I'm just saying I'd rather have a high torque lower hp motor, than a high hp lower torque motor

 

Thats the way Cummins motors are; torque is usally 2X's the HP

the 01 that my son has(used to be mine) made 375hp /885tq
the 06 I have now is just over 500hp & pushing 1020tq --- scale was only cal'd for 1000.

the staight 6's are torque monsters and it starts down low where & when you need it the most.

 

This I want to see.... a Cummins powered Kawasaki!

Don't enter that cummin's in a drag race. HP RULES!

 

My gas powered V6 puts out 420 ft/lb at 2500 RPM. 90% peak torque between 1700 and 5000 RPM. Very flat torque curve. And it will get 25 mpg. It only makes 365 HP though.

 

EcoBoast...alot of hot air

 

The numbers speak for themselves.

 

Agreed. But I'm just telling you why your bike will continue to work well above the peak torque rpm. There is nothing bad about short shifting as long as you stay within the needed power range.

If you ever rode a trials bike you would understand when it is not so good to short shift. They have a bizarre transmission, at least until you consider what is needed. They have an extremely close first three gears, then a huge jump to the next few gears. The reason is they use the first three gears in the sections, the top gears are for the fast riding between sections. On my Sherpa T one has to rev third gear out a fair amount to not be so low as to bog when shifting to fourth.

But that is all beside the point, I was just buggin' ya! I know what you're saying. You don't want to rev hard if you don't have to. It is nice to know that reserve is still there if needed though.

 

Not a Cummins, but a diesel none the less!



When your KLX torque ain't enough!

 

Numbers like that were why I never modified my Zephyr 550. According to the Cycle (or Cycle World) testing back in 1990 the dyno chart showed only 43 hp - BUT it had roughly 82% peak torque value from about 3200 rpm to the peak at 7500 rpm! In a hop up article a year later they only changed suspension and tires, but mentioned that the bike could give current 600 supersports a surprise when the corners got tight and the straights short, where torque was rewarded over sheer speed. The hop up was handling since the engine had such a user friendly power band. It would pull strong enough in and between corners to stay in the supersport's mirrors. Can you say "power to the ground"? Another acquaintance who KNEW 550s also told me I could get more power, but it would push the power up higher in the rpm, making it harder to ride easily. So - I left the engine alone. Just made sense.

Then there was the 650 big bore using the Vulcan piston... No absolute numbers, but the compression is probably similar to the OEM 650, just a bigger bore - and more torque through the entire power range. We knew so since we actually could do a head to head comparison. The big bore pulled the stock bike. My big bore with a pipe, snorkel pulled, and a Dial-A-Jet compared to a similar bike with only the big bore and no snorkel got pulled by the stock big bore at the start, but within a short distance started to walk away - quickly. I like power all the way through, not just at the top. That is where I use it and where I need it. No peaky runners in my garage.

 

No worries I would love a diesel mx bike...