FZRSupport: the FZROnline Archive

I was just surfing around today and i found these 1986 fz 600 specs
http://motorcycle-specs.com/motorcycle_ ... &year=1986
Now let's compare the 1986 fz 600 and my 1992 fzr 600
power : fz 600 54.6 HP fzr 600 91 HP
weight: fz 600 185.96kg fzr 600 179 kg
Valves: fz 600 2/cyl fzr 600 4/cyl
Top speed: fz 600 208.99 km/h fzr 600 229 km/h
The point is, that even if the fzr is lighter, has 4 valves/cylinder, has 91 hp, it only reaches 20 km/h more top speed than it's 7 years older sister. not very good progress. Doesn't that mean that Yamaha hasn't done their best to make the fzr 600 better

trifgeorge wrote:I was just surfing around today and i found these 1986 fz 600 specs
http://motorcycle-specs.com/motorcycle_ ... &year=1986
Now let's compare the 1986 fz 600 and my 1992 fzr 600
power : fz 600 54.6 HP fzr 600 91 HP
weight: fz 600 185.96kg fzr 600 179 kg
Valves: fz 600 2/cyl fzr 600 4/cyl
Top speed: fz 600 208.99 km/h fzr 600 229 km/h
The point is, that even if the fzr is lighter, has 4 valves/cylinder, has 91 hp, it only reaches 20 km/h more top speed than it's 7 years older sister. not very good progress. Doesn't that mean that Yamaha hasn't done their best to make the fzr 600 better

TG,
Yamaha is avery conservative company when it comes to advances in the wider world, they also took a lot of flack from the anti-speed motorcycle lobby on the FJ series.

Gearing also comes into play with terminal velocities. Both at the trans and the wheel. That's way if you drop a monster 60t+ rear sprocket on a bike like a R1, it will not go faster than about 90mph +/-.

Well -- i currently own an 89 FZR600, and in 1989, i owned an 86 FZ600.

These bikes are very similar in design philosophies, but i can assure you, the FZ was positively anemic compared to the FZR, even after jet massaging and advancing the ignition. I ran a few "side-by-side" roll on races against an FZR600 at the time, and he walked away from me like a 750.

I dont know what my top speed was on that bike, but in real world riding, the R was a whole different world. What i have also noticed is how much more capable the R was (is) in powering out of the corners. On the FZ , you really had to choose your gear wisely on approach, shift down, and pin the throttle after the apex to get any steam on exit, or you would bog. The R, on the other hand, routinely broke traction and would hi-side you with ease.

I used to put a lot of weight on numbers, but in this case, they don't tell half the story.

cad600 wrote:Gearing also comes into play with terminal velocities. Both at the trans and the wheel. That's way if you drop a monster 60t+ rear sprocket on a bike like a R1, it will not go faster than about 90mph +/-.

I agree that gearing is an important factor. The wheel gearing is 16/46 fz 600 and on fzr 600 is 15/45. And in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb34zqcSOSE it seems that it has a pretty good acceleration for it's wheel gearing. But if the FZ 600 has a transmission is better than the fzr 600, would'n it be a nice thing to mate the fzr 600 engine with the FZ 600 transmission?

kiki231 wrote:Well -- i currently own an 89 FZR600, and in 1989, i owned an 86 FZ600.

These bikes are very similar in design philosophies, but i can assure you, the FZ was positively anemic compared to the FZR, even after jet massaging and advancing the ignition. I ran a few "side-by-side" roll on races against an FZR600 at the time, and he walked away from me like a 750.

I dont know what my top speed was on that bike, but in real world riding, the R was a whole different world. What i have also noticed is how much more capable the R was (is) in powering out of the corners. On the FZ , you really had to choose your gear wisely on approach, shift down, and pin the throttle after the apex to get any steam on exit, or you would bog. The R, on the other hand, routinely broke traction and would hi-side you with ease.

I used to put a lot of weight on numbers, but in this case, they don't tell half the story.

nice to hear your opinion as an owner of the two bikes

Also power required to overcome air drag goes up as a function of velocity cubed so that extra 20 km/h doesn't come as cheap as it sounds.

Great posts so far.

The main thing to understand that power does not equal speed on a linear progression. For instance if a 100hp 600cc bike goes 150mph top speed that does not mean that a 150hp 1000cc bike will do 225 mph. As Gmonkey said those increases dont come cheap. Gearing plays a huge role...better acceleration may be more of a design goal rather than top speed.

My personal opinion on comparing the power performance of bikes speed would be 1/4 mile. It measures a lot more, power to weight, gearing differences...ect...
And I dont know the numbers but I am sure on that comparison a FZR would dominate a FZ...to a point where the difference in power output would be better seen. But again...it is the same thing there is a huge difference between 10 seconds and 11 seconds, and 11 seconds and 12.

Think curved line progression.

I hope this is understandable.

what I can tell you is the engine response on the FZ was terriffic with regard to the throttle it was the FIRST ever 4 stroke to move with your right hand like a big two stroke and why I raced one in friday night street drags for cash and most times win the trick was to lose and then ask the guy to race for his winnings against my RD400's in various guises against 750's and under bikes and certain lamer 1000's. Easy Money LoL