standart rear wheel numbers for a stock European R III from the factory with catalyst and 20050 tune :

117 SAE hp
129 ft/lbs 2500 rpm.

Remember that exhaust mods will give you more Hp with little more ft/lbs but your max torque value will be at 3500 rpm with less torque at 2500 rpm than the stock version.

Another point to consider is the fuel consumption.
From 7,2 liters / 100 kms to 35 % more depending on the mods, for a few more ponies.....

Jamie · 11-28-2005

Yes, good point. Another one to consider, maybe, is the dyno device itself. The very same bike objectively measured on two different kinds or brands of dyno can show up a rear-wheel HP reading variance of up to 10 to 15% (Source: MotorSport Schweiz) . I candidly suspect that most stores selling dyno readings dial-in a 10% extra to flatter the average screamin' seagull watcher's ego. Conversely, I seriously suspect that "official" dyno readings (such as the one Tracker refers to, perhaps) are deliberatly tweaked down to show the most conservative readings.

Why? To avoid motorcycle mags or customers eventually bitchin' about their mount delivering fewer ponies than advertised... to give OEM's a chance to incrementally shine with their own "off-road" power accessories... to placate road homologation bureaucrats (at least in Europe) and insurance companies...

And then, there is that new, trend, at least in Europe and in Japan, and that is the forced (or rammed) air effect on power when measured on the road or track, as opposed to a -STATIC- dyno. The 2006 Kawa Z10 would thus gain 10 to 15 ponies at full speed, just by virtue of that speed-boosted oxygen intake.

Hey, I don't mean to louse up all those spontaneous rear-wheel Rocket III output (vaguely competing?) reports. Mine included. Just to suggest that universal " rocket science" (pardon me, Toystoretom) it ain't.

Let's keep some Rocket romance up, please

[ This message was edited by: Jamie on 2005-11-28 13:57 ]

mikev · 11-28-2005

Sorry Guys,
My typo... :???: The bone stock engine put out 121.3 HP and 143.5 ft. lbs. torque at the rear wheel... I don't know what type of dyno K&N uses because I wasn't there during testing but I will take some photos and post the specs when I go out there next week.

Mike :-D

Marcos · 11-29-2005

What is the difference between everyone elses and californias??

ejmoment · 11-29-2005

Quote:

On 2005-11-29 01:38, Marcos wrote:
What is the difference between everyone elses and californias??

Bikes sold in California actually have a catalytic converter in the cat box!