new supersports 600's

[kwak zzr]

i was just reading BIKE magazine and was shocked to see the new 2008 top speeds!-
yamaha r6 = 172 mph
honda cbr = 165 mph
suzuki gsxr = 165 mph
triumph 675 = 158 mph
kawasaki zx6 = 166 mph

172 mph out of a freekin 600! OMG i must be getting old=P~

[Balky001]

was that calibrated or on speedo? My 750 K6 offical top is only 169 :smt119

[kwak zzr]

dunno its just the figures quoted in the mag.

[Dangerous Dave]

Probably quoted form the manufacturers then, they tend to say if its official calibrated top speed!

[Toypop]

I am sure they would do that easily on the speedo and infact a lot higher in most of those cases.

As for the "real" speed, I just don't know... Seems to be a big gap between the R6 and the others and you need a proportionally far larger BHP difference to do that in terms of top speed.

[tranx]

No you don't need that much bhp difference if any at all. By that point a hell of a lot comes down to aerodynamics, a decent fairing is worth a lot of top end vs a bad one. It also depends on how the bike has been geared.

[DanAbnormal]

I had 179mph indicated on my '07 ZX6R. Quick! :)

[muffles]

Those definitely aren't speedo readings IMO - a friend had 183mph on the clock on his 2005 ZX6-R/636 ! Either manufacturer stated or tested I presume.

[kwak zzr]

i would say tested looking at the article, they seem to have each mph down to . something so it looks pretty accurate.

[sv-robo]

- a friend had 183mph on the clock on his 2005 ZX6-R/636 ! Either manufacturer stated or tested I presume.
Oooo your freind is a very naughty boy;)

(I'm only jealous because i can't do that LOL...though have had indicated 144 out of the sv on them private drag strips that we all seem to own:))

[Defender]

This is interesting.

A week or so ago MCN featured an article where there was talk of banning anything above a 600cc. 170mph from a 600 - awesome!!

[MR UKI (1)]

i would say tested looking at the article, they seem to have each mph down to . something so it looks pretty accurate.

Their usually 'tested' figures, just looking at same copy of Bike, they normally run them down the 2mile runway at Bruntingthorpe with GPS and a datalogger, in fact on the R6 sideshot (page 136) you can see the wire going from the rear seat to the equipment strapped to the riders waist.

[muffles]

Oooo your freind is a very naughty boy;)

(I'm only jealous because i can't do that LOL...though have had indicated 144 out of the sv on them private drag strips that we all seem to own:))

That's not bad only got 140mph - once - out of mine! Btw this was actually all in Germany so no harm admitting it :)

So Kwak - when you getting your new 600 then? ;)

[kwak zzr]

So Kwak - when you getting your new 600 then? ;)

TBH i am a twin man but there is talk of me and cuz getting identical bikes next march, the k8 750 looks like a cool contender.

[ThEGr33k]

Its probably the max the gearing will allow. In which case the SV650 will do 145. Thing is these bikes wont have the power to reach the red line in 6th. Example my bike has got about 15BHP more than these its geared for about 175MPH but itll top out at about 160 (real) because there isnt enough power.

Basically id take these with a jar of salt. :)

[muffles]

TBH i am a twin man but there is talk of me and cuz getting identical bikes next march, the k8 750 looks like a cool contender.

Nice, in addition to the SV(s)?

[neio79]

The real logged speed for the ZX6R is 162MPH, so on the clock probably showing over 170.

[kwak zzr]

Nice, in addition to the SV(s)?

dont know yet but prob sell the sv1000s.

[ThEGr33k]

dont know yet but prob sell the sv1000s.

You wont be happy with a 600 going from a stomping thou twin. Go for another stomping thou :p orrrr a 1098 :rolleyes:.

[Benji]

You wont be happy with a 600 going from a stomping thou twin. Go for another stomping thou :p orrrr a 1098 :rolleyes:.

Rubbish ;)

If they are actual recorded figures then that is impressive.

I've 'seen' 173mph out of my 2000 ZX6R but it's complete balls.

[muffles]

You wont be happy with a 600 going from a stomping thou twin. Go for another stomping thou :p orrrr a 1098 :rolleyes:.

The 750 might be a good compromise though... :D

[ASM-Forever]

Those definitely aren't speedo readings IMO - a friend had 183mph on the clock on his 2005 ZX6-R/636 ! Either manufacturer stated or tested I presume.

Even if its completely tuned to hell that is crazy! :eek:

IMHO that speedo must be overreading by 20mph!(or your friend is talking ******** ;))

Its not like its one of the latest ss600 which are getting faster/higher BHP.

[ThEGr33k]

The 750 might be a good compromise though... :D

Indeed. Must say id be tempted by one. But Id still prefer a twin personally, so much easier to ride with all the power everwhere, no need to change gears :p

[Lozzo]

My mate Olie Linsdell (NW200 and Manx GP winner) has just had his standard engined R6 race bike dynoed at 123bhp, so 172 mph doesn't look out of contention.

[Beenz]

Indeed. Must say id be tempted by one. But Id still prefer a twin personally, so much easier to ride with all the power everwhere, no need to change gears :p

...much the same as a gixer thou (K1 - K6) then ;)

[kwak zzr]

You wont be happy with a 600 going from a stomping thou twin. Go for another stomping thou :p orrrr a 1098 :rolleyes:.

ive had lots of ss600's so i pretty much know what to expect, i do love the stomp of the 1000 v twin but i do miss the nimbleness of the 650s, i think if i do go il4 at some stage then it will be the gsxr750 but if i stay v twin then it will most prob be a ducati.

[muffles]

Even if its completely tuned to hell that is crazy! :eek:

IMHO that speedo must be overreading by 20mph!(or your friend is talking ******** ;))

Its not like its one of the latest ss600 which are getting faster/higher BHP.

Yep it's overreading by a lot, it was all the bike had to give apparently. He's pretty light too, probably weighs 10 stone or less and he tucked in I assume. We reckoned it might have given a real world 165mph or thereabouts, it's a 636 which I think had a good 125hp - they were strong motors I gather.

Oh and the bike was standard! Lol!

[muffles]

Oh I should add he didn't try to claim it was really 183 or anything silly like that, he thought it would be around the 160-something mark too.

[kwak zzr]

still too fast for me lol :) i think i'm past going fast, ;o)

[Blue_SV650S]

i was just reading BIKE magazine and was shocked to see the new 2008 top speeds!-
yamaha r6 = 172 mph
honda cbr = 165 mph
suzuki gsxr = 165 mph
triumph 675 = 158 mph
kawasaki zx6 = 166 mph

172 mph out of a freekin 600! OMG i must be getting old=P~

Trust us brits to make the carpest bike on the market!! 14mph off the pace, (~7mph from the nearest contender) that is criminal!!! [-( :D

[ThEGr33k]

ive had lots of ss600's so i pretty much know what to expect, i do love the stomp of the 1000 v twin but i do miss the nimbleness of the 650s, i think if i do go il4 at some stage then it will be the gsxr750 but if i stay v twin then it will most prob be a ducati.

That's what I love about my bike. It feels just like the SV650 but with better suspenders brakes and engine. Its Ace! :D

I didn't like the SV1000, it felt massive and sluggish in corners. Nice engine though :D.

Get a Falco :p

[ASM-Forever]

Trust us brits to make the carpest bike on the market!! 14mph off the pace, (~7mph from the nearest contender) that is criminal!!! [-( :D

Triumph is deliberately trying not to compete with the Jap manufacturers, as i guess they just don't have the budget for R&D.

Instead they sell on their differences....3 pot, British manufacturer etc.

Lets face it if they ditched their current ethos and tried to compete directly with the Japs then they would be stuffed!

[Dangerous Dave]

Lets face it if they ditched their current ethos and tried to compete directly with the Japs then they would be stuffed!
They did, remember these....
http://www.motorcycledaily.com/tt600-2.jpg
http://www.kakaku.com/bike/images/bike/TRIUMPH_daytona600.jpg

[ASM-Forever]

But sales wise how did they do comparatively?

At the end of the day i think Triumph survives as its a British Company. People who buy a Triumph want something a bit different. If they wern't different then they would probably fold.

[ThEGr33k]

The 675 is a beast. Nothing wrong with it. Those numbers vary a lot. Ive seen the 675 rated to 165MPH. Dont take those speeds as gospel. They are probably over what they actually do as it is....

[kwak zzr]

for us need i say average riders we wouldn't tell the difference anyhow.

[Blue_SV650S]

for us need i say average riders we wouldn't tell the difference anyhow.

Who cares how it rides, a sports bike is for looks and bragging rights ... what do you have to brag about when on paper your bike is the slowest of the bunch?? ;) It in the eye, but I'd say the R6 looks the loveliest too!! ;)

The british guys in R&D were obviously too worried about making a perfect 'cuppa' instead of the perfect bike!! :rolleyes:

[kwak zzr]

i like the R6 apart from the hideous rear alloy tail and the big hole air intake at the front in between its bug eyes.

[ThEGr33k]

Who cares how it rides, a sports bike is for looks and bragging rights ... what do you have to brag about when on paper your bike is the slowest of the bunch?? ;) It in the eye, but I'd say the R6 looks the loveliest too!! ;)



Cant see what the point in bragging is if you cant ride it. :rolleyes: Also those speeds will be difficult to achieve on the roads without really risking it being your last ride, for several reasons. :(

i like the R6 apart from the hideous rear alloy tail and the big hole air intake at the front in between its bug eyes.

It looks ok imo. What i dont like is the complete lack of low to med range (in comparison to the others) these 600's lack in those departments enough as it is. :(

[kwak zzr]

i do like my 1000 how it does 30 - 130 in the same gear ;o)

[Blue_SV650S]

http://media.motortopia.com/files/9109/vehicle/47561e1d6c231/triumph_daytona_675.jpg

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/upload/199715/images/2008YZFR6blackright.jpg

http://www.raptorsandrockets.com/images/Honda/08_CBR600RR_Graffiti.jpg

http://www.suzukicycles.com/images/ProductImages/colorVariations/500/GSXR600K8_black_000000.jpg

http://www.emoto.com/img/news/200709/3542/kawasaki-zx6r-2008-1.jpg

[neio79]

i do like my 1000 how it does 30 - 130 in the same gear ;o)

so will my Kwak its called 3rd gear :p

[Blue_SV650S]

You would need a tail tidy for most of them ;)

Its between the 675 and teh R6 on looks for me ... the other 3 aren't even in the running ...

Bearing in mind I like to ride my bikes as well as look at them, if the R6 is king on paper too, then that would prolly sway me and I know the R6 is kicking but on track!! :)







Having owned a few, I have a bit of a soft spot for the R6 too :oops:

[neio79]

You would need a tail tidy for most of them ;)

Its between the 675 and teh R6 on looks for me ... the other 3 aren't even in the running ...

Bearing in mind I like to ride my bikes as well as look at them, if the R6 is king on paper too, then that would prolly sway me and I know the R6 is kicking but on track!! :)


The R6 is most inneed of a tail tidy, it looks like part of the rear fell down.

and I am biased but the Kwak is by far the best looking ;)

[kwak zzr]

if i was to get a gixer it would have to be blue and white.

[fizzwheel]

so will my Kwak its called 3rd gear :p

my GSXR is the same, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th.. I think it'll probably do that in 2nd as well...

I'm with blue they all need a tailtidy, but the 675 and the R6 look the best of the bunch, Funny how the CBR looks a bit old hat now considering how radical it looked when it first came out.

[kwak zzr]

is it me? new emissions regs are making bikes look fugly.

[fizzwheel]

is it me? new emissions regs are making bikes look fugly.

No its not just you, the new blade, CBR 600 and GSXR 600 all have their looks spoiled by bolting dustbins onto the side of them.

[kwak zzr]

the new zx10 looks bad imo.

[neio79]

is it me? new emissions regs are making bikes look fugly.

No its the manufaturers, the ZX6 and R6 still look nice, as did the last CBR with underseat pipes, god knows why suzuki havent tried it.

the new zx10 looks bad imo.

and yes the new 10 is THE worlds Fugliest bike, with a cannon mounted to the side, WTF were Kwak thinking with that??

[kwak zzr]

I much prefer bikes with the zorst in the standard place at normal level, i think fizzwheels gixer looks ace compared to the new breed of gixer zorsts.

[Blue_SV650S]

You can replace a can ... yes you can can can!! :D

Most people replace the stock can anyway, so what does it matter if the stock one is a mega fugly?!!? ;)

You can look beyond a fugly can can't you!?!? :smt102

[kwak zzr]

what i ment to say was i dont like the small sticky out thing like motogp style i like the normal cans up by the pillion foot peg.

[fizzwheel]

You can replace a can ... yes you can can can!! :D

Most people replace the stock can anyway, so what does it matter if the stock one is a mega fugly?!!? ;)

You can look beyond a fugly can can't you!?!? :smt102

Not when its mahoosive, also not everybody has money to fit and after market exhaust, its just another expense and buying a new bike aint cheap is it.

[kwak zzr]

suzuki are trying to give you a new set of arrows to chuck the stock dustbins! even they know they look bad.

[fizzwheel]

I much prefer bikes with the zorst in the standard place at normal level, i think fizzwheels gixer looks ace compared to the new breed of gixer zorsts.

I agree after the K4, k5 models I think Suzuki f*cked it up looks wise for the 600 & 750, I really really dislike the K8, the exhaust is livable with but the front of its really ugly IMHO.

I didnt like the K5 & K6 thou can when it was first released, but compared to what we have now its a work of beauty.

[valleyboy]

2007 ZX6R Owner here....

highest indicated speed on the clocks to date.. 171 mph...
(I wasnt riding it, let my mate take it out ! do'h!)
and he was adamant it had more to give as well, he just chickened out on the private runway !
either way, even if thats just indicated its still well over a true 150 mph if it was misreading by 10%

[ThEGr33k]

the R6 is king on paper too

From what I hear the 675 is the best bike. It dont need to be at 13000RPM + to get going unlike the R6. 675 would make a much better road bike if the engine characteristics/power is anything to go by.

Im willing to bet that a 600 maybe even 750 vs a 1000 twin in a 30-130 role on the 1000 twin would win... This is ofcourse compairing the supposed sports tourers. :rolleyes:

I think with the massive exhaust removed the new ZX10 would look nice. I liked it. Just a shame about the laser blaster on the side :p

[kwak zzr]

exactly what i like about the 1000 low down stomp!

[fizzwheel]

Im willing to bet that a 600 maybe even 750 vs a 1000 twin in a 30-130 role on the 1000 twin would win... This is ofcourse compairing the supposed sports tourers. :rolleyes:

6th gear roll on definately I would think. I suspect it'd out do something like my 750 as well, but life aint all about 6th gear roll on :p

Be interesting to compare an SS600 and an V twin thou in a lower gear though. Both bikes in say 3rd or 4th side by side.

[valleyboy]

All that depends, what gear the bike is in etc....

the specs for the 600's were out somewhere, I only remember my bikes info.. 0 - 140 was about 14 ish seconds if I remember... and very quick for 0 - 100

and the Kwak was amongst the slower of the 600's at acceleration.... I think a 1000cc twin and a 600 SS arent that far appart on the numbers... the 600's generaly peak higher on the HP side of things compared to the SV1000, its Torque where the SV Thou will kill the others....

at 30 mph, the 600's will only be at 7000 rpm and in first gear, thats right on the edge of where the fun begins on them !

[ASM-Forever]

It looks ok imo. What i dont like is the complete lack of low to med range (in comparison to the others) these 600's lack in those departments enough as it is. :(

Firstly do modern 600s have really that poor midrange? If you think they do then i would suggest you havn't ridden one! Midrange is one of the things that has really moved forward in this class in the last few years.

The new R6 apparently has substantially more midrange than my 05 version, however the midrange when it was stock wasn't bad.

What you are not considering is that the R6 has always been built for the track. Yamaha have always said this from the start! The R6 is a perfect bike in that when you want to go fast it loves a good thrashing. In the same breath it quite happily pootles into town for a paper.

The whole midrange argument is pretty defunct anyway as it takes all of a heartbeat to move high into the revs, should you wish.

I fitted a PC3 to my bike and remapped it on the dyno and there is a noticeable difference in midrange.

Lots of people on this site unsurprisingly prefer twins to IL4s and thats fine with me. However the same people always feel the need to bash them at any chance. The only logical conclusion i can come to is that they're jealous.....

[kwak zzr]

Lots of people on this site unsurprisingly prefer twins to IL4s and thats fine with me. However the same people always feel the need to bash them at any chance. The only logical conclusion i can come to is that they're jealous.....

Jealous? eh? most ppl have try'd both and just prefere the v twin feel, i dont think its jealousy just personal pref, personally both bikes are different animals and do there own thing well, most ppl on here will diss the il4 as this is a site dedicated to the humble v twin.

[fizzwheel]

Jealous? eh? most ppl have try'd both and just prefere the v twin feel

I disagree with that, theres alot of people on here who have only ridden SV's or that havent ridden the latest crop of SS600 bikes and they believe and trott out the same old tired urban myths.

I own both, I've ridden both, I prefer the IL4, doesnt mean the SV is bad, its just horses for courses isnt it. I wish sometimes we could have a sensible discussion about the merits of different types of bikes without people repeating the same tired old

"SS600 have no midrange", "I am faster on my SV than person x or y is on their SS600" or "Ducatis are italian tat that break down all the timie and cost a bomb to run"

Cliches...

[neio79]

Im willing to bet that a 600 maybe even 750 vs a 1000 twin in a 30-130 role on the 1000 twin would win...

I think you would be surprised, yes the twin would pick up quicker at first, but trust me once my Kwak got to 12K it would soon come flying past, like VB said the official time for 0-130 is just over 11 seconds for the P7F:p

Firstly do modern 600s have really that poor midrange? If you think they do then i would suggest you havn't ridden one! Midrange is one of the things that has really moved forward in this class in the last few years.

Lots of people on this site unsurprisingly prefer twins to IL4s and thats fine with me. However the same people always feel the need to bash them at any chance. The only logical conclusion i can come to is that they're jealous.....

Agreed, a lot of people on this site think that mid range is 6 or 7 K, its not on a SS600 , more like 10 or 11K concidering they redline at 16K + nowadays, and trust me they have plenty of grunt at their mid range level.

they are either jelous or have never ridden a SS600 and think that the midrange is at the same point as a V twins :rolleyes:

On a flat straigt i would gladly do a 3rd gear roll on at 30 to 130 to prove this one way or an other.

[StreetHawk]

I think a XXXXXX bike is better then a XXXXXX bike.

My bike is better then your bike. My bike is the best variant of it's kind they ever made in the best colour and it's faster then your XXXXXX bike.

Any XXXXXX bike at XXXmph is faster then a XXXXXX bike at XXXmph.

Just summed this thread up for everybody..

;-)

[valleyboy]

The 636 had seriously good midrange, having owned a B1H and now a P7F, you can tell the difference.... though on the P7F, its not weak by any means, just less 'strong' than the 636 engine had...

I prefer to view the bikes as packages.. in that regard, the supersports will always outclass any of the SV's offerings unless serious money is spent on upgrading suspension and brakes...

having had an accident on an SV where the suspension and brakes werent up for the task together, I lost all confidence in the front end of the SV.. I moved onto the B1H, and it was like night and day.. road holding was brilliant, comfort took a second place on that, but it mattered not, as I had brakes that could stomp me to a standstill without the susspension giving way on me... after some work I did on the bike, I was generaly afraid to use the brakes in anger, as they were that good.
The P7F is much better handling than the B1H, and again, thats like night and day, I can get away with a few things on this that I couldnt with the 636... and they are things I dare not have tried on the SV.

As many on here woud point out, IF you could get the susspension and brakes of a SS600 onto the SV, you would have a cracker of a bike.

But at this point, I prefer the IL4 setup, it demands you work the engine to get the best of it, but that rush at the high point of the rev range is something you wont get on a twin...
but not only because of that, but due to the rest of the bike as well.. as said, the engine isnt the only part that makes a bike good...

[Beenz]

I think a XXXXXX bike is better then a XXXXXX bike.

My bike is better then your bike. My bike is the best variant of it's kind they ever made in the best colour and it's faster then your XXXXXX bike.

Any XXXXXX bike at XXXmph is faster then a XXXXXX bike at XXXmph.

Just summed this thread up for everybody..

;-)

Amen to that.

Enjoy you bikes folks. Top end don't matter, you don't have to ride it that fast.

[Beenz]

The 636 had seriously good midrange, having owned a B1H and now a P7F, you can tell the difference.... though on the P7F, its not weak by any means, just less 'strong' than the 636 engine had...

I prefer to view the bikes as packages.. in that regard, the supersports will always outclass any of the SV's offerings unless serious money is spent on upgrading suspension and brakes...

having had an accident on an SV where the suspension and brakes werent up for the task together, I lost all confidence in the front end of the SV.. I moved onto the B1H, and it was like night and day.. road holding was brilliant, comfort took a second place on that, but it mattered not, as I had brakes that could stomp me to a standstill without the susspension giving way on me... after some work I did on the bike, I was generaly afraid to use the brakes in anger, as they were that good.
The P7F is much better handling than the B1H, and again, thats like night and day, I can get away with a few things on this that I couldnt with the 636... and they are things I dare not have tried on the SV.

As many on here woud point out, IF you could get the susspension and brakes of a SS600 onto the SV, you would have a cracker of a bike.

But at this point, I prefer the IL4 setup, it demands you work the engine to get the best of it, but that rush at the high point of the rev range is something you wont get on a twin...
but not only because of that, but due to the rest of the bike as well.. as said, the engine isnt the only part that makes a bike good...

Compareing apples with oranges here. SV and SS600s are different markets.

Oh and I've seen a well ridden SV run rings around SS600s, watch a certain Mr Squirrel Hunter Esquire having a play and you WILL see what I mean. Eh VB :roll:

[neio79]

Oh and I've seen a well ridden SV run rings around SS600s, watch a certain Mr Squirrel Hunter Esquire having a play and you WILL see what I mean. Eh VB :roll:


yeah but Beenz you have seen what happend to his bike trying to do it, bits kept falling off!! ;)

[ThEGr33k]

6th gear roll on definately I would think. I suspect it'd out do something like my 750 as well, but life aint all about 6th gear roll on :p

Be interesting to compare an SS600 and an V twin thou in a lower gear though. Both bikes in say 3rd or 4th side by side.

(Falco vs a ss600)

Well I think to 60 they are about the same 3.3-3.4 Seconds to 100 the 600 is about 1.4-1/2S in front. 1/4 miles drag is similar almost identicle 11.3 @125MPH ish. Thats my 8 year old (model) vs a 08 R6. I think above about 120mph the 5-10BHP advantage I have starts to pull away from the 600. Modern 600 is about 100-105BHP at back wheel, mine is supposed to be about 105-110BHP at back wheel stock.

Firstly do modern 600s have really that poor midrange? If you think they do then i would suggest you havn't ridden one! Midrange is one of the things that has really moved forward in this class in the last few years.

The new R6 apparently has substantially more midrange than my 05 version, however the midrange when it was stock wasn't bad.

What you are not considering is that the R6 has always been built for the track. Yamaha have always said this from the start! The R6 is a perfect bike in that when you want to go fast it loves a good thrashing. In the same breath it quite happily pootles into town for a paper.

Lots of people on this site unsurprisingly prefer twins to IL4s and thats fine with me. However the same people always feel the need to bash them at any chance. The only logical conclusion i can come to is that they're jealous.....

I never said that IL4 600's have no mid range. I said the R6 has a poor mid range compaired to the other 600's so please dont take what I said as an attack on 600's. The speeds stated in the 1st post are taken from a review in MCN, the same review showed that the R6 was down on power (by a LARGE amount) till about 15500 revs, about 500 revs from the end.... Id have said that the others would be better on the road for this reason.

If I was Jealous would I not simply go and buy a ss600? I love the thou twin even though on the power stakes its only a little ahead of the modern ss600 it has loadsa low down stomp, it makes riding it so easy as I can go into a corner as low as 30MPH, ~3k RPM and itll pull like a train to the rev limiter @140MPH. Something I couldnt do on a 600 without having to wait half a day, I like not having to use gears. :p

So for me a 1000 twin is cheaper to buy and insure cheaper to run and suits my personal preferences. Besides I love the noise :smt110

If you like to ride the 600's then fair enough. Have fun :smt003

[Balky001]

it makes riding it so easy as I can go into a corner as low as 30MPH, ~3k RPM and itll pull like a train to the rev limiter @140MPH. Something I couldnt do on a 600 without having to wait half a day, I like not having to use gears. :p



If 3K - 30mph is 140 @ 14K, you have a revvy twin there mate! You sure it's not an automatic and its changing for you? ;)

[ThEGr33k]

If 3K - 30mph is 140 @ 14K, you have a revvy twin there mate! You sure it's not an automatic and its changing for you? ;)

Sorry. 40MPH at 3K. Got 3rd and 4th confused :p

3rd is 30MPH at 3000RPM 4th is 40MPH at 3000RPM, Easy mistake :rolleyes:

[neio79]

[quote=ThEGr33k;1454526about 105-110BHP at back wheel stock.

[/quote]

the P7F is 109 at the back wheel stock on a dyno machine.

[valleyboy]

I would like to add as Mr Beenz pointed out, that Mr Squirrel Hunter will run rings around pretty much all of you, whatever your vehicle on his SV650.... which is why his old one looked like it did ! Its taken him several years of practice, and crashing to get to his ability.. but by heck, he goes round corners quick !

As for me, I dont get on with the SV650 as it is.... maybe its because I weigh more than what I should... thus suspension designed for short Japanese bloke cant cope with Welsh medium sized bloke...
luckily, I now have a bike that can cope with me.. but generaly I dont ride fast enough to test it all out to the limits.. but will occasionaly hoon around when on me tod.... been practicing on 1000 sheep road over winter while the sheep haave kept away from it !

[ThEGr33k]

the P7F is 109 at the back wheel stock on a dyno machine.

Nice.

[kwak zzr]

shall we get back to new ss600's and how good they are:) i mean thats some serious power from a 600cc engine.

[Beenz]

I would like to add as Mr Beenz pointed out, that Mr Squirrel Hunter will run rings around pretty much all of you, whatever your vehicle on his SV650.... which is why his old one looked like it did ! Its taken him several years of practice, and crashing to get to his ability.. but by heck, he goes round corners quick !

As for me, I dont get on with the SV650 as it is.... maybe its because I weigh more than what I should... thus suspension designed for short Japanese bloke cant cope with Welsh medium sized bloke...
luckily, I now have a bike that can cope with me.. but generaly I dont ride fast enough to test it all out to the limits.. but will occasionaly hoon around when on me tod.... been practicing on 1000 sheep road over winter while the sheep haave kept away from it !

Very well put VB. To add, very few can ride consistently well approaching the limit of the bike (I most certainly cannot) and different bikes suit different people in different ways.

I use an yam MT-03 single lung thing most of the time these days and grin every time I get on or off it. With my lardy **** on it it tops out at about the ton but on the twisties it's one hell of a hoot. Top speed is not everything. Me gixer, ....well according to some here cos its a IL4 thou makes me a slow thing on slow pills on a slow day who cannot go round corners who gets overtaken by mopeds all the time. I still miss my SV, but don't regret getting the gixer or the MT.

[Beenz]

shall we get back to new ss600's and how good they are:) i mean thats some serious power from a 600cc engine.

Yes it is a lot of power and it's been flogged to death already many times. Along with resurrecting the IL4 vs V twin debate YET again. Yes the current crop of ss600s are brilliant, light, quick and fantastic handling in the right hands. Superb machinery compared to a 15 years ago

Power is not everything, it's how it is delivered and that is down to personal taste. Top speed is not everything either unless you want to play top trumps.

[ThEGr33k]

well according to some here cos its a IL4 thou makes me a slow thing on slow pills on a slow day who cannot go round corners who gets overtaken by mopeds all the time. I still miss my SV, but don't regret getting the gixer or the MT.


Thats the thing aint it I guess. All these bikes are rediculously fast. I think like you say different characteristics suit different people. So if you want a all out power house then the IL4 thous/1100-1200CC V-twins are for you. If you want a bike that doesnt need to be worked and is fast and capable enough without being all out sports bike then a 1000cc V-twin/1000cc IL4 (fazer etc) is for you. If you want a bike that you can thrash to bits and you like a very sporty feel then a SS600 is for you.

V-twins are still the best though coz I say so :smt077

Right ive been bored at work. I have got here a dyno read out of the 600's a 749 and I added my aprilia... :p Since we were talking about the comparison. The comparison is quite interesting imo. All RWHP. The Falco is de-restricted, comes with an Airbox/ecu restriction (because they realised people could ride them faster than the RSV is what my research told me :p), knocks about 5 BHP off in the UK.

I could have added the IL4 thous but there isnt much point. Just continue the falco's line upto about 160BHP at 12,500 RPM MENTAL machines those are :p

I know you cant strictly compair these bikes but peak power is similar, the cost to buy and insure is similar. So maybe they can. Scary aint it that these 600's put out so much BHP's. :D

[Lozzo]

But sales wise how did they do comparatively?

At the end of the day i think Triumph survives as its a British Company. People who buy a Triumph want something a bit different. If they wern't different then they would probably fold.

Exactly the reasons I bought my old 955i Daytona. At the time I didn't want another inline 4 and nor did I like the current crop of affordable 1 litre Jap v-twins or the idea of owning a Ducati. The Daytona wasn't a super-sports bike so I wasn't expected to keep up, but it was different, very well built and reliable.

[Lozzo]

You would need a tail tidy for most of them ;)

Its between the 675 and teh R6 on looks for me ... the other 3 aren't even in the running ...

Bearing in mind I like to ride my bikes as well as look at them, if the R6 is king on paper too, then that would prolly sway me and I know the R6 is kicking but on track!! :)







Having owned a few, I have a bit of a soft spot for the R6 too :oops:

If it was as a road bike the Daytona would get my vote every day of the week, the R6 is piggin' awful to ride. Even on track the 675 isn't shabby.

[sv-robo]

I would like to add as Mr Beenz pointed out, that Mr Squirrel Hunter will run rings around pretty much all of you,
!
Pretty much all;)

[ASM-Forever]

Right ive been bored at work. I have got here a dyno read out of the 600's a 749 and I added my aprilia... :p Since we were talking about the comparison. The comparison is quite interesting imo. All RWHP. The Falco is de-restricted, comes with an Airbox/ecu restriction (because they realised people could ride them faster than the RSV is what my research told me :p), knocks about 5 BHP off in the UK.

I could have added the IL4 thous but there isnt much point. Just continue the falco's line upto about 160BHP at 12,500 RPM MENTAL machines those are :p

I know you cant strictly compair these bikes but peak power is similar, the cost to buy and insure is similar. So maybe they can. Scary aint it that these 600's put out so much BHP's. :D

Out of curiousity where did you get the data for the BHP?

Even though its at the rear, they do seem a bit low. My 05 had more when it was stock and the newer R6 is more powerful. I'll see if i can dig out the dyno but it was way higher than 100.

I guess the others should be higher as well then.

[ThEGr33k]

Out of curiousity where did you get the data for the BHP?

Even though its at the rear, they do seem a bit low. My 05 had more when it was stock and the newer R6 is more powerful. I'll see if i can dig out the dyno but it was way higher than 100.

I guess the others should be higher as well then.

Erm just a google search for ZX6R. You got more than 110BHP at the rear wheel? More than 110 at the wheel ive never heard of... at the crank maybe. I do read a lot of mags too so I see a few of these. Most ive seen is 120BHP at the crank on an R6. -10BHP through everything else = about right.

The 06-07 GSXR apparently didnt even reach 100 BHP at the rear. 08 is apparently about 105 at the rear. Not that it really matters though I guess.

The Falco one was off of Aprilia forums.

[ASM-Forever]

If it was as a road bike the Daytona would get my vote every day of the week, the R6 is piggin' awful to ride. Even on track the 675 isn't shabby.

I've never ridden a daytona so i can't make a genuine comparison, but i find the R6 really nice to ride. I've ridden the rest of the rival jap offerings and i didn't like the ninja, thought the CBR was ok and really liked the GSXR. However i found it a bit more uncomfortable than the R6.

One of my objectives is to test ride a daytona this summer, so i have some basis to rubbish them. :p

[ASM-Forever]

Erm just a google search for ZX6R. You got more than 110BHP at the rear wheel? More than 110 at the wheel ive never heard of... at the crank maybe. I do read a lot of mags too so I see a few of these. Most ive seen is 120BHP at the crank on an R6. -10BHP through everything else = about right.

The 06-07 GSXR apparently didnt even reach 100 BHP at the rear. 08 is apparently about 105 at the rear. Not that it really matters though I guess.

The Falco one was off of Aprilia forums.

Ok i've found my post-mod dyno printouts. One of them wasn't an official run(not printed) but i have jotted down max BHP at the rear was 109.7(i think that might be optimistic and i dont know the guy who did it that well).

The one i have it all printed was:

117.9 at the crank at 13180 RPM
108.1 at the rear at 13180RPM

I know this dyno is pretty spot on, so i reckon this is the more accurate of the two.

Dave(Wood) had a look on the history and that was the highest rear wheel BHP of any pre-2006 ss600 he had put on there. Apparently the next highest was a CBR at 107-ish.

However more importantly there is increased midrange and its now soooooooooooo smooth. No flat spots/dips as there were.

[ThEGr33k]

Ok i've found my post-mod dyno printouts. One of them wasn't an official run(not printed) but i have jotted down max BHP at the rear was 109.7(i think that might be optimistic and i dont know the guy who did it that well).

The one i have it all printed was:

117.9 at the crank at 13180 RPM
108.1 at the rear at 13180RPM

I know this dyno is pretty spot on, so i reckon this is the more accurate of the two.

Dave(Wood) had a look on the history and that was the highest rear wheel BHP of any pre-2006 ss600 he had put on there. Apparently the next highest was a CBR at 107-ish.

However more importantly there is increased midrange and its now soooooooooooo smooth. No flat spots/dips as there were.


Still a DAMN fine amount of power! :smt118 Very similar to what I can expect out of my bike... Scary tbh. Was that with the PC & other mods?

[kwak zzr]

Power is not everything, it's how it is delivered and that is down to personal taste. Top speed is not everything either unless you want to play top trumps.

tell me about it, ever since i got my sv1000s ive longed for part exchanging it for another sv650s, in my eyes and for my riding style the 650s suits me better.

[Blue_SV650S]

Just to mix it up a bit and dispel mid-range myths, this is my carby R6 race engine dyno, remember this has been tuned for ~120RWHP at the top end (stock R6 of that era is ~95RWHP), that power and torque curve doesn't look too dissimilar to that seen on a twin ;) And this is one of the old carb jobs, the new FI ones with EXUP valves must produce stacks more of everything as stock, let alone before you get a tuner in there!! ;)

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb319/blue_sv650s/R6dynochartwinter2004.jpg

http://images.sportrider.com/bikes/146_0308_z+sv650_dyno+hp_torque_copy.jpg

Note about the same torque everywhere, just the R6 produces more everything when you get out of the SVs rev range!! ;) IIRC my tuner is getting about 140RWHP out of the latest R6s ... so just size everything up a bit from what you see there ;)

SS600 IL4s are not 'lacking' in the mid, they are just excessive in/at the top!! :smt118

Oh and on a side note, the pointys are quite a bit more pokey than the curvys aren't they!!! 8)

[ASM-Forever]

Still a DAMN fine amount of power! :smt118 Very similar to what I can expect out of my bike... Scary tbh. Was that with the PC & other mods?

Just with an air filter, PC and a slip on can.

I was tempted to get a full system but at the time was already lusting after a R1. Now i still want a R1, but i'm going to keep the R6 a while yet. Now i can't decide whether its worth getting a full system/ohlins rear shock/pazzo levers, or to just save the money for the R1.

[Blue_SV650S]

Just with an air filter, PC and a slip on can.

I was tempted to get a full system but at the time was already lusting after a R1. Now i still want a R1, but i'm going to keep the R6 a while yet. Now i can't decide whether its worth getting a full system/ohlins rear shock/pazzo levers, or to just save the money for the R1.

That is a no-brainer, save your money for the R1 - or at least don't waste it in tarting up the R6 to little effect! ;)

[ASM-Forever]

That is a no-brainer, save your money for the R1 - or at least don't waste it in tarting up the R6 to little effect! ;)

Assuming i don't suddenly become interested in track days and don't need a track bike, then i will probably sell the R6 if i get a R1. In that case i can strip all the sexiness off it and put it back to stock.

Realistically all the ohlins tat/PC/Yoshi holds its value quite well.

I've entered into negotiations on ebay for some pazzos. :p

[Blue_SV650S]

Realistically all the ohlins tat/PC/Yoshi holds its value quite well.


Sure, but all that hassle and for what (in the real world ;) )!?!?.

[ASM-Forever]

No justifiable reason, other than it will please me aesthetically. :)

Plus i've been pretty thrifty for the last year since my accident, so i need to splurge on something.

The standard shock has not given me any bother so far, so why change it? Thats the same way i felt about the damper until i had it fitted, now i don't like the feel, on bikes without them.

<Right i've justified it to myself> :)

[Blue_SV650S]

No justifiable reason, other than it will please me aesthetically. :)

Plus i've been pretty thrifty for the last year since my accident, so i need to splurge on something.

The standard shock has not given me any bother so far, so why change it? Thats the same way i felt about the damper until i had it fitted, now i don't like the feel, on bikes without them.

<Right i've justified it to myself> :)

bellend!! :rolleyes: :D

[Balky001]

I'm with Blue on this one, you'll waste money and lucky to get half back.

If you are upgrading I wouldn't bother with Ohlins etc, get something you'll feel the difference with, like a Brembo Radial Master Cylinder, say an 19/18. Oh, I've just take one of those off my 600 K2, I can give you a good price!:D

[ThEGr33k]

Just with an air filter, PC and a slip on can.

I was tempted to get a full system but at the time was already lusting after a R1. Now i still want a R1, but i'm going to keep the R6 a while yet. Now i can't decide whether its worth getting a full system/ohlins rear shock/pazzo levers, or to just save the money for the R1.

I cant see the point in getting an R1. Its clearly over kill. Unless you are spending most of your time on the track I really wouldnt bother. But thats just my opinion. R6 will be MORE than fast enough for the road and wont be anywhere near slow on the track... Well, depending on the rider of course :D

[ThEGr33k]

Just to mix it up a bit and dispel mid-range myths, this is my carby R6 race engine dyno, remember this has been tuned for ~120RWHP at the top end (stock R6 of that era is ~95RWHP), that power and torque curve doesn't look too dissimilar to that seen on a twin ;) And this is one of the old carb jobs, the new FI ones with EXUP valves must produce stacks more of everything as stock, let alone before you get a tuner in there!! ;)

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb319/blue_sv650s/R6dynochartwinter2004.jpg



Note about the same torque everywhere, just the R6 produces more everything when you get out of the SVs rev range!! ;) IIRC my tuner is getting about 140RWHP out of the latest R6s ... so just size everything up a bit from what you see there ;)

SS600 IL4s are not 'lacking' in the mid, they are just excessive in/at the top!! :smt118

Oh and on a side note, the pointys are quite a bit more pokey than the curvys aren't they!!! 8)

Nice torque curve indeed. As for the med range. It isnt like the SV's power characteristics. SV at half revs is making ~40BHP which is nearly 60% of its peak power. Your R6 at half its revs is making ~50BHP about 40% its peak power. From this you can tell that your R6 is tuned for peak power. The SV isnt tuned at all :rolleyes:.

[ASM-Forever]

I cant see the point in getting an R1. Its clearly over kill. Unless you are spending most of your time on the track I really wouldnt bother. But thats just my opinion. R6 will be MORE than fast enough for the road and wont be anywhere near slow on the track... Well, depending on the rider of course :D

I have a mate who spends half his life on the track and he much prefers the R6 over the R1. I've ridden a R1 that was a few years old and really liked it. Yes the R6 is enough for the roads and even track, but i still want a R1. I'm not sure i can justify it more than that. :)

It would be nice to have more power(although i'm in danger of losing my license as it is), but i fell in love with the 2007 red/white/black R1.