Woo fooking hoo - 102.3 bhp !!!!!

rs1800 · Post by **rs1800** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:00 am

errr not quite sure what you mean there, im new to this lol

The gearing is standard and they did check the emulsion tubes which were fine (as well as the fact it idles lovely). I am very happy with how the bike runs and the torque curve seems nice and flat, just wondered how it compared to others in nearer standard setup.

I am quite new to biking (1 year) and am wondering what if anything to do next. perhaps get the suspension sorted? although I'm not aware of any problem.

Killerwhale · Post by **Killerwhale** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:04 am

rs1800 wrote:errr not quite sure what you mean there, im new to this lol

The gearing is standard and they did check the emulsion tubes which were fine. I am very happy with how the bike runs and the torque curve seems nice and flat, just wondered how it compared to others in nearer standard setup.

I am quite new to biking (1 year) and am wondering what if anything to do next. perhaps get the suspension sorted? although I'm not aware of any problem.

Your HP result should be OK, what gives me a ?....is that it was running fat in standard and they went for a smaller main......
If everything was OK and youÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´ve installed cans and K&N filter you should have to increase the mains.....

rs1800 · Post by **rs1800** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:09 am

exactly, although they didnt seem too bothered

It runs lovely though and the fuel/air mix looks spot on in the chart

Killerwhale · Post by **Killerwhale** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:14 am

rs1800 wrote:exactly, although they didnt seem too bothered

It runs lovely though and the fuel/air mix looks spot on in the chart

And then it should be anal fairy sex shouldÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´t it????

We got the winter here and i had the standard settings in the FCRÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´s....WAY lean....and as i couldnÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´t go to the maestro i had to go WAY up on the mains...will get fixed soon though.
....with kentcams etc....

If itÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´s fit.......ride it and forget about it!

Post by **Kevtrx849** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:34 am

79 hp is a good result. Yamaha claimed 76 in standard trim in their brochures. Chances are the suspension has already been sorted as it's usually the first mod made. Might just need fine adjustment to suit your weight/style. Welcome to the site btw.
CYA, Kev.

burty · Post by **burty** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:42 am

Hi rs,

Here's my dyno chart from the Dyno at Renegades. Apart from twin Renegade cans, K&N filter (standard airbox), the Factory pro carb kit the bike is standard. Crank power comes at 80bhp.

Actually it still rides like shit. I still need to play with the jettings. Currently it has the standard 142.5 jets. I've considered going down one size but never actually got round to getting the jets and doing the work. I've tried playing around with all sorts, needle positions, pilot screws, and to be honest I get fed up with the adjust - ride - adjust - ride - adjust - ride, at the end of the day I just ride around the problem.

burty · Post by **burty** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:45 am

BTW we discussed stock BHP in this thread, I think that you will find 79 about par for the course.

http://trx850.motomaniac.net/forum/view ... light=dyno

Post by **Max** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:49 am

And always remember it's that big, fat, long torque line that makes the TRX fun to ride, not the silly HP figure!

Sure the litre bikes make more, but way up the range when things are happening too fast on the road.

rs1800 · Post by **rs1800** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:18 pm

Thanks for info, Ill post pics and stuff up soon.

The bike was completely standard before the exaust and filter so I am sure it has std suspension. I am not a good enough rider to know if the suspension is any good or not (seems ok) but due to the bike being 10 yrs old and having done 17k I assume that the std stuff has worn out? I am quite new to riding and dont want to run before I can walk but I expect to keep the bike for at least a couple of years so should I spend money on this?

cheers

cheesie · Post by **cheesie** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:12 pm

I will have to get mine on a dyno to see what is happening, its strange that some of you are saying yours are running fat with the same mods as me, after I fitted a k&N mine run poorly so I lifted the needles and put 144 main jets in and it now feels a lot better it even starts better

Killerwhale · Post by **Killerwhale** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:58 pm

cheesie wrote:I will have to get mine on a dyno to see what is happening, its strange that some of you are saying yours are running fat with the same mods as me, after I fitted a k&N mine run poorly so I lifted the needles and put 144 main jets in and it now feels a lot better it even starts better

In my case it was really worn needlejets/emulsion tubes due to city from home to school and back driving in heavy traffic....

It was still fat after K&N and cans....so i just got the FCRÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´s instead of fiddling.

Killerwhale · Post by **Killerwhale** » Tue May 08, 2007 7:51 pm

rs1800 wrote:nice figures.

Anyway here are the charts, how does 79bhp at wheel compare to other standard trx's or should I start a new post?

thanks

AFAIK the stated power by Yamaha in workshop books are ~79 hp at the crank.....wich should mean that youÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´ve got a ~13% increase in power....
But as everyone said....a dyno is used to get a % increase when tuning....

burty · Post by **burty** » Tue May 08, 2007 10:24 pm

Killerwhale wrote:
rs1800 wrote:nice figures.

Anyway here are the charts, how does 79bhp at wheel compare to other standard trx's or should I start a new post?

thanks

AFAIK the stated power by Yamaha in workshop books are ~79 hp at the crank.....wich should mean that youÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´ve got a ~13% increase in power....
But as everyone said....a dyno is used to get a % increase when tuning....

That 79bhp figure will be at the crank not at the wheel.

rs1800 · Post by **rs1800** » Tue May 08, 2007 11:10 pm

phuk72 wrote: Dynos are all different and there is no standardisation. Interestingly Dynojet dynos only give wheel figures and do not display or calculate crank figures......

.....Where it is measured or how much power it makes (although nice to see) is wholly irrelevant.

burty · Post by **burty** » Wed May 09, 2007 11:29 am

Well I don't believe 79bhp at the wheel with essentially no engine mods.

Unless the Akrapovic does release that much extra. I'd always thought that the standard downpipes were pretty restrictive but I got the impression that it was only me that thought that way.