• Required reading for all forum users!!!

    Welcome!
    Register to access the full functionality of the GSResources forum. Until you register and activate your account you will not have full forum access, nor will you be able to post or reply to messages.

    A note to new registrants...
    All new forum registrations must be activated via email before you have full access to the forum.

    A Special Note about Email accounts!
    DO NOT SIGN UP USING hotmail, outlook, gmx, sbcglobal, att, bellsouth or email.com. They delete our forum signup emails.

    A note to old forum members...
    I receive numerous requests from people who can no longer log in because their accounts were deleted. As mentioned in the forum FAQ, user accounts are deleted if you haven't logged in for the past 6 months. If you can't log in, then create a new forum account. If you don't get an error message, then check your email account for an activation message. If you get a message stating that the email address is already in use, then your account still exists so follow the instructions in the forum FAQ for resetting your password.

    Have you forgotten your password or have a new email address? Then read the forum FAQ for details on how to reset it.

    Any email requests for "can't log in anymore" problems or "lost my password" problems will be deleted. Read the forum FAQ and follow the instructions there - that's what we have one for...

  • Returning Visitors

    If you are a returning visitor who never received your confirmation email, then odds are your email provider is blockinig emails from our server. The only thing that can be done to get around this is you will have to try creating another forum account using an email address from another domain.

    If you are a returning visitor to the forum and can't log in using your old forum name and password but used to be able to then chances are your account is deleted. Purges of the databases are done regularly. You will have to create a new forum account and you should be all set.

Horsepower figures

Rob S.

Rob S.

Forum Guru
Past Site Supporter
Anyone care to share their dynamometer numbers? I'll go first (1982 1100e w/ V&H "Street Megaphone" and APE pods):

99.30 rear wheel horsepower @ 8400 rpm
67.73 lb. ft. torque @ 6500 rpm

As reported in the July '82 Cycle World, Suzuki claimed:

108 bhp @ 8500 rpm
67.6 lb. ft. torque @ 6500 rpm

I understand that the 108 "bhp" was measured somewhere else (crank? tranny? brakes?) and that the 99.3 is a real world, rear wheel number. So I'm a little surprised that the new torque figure seems to agree with Suzuki's 1982 claim. Can anyone explain that?

My bike is stock except for the intake and exhaust, and was jetted on a Dynojet dyno by Frank of Powerhouse using the Dynojet stage 3 kit. In addition, Frank had to drill out some other jets that were not part of the stage 3 kit.

PS I can't say for sure that she's noticeably faster, she was no slouch to begin with. But she is definitely running cooler, with a lot less of that lean 'popping' out the exhaust.

I'm going to warm her up and go for a ride right now.
 
Last edited:
A stock 82 1100E should dyno typically at 91.8 (using consensus 15% hp loss). Of course this is very much a function on dyno calibration as well.



http://www.thegsresources.com/_forum/showthread.php?t=169468&highlight=dyno

If you are measuring close to 100 hp (99.3), the that is clearly a boost in performance much more than the typical calibration errors of the dyno.

It basically confirms, that if you do pods,pipes and proper jetting that you will give a noticeable increase in hp. This is in direct contradiction to the conclusions drawn by others that pipes don't matter because a pipe by it self doesn't affect output hp.

Your dyno results also don't show the benefit fromt the reduction in weight of 4:2 vs. 4:1 so there is still more than that indicated by the dyno hp numbers.

At face value you are showing an 8% boost in hp. Of course there are plenty of factors that could either make this an under statement or over statement of the conclusions drawn.
 
Last edited:
Data from a Motorcyclist magazine article written by Joe Milton. My bad on the title (it should read 1100).

.

 
Horsepower info

Horsepower info

Hi Everyone,
Hope you all had a good Easter.
I am still soaking up knowledge about my 1150EF, it has a leaky base gasket that I am gathering up parts to tackle and will have questions for the group...
Meanwhile I have some old info re HP and dynos that I can share, that is not engine specific; my engineering training was in a plant that made engines.. some may find this new?
The value that we use for HP was determined, I believe, by James Watt, his original beam steam engine was used to replace horses that were being used to pump water out of tin mines, so it was the amount/weight of water that was lifted / foot in a time period
Horsepower is not a measured number, torque is measured, horsepower is then calculated from the measured torque value.
I have trouble remembering names these days, but not...
HP = 2 x pye x rpm x torque / 33,000 (pye = approx 3.142)
So, when you transpose the constants you get 5251, and you will find that at 5251 rpm the torque and HP values for ALL engine are equal..
If Suzuki quoted HP and torque numbers back in the day then they would almost certainly have been measured at the crankshaft, to give the best numbers.
SO, if you are now measuring that same torque value at the rear wheel then you have actually GAINED the 10 - 15% that would have been "lost" in getting there..
It is somewhat surprising that your mods did not move that peak torque value up a few rpm, but that's good.
My 1150 has a yosh 4 :1, so seeing the low value at 7500rpm does not make me happy, although by my seat of the pants dyno the power increases smoothly, and rapidly above 6000rpm (has the original airbox with a K&N in it, must have been rejetted well by a PO)
All the best
 
The last 1166 I did had 10 to 1 Wisecos, with .348 Web cams, street ported head with stock valves, 36 Mikuni RSs & a V&H pipe. It made 140 at the rear wheel. If has run 9.29 @ 147 with a slick & wheelie bars.
Ray.
 
rapidray said:
The last 1166 I did had 10 to 1 Wisecos, with .348 Web cams, street ported head with stock valves, 36 Mikuni RSs & a V&H pipe. It made 140 at the rear wheel. If has run 9.29 @ 147 with a slick & wheelie bars.
Ray.
Click to expand...

Grocery getter ;)
 
I think crank horsepower is the game the manufacturers play to boost their numbers. This takes all the drivetrain loses out of the equation. The Vmax was rated at 143 but the dynos on a near stock one are around 120. Suzuki probably did the same and this was the convention
 
GS1000, weisco 1085 pistons, stage 1 yoshi cams, ported, cams dailed, 29mm smoothbores and tingate pipe. 105hp rear wheel. Can clutch the front wheel up in 2nd gear at 60 mph with 15/40 630 gearing, but dont do that too often.
 
Normally, rear wheel HP will be about 18-20% lower than crankshaft HP due to parasitic losses.
Ray.
 
rapidray said:
Normally, rear wheel HP will be about 18-20% lower than crankshaft HP due to parasitic losses.
Ray.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm surprised that my torque numbers don't show the same parasitic losses as the HP. It just seems strange to me that the exhaust, pods and jetting would have brought the torque back up to (almost) exactly the claimed 1982 number.

I wish the tuner would have remembered to give me a "before" printout.

Oh, and I do notice a difference from the "before" (probably stock) jetting with the APEs taped 90% closed. I might have lost a teensy amount around 3 or 4k rpm, but it's much stronger from 6 to 9k rpm.
 
Last edited:
posplayr said:
A stock 82 1100E should dyno typically at 91.8 (using consensus 15% hp loss). Of course this is very much a function on dyno calibration as well.
Click to expand...
I think you're forgetting that his bike is 32 years old. Don't assume that it had the same hp stock in 2014 as it did when it came out of the crate.
 
jimb12 said:
I think you're forgetting that his bike is 32 years old. Don't assume that it had the same hp stock in 2014 as it did when it came out of the crate.
Click to expand...

Why not, if its not burning oil, kept in tune etc etc and runs like a stripped a$$ ape...I would bet'cha it would be about the same hp. In some cases even a bit more since the rings are seated in good.
 
mrbill5491 said:
Why not, if its not burning oil, kept in tune etc etc and runs like a stripped a$$ ape...I would bet'cha it would be about the same hp. In some cases even a bit more since the rings are seated in good.
Click to expand...

Burns no oil, starts instantly with choke, nary a cough nor sputter from idle to redline. Plus she's lighter with no centerstand, V&H exhaust and missing seat strap.:D

Getting a little frightening in first and second near redline as I'm no wheelie expert.
 
Rob S. said:
Burns no oil, starts instantly with choke, nary a cough nor sputter from idle to redline. Plus she's lighter with no centerstand, V&H exhaust and missing seat strap.:D

Getting a little frightening in first and second near redline as I'm no wheelie expert.
Click to expand...

Your Dyno results, clearly show that there are little adverse affects of age, presumably because you have kept up with basic maintenance.
 
Rob S. said:
Burns no oil, starts instantly with choke, nary a cough nor sputter from idle to redline. Plus she's lighter with no centerstand, V&H exhaust and missing seat strap.:D

Getting a little frightening in first and second near redline as I'm no wheelie expert.
Click to expand...
Ride a modern 1000 sportbike for a week and that should kill any thought that your 11000E is wheelie prone. :p

(Not to say that the 1100 doesn't want to lift it's front wheel or that is isn't very fun motorcycle to ride.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top