 |
|
|
|
Next: V-Strom 650 or Shadow Sabre???
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 392
|
(Msg. 76) Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>motorcycles (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:57:31 -0800 (PST), "tomorrow@erols.com"
<tomorrow DeleteThis @erols.com> wrote:
>They generally
>measure power output at the crank, without any power-robbing
>accessories included.
Yeah, like transmissions and wheels, useless accessories like that.
--
Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 392
|
(Msg. 77) Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:25 am
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 20:16:03 -0800 (PST), "tomorrow@erols.com"
<tomorrow.RemoveThis@erols.com> wrote:
>But, that's not a Harley-Davidson phenomenon.
True.
> That's simply a choice
>made by manufacturers when they publish power figures.
Everybody publishes the biggest numbers they can generate. It would be foolish
to do otherwise. Honda put out crank hp for their v4 cruisers in the 80s and
being shaft drive, that power had to go through two different 90 degree gear
sets plus the transmission. That's enough to clip off a good 30-40hp if you can
believe everybody's numbers. The V65 Magna/Sabre was touted to have 130 to 140
depending on who you listen to, but it's rare to find one that'll do much over
100 at the rear wheel.
> And most of
>them - to my knowledge and experience - choose to publish crank
>figures, not rear wheel horsepower figures.
Because rear wheel hp would be much lower. If one builder publishes rear wheel
power and everybody else publishes crank, he's going to look like the weakest
link when he may actually have the best performance.
I was doing cage mechanics when all the pollution controls hit the assembly
lines. Back in the 60s, Detroit used to publish horsepower ratings for their
car engines. It was probably crank hp but that doesn't matter with what I'm
about to say.
I had books (may still have them, I'll have to check) listing the specs. The
'68 Chevy straight six, all 230 cubic inches of it with a single barrel carb,
had more horsepower than the mid 70s 454 with a Quadrajet. I also have a
service manual from 1950, I'll check to see if it has hp ratings. It would be
interesting to take a single engine and see how its power morphed through 50
years of changing emission specs.
One thing that was nearly never mentioned during those days was miles per
gallon. Nobody cared. It was all about horsepower and 1/4 mile times. But gas
was 30 cents a gallon and people used it to wash their driveways.
Do you suppose bikes are headed down the same path? Now we're all about power
and 1/4 mile times. In 30 or 40 years will we be comparing bike gas mileage and
all but ignoring performance?
Well, I won't. I'll be dead or too old to care. But you get the picture.
--
Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 392
|
(Msg. 78) Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:52:28 -0600, Bob Mann <Bobo.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Apart from the choking off of the fuel and air supply in those motors,
Messing with air/fuel ratios, adding a device to attempt to make the engine run
on its own exhaust, messing with ignition timing, valve timing, duration and
overlap, compression ratios, and that was before they went to unleaded gas and
stuck all of us with a catalytic converter.
>I also remember a legislated change in the way HP was reported and
>calculated.
Me too. I'll have to see what shows up. Maybe they went from crank hp to rear
wheel, who knows?
> Not sure what it was but HP ratings dropped considerably
>the next year. It was about 1970-2
It wasn't just the ratings, it was real world too. I had a '70 Ford pickup and
later got a '72. As different as night and day - until I "modified" a few
things.
My uncle had a '74 Chevy pickup with a 350 2bbl automatic and that thing never
broke 10mpg. Never. Ran like a scalded turtle.
--
Jack >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 12, 2007
Posts: 175
|
(Msg. 79) Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 8, 12:25 am, Jack Hunt <jhun....DeleteThis@tds.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 20:16:03 -0800 (PST), "tomor...@erols.com"
>
> <tomor....DeleteThis@erols.com> wrote:
> >But, that's not a Harley-Davidson phenomenon.
>
> True.
>
> > That's simply a choice
> >made by manufacturers when they publish power figures.
>
> Everybody publishes the biggest numbers they can generate. It would be foolish
> to do otherwise. Honda put out crank hp for their v4 cruisers in the 80s and
> being shaft drive, that power had to go through two different 90 degree gear
> sets plus the transmission. That's enough to clip off a good 30-40hp if you can
> believe everybody's numbers. The V65 Magna/Sabre was touted to have 130 to 140
> depending on who you listen to, but it's rare to find one that'll do much over
> 100 at the rear wheel.
>
> > And most of
> >them - to my knowledge and experience - choose to publish crank
> >figures, not rear wheel horsepower figures.
>
> Because rear wheel hp would be much lower. If one builder publishes rear wheel
> power and everybody else publishes crank, he's going to look like the weakest
> link when he may actually have the best performance.
>
> I was doing cage mechanics when all the pollution controls hit the assembly
> lines. Back in the 60s, Detroit used to publish horsepower ratings for their
> car engines. It was probably crank hp but that doesn't matter with what I'm
> about to say.
>
> I had books (may still have them, I'll have to check) listing the specs. The
> '68 Chevy straight six, all 230 cubic inches of it with a single barrel carb,
> had more horsepower than the mid 70s 454 with a Quadrajet. I also have a
> service manual from 1950, I'll check to see if it has hp ratings. It would be
> interesting to take a single engine and see how its power morphed through 50
> years of changing emission specs.
Early 50's the figures seemed pretty accurate. Into the mid 50's the
hp race took off and some of the claims got a bit harder to believe.
In '57 the manufactures agreed to get out of racing and down play hp.
That didn't last long. I have a '61 Ford owners manual that gives the
"taxable" hp. It was some low number like 32 for a small block V8,
but it had nothing to do with real hp. It was calculated using the
bore and stroke in a math formula. As I understand it they actuall
did use that as a basis for taxing over in England. That was one of
the reasons why their engines tended to have small bores and long
strokes. When Chrysler came out with the Hemi in '64 they under rated
it at 425 hp. That worked out well for them in drag racing where
class was determined by weight and hp. They did the same thing in '68
when they rated the 340 at 275 hp. 325 hp would have been a lot
closer to correct.
> One thing that was nearly never mentioned during those days was miles per
> gallon. Nobody cared. It was all about horsepower and 1/4 mile times.. But gas
> was 30 cents a gallon and people used it to wash their driveways.
You never heard of the Mobil economy runs? Even back then people did
care about the cost of running a car. Look at a little Nash
Metropolitan some time, or the Rambler, or Studebaker Lark. In '60
all the manufacturers came out with economy cars. There were the
Chevy Corvair, Ford Falcon, Dodge Lancer and Plymoth Valient, Soon
followed by the Chevy II, Pontiac Tempest, Buick Special, Mercury
Meteor, Dodge Dart.
> Do you suppose bikes are headed down the same path? Now we're all about power
> and 1/4 mile times. In 30 or 40 years will we be comparing bike gas mileage and
> all but ignoring performance?
I doubt it. There are still performance cars around. Just the price
of admission is higher than it used to be, even allowing for
inflation. Bikes are not generally bought for practicality and I
don't see that changing right away.
> Well, I won't. I'll be dead or too old to care. But you get the picture.
>
> --
> Jack >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 12, 2007
Posts: 175
|
(Msg. 80) Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:44 pm
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 8, 8:52 am, Bob Mann <B... RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:25:57 -0500, Jack Hunt <jhun... RemoveThis @tds.net> wrote:
> >I had books (may still have them, I'll have to check) listing the specs. The
> >'68 Chevy straight six, all 230 cubic inches of it with a single barrel carb,
> >had more horsepower than the mid 70s 454 with a Quadrajet. I also have a
> >service manual from 1950, I'll check to see if it has hp ratings. It would be
> >interesting to take a single engine and see how its power morphed through 50
> >years of changing emission specs.
>
> Apart from the choking off of the fuel and air supply in those motors,
> I also remember a legislated change in the way HP was reported and
> calculated. Not sure what it was but HP ratings dropped considerably
> the next year. It was about 1970-2
They went from gross hp to net hp. For gross the water pump and
alternator were driven by some other power source and the engine was
fitted with open headers. For net the accesories were driven off the
crank and a full exhaust system was attached. Both measurements were
made at the flywheel.
Bruce >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 12, 2007
Posts: 175
|
(Msg. 81) Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 8, 9:32 pm, Jack Hunt <jhun....TakeThisOut@tds.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:52:28 -0600, Bob Mann <B....TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >Apart from the choking off of the fuel and air supply in those motors,
>
> Messing with air/fuel ratios, adding a device to attempt to make the engine run
> on its own exhaust, messing with ignition timing, valve timing, duration and
> overlap, compression ratios, and that was before they went to unleaded gas and
> stuck all of us with a catalytic converter.
Yeah, they had air pumps pumping air into the exhaust to finish
burning any fuel that didn't burn in the cylinder. Exhaust gas
recirculation (EGR) fed exhaust into the cylinder. That would cause
less fuel/air mix to be drawn in. Including the exhaust meant there
was more mass for a given amount of fuel, so the combustion temperture
stayed lower and less oxides of nitrogen were produced. There are
still a lot of engines using EGR, but it is designed in rather than an
add on.
> >I also remember a legislated change in the way HP was reported and
> >calculated.
>
> Me too. I'll have to see what shows up. Maybe they went from crank hp to rear
> wheel, who knows?
>
> > Not sure what it was but HP ratings dropped considerably
> >the next year. It was about 1970-2
>
> It wasn't just the ratings, it was real world too. I had a '70 Ford pickup and
> later got a '72. As different as night and day - until I "modified" a few
> things.
The 70's were definitely the dark ages for automotive performance. I
drove cars from the late 60's until I bought a new 1980 Dodge Colt
Hatchback (Mitsubishi). It was quick and averaged 40 mpg.
> My uncle had a '74 Chevy pickup with a 350 2bbl automatic and that thing never
> broke 10mpg. Never. Ran like a scalded turtle.
>
> --
> Jack >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 16, 2007
Posts: 918
|
(Msg. 82) Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:36:34 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
<bsr3997.RemoveThis@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Jan 8, 12:25 am, Jack Hunt <jhun....RemoveThis@tds.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 20:16:03 -0800 (PST), "tomor...@erols.com"
>>
>> <tomor....RemoveThis@erols.com> wrote:
>> >But, that's not a Harley-Davidson phenomenon.
>>
>> True.
>>
>> > That's simply a choice
>> >made by manufacturers when they publish power figures.
>>
>> Everybody publishes the biggest numbers they can generate. It would be foolish
>> to do otherwise. Honda put out crank hp for their v4 cruisers in the 80s and
>> being shaft drive, that power had to go through two different 90 degree gear
>> sets plus the transmission. That's enough to clip off a good 30-40hp if you can
>> believe everybody's numbers. The V65 Magna/Sabre was touted to have 130 to 140
>> depending on who you listen to, but it's rare to find one that'll do much over
>> 100 at the rear wheel.
Another data point - Honda rates its ST1300 at 125 HP, and it
dynos ~ 118, even though it's shaft drive.
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/ >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 12, 2007
Posts: 175
|
(Msg. 83) Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 9, 11:45 pm, Jack Hunt <jhun....DeleteThis@tds.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:36:34 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3....DeleteThis@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You never heard of the Mobil economy runs?
>
> I remember Hugh Downs* doing a stint in...I think it was a mid 60s Galaxy 500
> but I could be wrong. IIRC he got the worst mileage of his group.
>
> *He was a Today show regular with a brand new news bunny named Barbara Walters.
>
> > Look at a little Nash Metropolitan some time,
>
> I spent many a mile in the hole behind the seat of a Nash Metropolitan. My
> grandfather owned two of them.
>
> > or the Rambler
>
> He had one of those, too.
>
> >In '60
> >all the manufacturers came out with economy cars. There were the
> >Chevy Corvair,
>
> Till Nader shot it down. I don't think there was anything basically wrong with
> the Corvair, it was just that funky flat six with the horizontal crankshaft
> driving the vertical cooling fan and that double-90 fan belt. It was too
> radical for its time.
>
> > Ford Falcon
>
> One of my early drool cars was the early Falcon.
>
> >Dodge Lancer and Plymoth Valient
>
> Dodge 225 slant six. I had one. Also a Plymouth Belvedere with a slant six and
> a three on the column. Lots of fun changing points and setting point gap on
> those engines.
>
> >I doubt it. There are still performance cars around. Just the price
> >of admission is higher than it used to be, even allowing for
> >inflation
>
> In the 60s you could take a car straight from the showroom to the dragstrip and
> win. And just about anybody could afford one. I knew a guy with a Road Runner
> that had a 440 sixpack from the factory and it was his daily driver.
>
> >. Bikes are not generally bought for practicality and I
> >don't see that changing right away.
>
> No, not this year or next, but what about 2050? With gas going higher and
> higher, if they're still burning gas then, it'll be a heavy emphasis on fuel
> mileage and less about performance.
Wouldn't count on that. Most want four wheels and a roof over their
head for a daily driver. With Diesel electric or some such thing they
can get as good a mileage as you are likely to get with most two
wheelers.
Bruce >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 392
|
(Msg. 84) Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:00:26 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3997 DeleteThis @my-deja.com>
wrote:
>drove cars from the late 60's until I bought a new 1980 Dodge Colt
>Hatchback (Mitsubishi). It was quick and averaged 40 mpg.
My sister had a Colt, I think hers was the first year they came out, around 76
or 77. All the power of a Honda coupled with the reliability of a Harley.
Something was always falling off that car but it was a hoot to drive. The diode
trio in the alternator failed and there was no replacement, not even a rebuilt
alternator available. I mounted six commercial rated diodes to an aluminum heat
sink and mounted it outside the alternator shell. It was still running and
charging when she sold it two years later.
--
Jack >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 392
|
(Msg. 85) Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:36:34 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3997.TakeThisOut@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>You never heard of the Mobil economy runs?
I remember Hugh Downs* doing a stint in...I think it was a mid 60s Galaxy 500
but I could be wrong. IIRC he got the worst mileage of his group.
*He was a Today show regular with a brand new news bunny named Barbara Walters.
> Look at a little Nash Metropolitan some time,
I spent many a mile in the hole behind the seat of a Nash Metropolitan. My
grandfather owned two of them.
> or the Rambler
He had one of those, too.
>In '60
>all the manufacturers came out with economy cars. There were the
>Chevy Corvair,
Till Nader shot it down. I don't think there was anything basically wrong with
the Corvair, it was just that funky flat six with the horizontal crankshaft
driving the vertical cooling fan and that double-90 fan belt. It was too
radical for its time.
> Ford Falcon
One of my early drool cars was the early Falcon.
>Dodge Lancer and Plymoth Valient
Dodge 225 slant six. I had one. Also a Plymouth Belvedere with a slant six and
a three on the column. Lots of fun changing points and setting point gap on
those engines.
>I doubt it. There are still performance cars around. Just the price
>of admission is higher than it used to be, even allowing for
>inflation
In the 60s you could take a car straight from the showroom to the dragstrip and
win. And just about anybody could afford one. I knew a guy with a Road Runner
that had a 440 sixpack from the factory and it was his daily driver.
>. Bikes are not generally bought for practicality and I
>don't see that changing right away.
No, not this year or next, but what about 2050? With gas going higher and
higher, if they're still burning gas then, it'll be a heavy emphasis on fuel
mileage and less about performance.
--
Jack >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 392
|
(Msg. 86) Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:47:15 -0500, .p.jm DeleteThis @see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>Another data point - Honda rates its ST1300 at 125 HP, and it
>dynos ~ 118, even though it's shaft drive.
The 1300 has only one 90 degree gearbox, since the crankshaft is longitudinal
and the Sabre was cross-directional. And they're probably talking crank hp,
indexed for inflation, of course.
--
Jack >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 392
|
(Msg. 87) Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:56 am
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:41:08 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3997 DeleteThis @my-deja.com>
wrote:
>With Diesel electric or some such thing they
>can get as good a mileage as you are likely to get with most two
>wheelers.
I work with a guy who has a Toyota hybrid. He gets better mileage with that
thing than I do with my ST1100, something in the range of 53mpg. I don't know
what his displacement is.
We have two '05 cars in the household right now, a Nissan and a Mazda. When
it's time for a new car, it'll probably be a hybrid. They should have the bugs
out by then.
--
Jack >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 11, 2003
Posts: 862
|
(Msg. 88) Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Bob Mann" <Bobo.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:etv6o3t3ttpe0ricvco5fl0u2k2s8abl1h@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:25:57 -0500, Jack Hunt <jhunt1x.DeleteThis@tds.net> wrote:
>
>>I had books (may still have them, I'll have to check) listing the specs.
>>The
>>'68 Chevy straight six, all 230 cubic inches of it with a single barrel
>>carb,
>>had more horsepower than the mid 70s 454 with a Quadrajet. I also have
>>a
>>service manual from 1950, I'll check to see if it has hp ratings. It
>>would be
>>interesting to take a single engine and see how its power morphed
>>through 50
>>years of changing emission specs.
>
> Apart from the choking off of the fuel and air supply in those motors,
> I also remember a legislated change in the way HP was reported and
> calculated. Not sure what it was but HP ratings dropped considerably
> the next year. It was about 1970-2
I found a reference that said net horsepower was used beginning of 1971
per SAE J1349. The same reference said J1349 was reissued (2004) to close
some loopholes.
http://www.dodgetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=455579&postcount=1
Here's an interesting reference -
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d03_6/vc9950.htm
California seems to require published horsepower to be net hp as defined
by SAE J1349.
Robert >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1430
|
(Msg. 89) Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:18 am
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:38:04 -0900, "Robert Bolton"
<robertboltondrop.TakeThisOut@gci.net> wrote:
>I found a reference that said net horsepower was used beginning of 1971
>per SAE J1349. The same reference said J1349 was reissued (2004) to close
>some loopholes.
>
>http://www.dodgetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=455579&postcount=1
>
>Here's an interesting reference -
>http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d03_6/vc9950.htm
>
>California seems to require published horsepower to be net hp as defined
>by SAE J1349.
Net vs gross still refers to the output shaft of the _engine_, not
rear wheel, which is where the big difference is, of course.
FWIW, I have access to all the SAE specs at work, but I'm off work for
a while, so it will be some time before I can post what they say. I
think it is a moot point. HP is all just a pissing contest, whether
it's engine or rear wheel, and it only matters in competition, where
so many other factors are also so important, such as handling,
strategy, competitive skill, traction, etc. In the real world, nobody
cares about the last 10% of hp, or probably even much more than that.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 08, 2006
Posts: 1000
|
(Msg. 90) Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:08 am
Post subject: Re: Motorcycle Horsepower Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 11, 3:18 am, Turby <turbosur... RemoveThis @beach.comber> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:38:04 -0900, "Robert Bolton"
>
> <robertboltond... RemoveThis @gci.net> wrote:
> >I found a reference that said net horsepower was used beginning of 1971
> >per SAE J1349. The same reference said J1349 was reissued (2004) to close
> >some loopholes.
>
> >http://www.dodgetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=455579&postcount=1
>
> >Here's an interesting reference -
> >http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d03_6/vc9950.htm
>
> >California seems to require published horsepower to be net hp as defined
> >by SAE J1349.
>
> Net vs gross still refers to the output shaft of the _engine_, not
> rear wheel, which is where the big difference is, of course.
>
> FWIW, I have access to all the SAE specs at work, but I'm off work for
> a while, so it will be some time before I can post what they say. I
> think it is a moot point. HP is all just a pissing contest, whether
> it's engine or rear wheel, and it only matters in competition, where
> so many other factors are also so important, such as handling,
> strategy, competitive skill, traction, etc. In the real world, nobody
> cares about the last 10% of hp, or probably even much more than that.
Leaving aside the question of whether anyone can put the last 10% of
horsepower to use or not, imho, in the real world horsepower is much
more than a pissing contest. People who do not compete at ALL spend
thousands and thousands of dollars in pursuit of additional
horsepower. Being able to measure those results (regardless of WHERE
the results are measured) is one way to quantify the value returned
for the money spent in that pursuit.
Just as a tiny example, when I bought my 2006 Street Glide, I compared
the cost of my own 95-cubic-inch Screamin' Eagle upgrade on my '04
Road Glide to that of the 103-cubic-inch upgrade that various other
people had done, and based on their actual dyno results compared to
mine, decided that the 103 was a better bang for the buck, and chose
that. No competion, no pissing contest, just a comparison of two
measurements.
I think people contemplating cat-back exhaust and cold-air intake
systems for their modern 4-wheeled vehicles, or thinking about putting
in a supercharger, etc, often make the same type of cost/benefit
analysis before spending their money. >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
