motorcyclebloggers.com

If I hear another moto-marketeer say their latest re-packaging of a high performance model has been “tuned for torque”, I’m gonna put my foot into their sack. Manufacturers regularly use an existing, but relatively aging engine, drop it in a less cutting edge chassis/suspension combo and market it to the naked or sport-touring masses as the answer to their desire. That’s fine, but when they have to explain the fact that the same basic engine doesn’t make anywhere near the power of the original, the “tuned for torque” excuse gets dragged out. “Tuned for torque” is one of the biggest fabrications foisted on the moto-buying public. This type of BS goes hand in hand with their dry weight claims. Who rides a bike with no fluids in it anyway?

The reason the manufacturers DETUNE their high performance engines when creating other models is plain and simple. It’s to keep buyers from making a second-tier model more popular than their flagship. Ya can’t have FZ1s goin’ out the door faster than R1s, it ruins the marketing paradigm and implies the customer actually knows what they want! I will give a token nod to reliability and gas mileage as valid reasons to detune an engine, but these are secondary concerns. Today’s engines rarely have major internal problems and bikes still get twice the MPG of cars.

With todays best engines being relegated to alternate models within a few years of introduction, the manufacturers do whatever they have to to keep the design in use as long as possible. So using the same engine, defanged, makes a lot of sense. But the manufacturers know that it’s got to be almost as kick-ass without threatening the creme de la creme.

How do I know this beyond a reasonable doubt? Well besides regularly comparing the dyno charts, horsepower and torque figures of the bikes I’m most interested in, I own the perfect example of this snake oil transaction.

I owned a first year (1997) Suzuki Bandit 1200 (I also own a brand new 2005 model which is, engine-wise, identical to the first year). The Bandit’s engine is virtually identical to the one last seen in the 1993 GSXR 1100. In fact, the Bandit is given the advantage of an additional 100 cc’s of displacment (82 cc actually: 1156 - 1074). This particular engine’s power and reliability have been proven over almost 20 years of real world use, including heavy modification for extreme performance. No wonder Suzuki wasn’t ready to throw away the molds yet.

So why is it my latest bike doesn’t make as much power as the same motor from 20 years ago? The old school GSXR put out right around 120 HP in stock trim, my latest Bandit, maybe 100 HP. The torque peaks are virtually identical, right around 70 foot-pounds. How does that qualify as “tuned for torque”? “Robbed of horsepower” would be more appropriate description. I would expect a minimum gain of at least 5 foot pounds to qualify as praise worthy (because you might actually notice it), and something like plus 10 might actually turn my head. The Bandit shows an incredibly small gain when the power curves are overlayed and the length and flatness of the torque curves compared. On the newer bike the torque curve has changed very slightly for the better. It doesn’t make more peak torque, but the area under the torque curve is broader.

But this is primarily acheived with the cams. For those of you who think “hotter” cams are the solution to your performance desires …. I hate to burst your bubble ….. but if your gonna rob Peter, you gotta pay Paul. Cams may increase top-end, but only at the expense of bottom-end. Cams change where the power hits, but can’t improve power overall. This is one of the primary difference between the Bandit and the GSXR and why the Bandit pulls better on the bottom and the GSXR better on top.

But does the Bandit actually pull better on the bottom. No, not really. You see while changing the cam profile and adding displacement, they also lowered compression substantially, retarded the ignition timing and heavily restricted the intake tract. (Carb diameter remains the same). The net effect is a virtually identical bottom-end and a big reduction in top-end.

I know what potential exists because with some fairly simple, but effective, mods I brought my ‘97 Bandit on par with the old GSXR. In fact, I was able to tune the Bandit for torque! But only with the help of proven modifications.
Those mods were:

Compression bump (shaved the head: stock GSXR: 11.2 to 1, stock Bandit: 9.5 to 1, modified Bandit: 10.5 to 1), Advanced ignition (4 deg),

Opened up airbox (added a second snokel),

A less restrictive exhaust (Yoshimura RS-3 - read relatively quiet - slip-on)

And a DynoJet kit (proper fueling to compliment the other mods).

This brought my Bandit up to around 115 HP as well as an almost 10 foot pound increase in torque (remember what I said I was hoping for earlier, this surpassed the GSXRs torque big time, while only sacrificing a few HP on top). And the gains were across the entire powerband. Can you say wheelie monster?!?! Now we’re talking about what the Bandit should feel like from the factory. Maybe Suzuki just doesn’t want to threaten the aftermarket?

I’m not complaining that my 2005 Bandit 1200 is a detuned 1993 GSXR 1100, I’m complaining that marketing types are trying to convince me, and you, that they’ve built you a more suitable engine, when in truth they’ve done nothing of the sort! They’ve just sacrificed quite a bit of engine potential to appease the marketing Gods.

Buy a motorcycle because it’s what you want, but don’t be deceived by the “tuned for torque” sales pitch. It just ain’t true!

P.S. - I can’t wait to see what Suzuki puts the Hayabusa engine in when the next-gen hypersports hits showrooms. Let’s just hope they don’t cut it’s balls off. Or I won’t have anything to kick.