For crying out loud! Honda where is your new REAL sport quad?
Mar 25, 2002 | 10:42 AM
#111
Weekend Warrior
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
KNOWSALOT,
I don't know about the others but the 400ex is 28hp at the rear wheels. and the raptor is more like 35-40hp rear wheels. No math involved but the horse power at the rear wheels is less than the crank, so i am going to guess that the other hp values you gave are probably wrong.
I don't know about the others but the 400ex is 28hp at the rear wheels. and the raptor is more like 35-40hp rear wheels. No math involved but the horse power at the rear wheels is less than the crank, so i am going to guess that the other hp values you gave are probably wrong.
Mar 25, 2002 | 12:03 PM
#112
Trailblazer
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Text<<The 400EX is a good machine none the less and so is the Raptor. The 400EX is in a class of it's own and I think everyone else will agree with me that it could use a little more oomph. If it were up to me to design the 400EX I would...
1. Liquid cooling... Sure more things can go wrong with liquid cooling like impellars, bearings, etc... but all around it is way more efficient then air.
2. Make handlebars that have a cross bar and a pad on them.... I think everyone could agree with me on this one.
3. Bump it up to a 440... Why not? The head already outflows the stock engine so increasing the displacement wouldn't be that big of an issue.
4. Reverse... I have never seen anyone refuse to buy a machine because it has reverse.
5. Redesign the rear end... Any racer will tell you that the swingarm is a weak link. Sure the average joe might never break it but what does it hurt to know that the swingarm will hold up against the test of time.
6. Brake lights... This feature would be welcome by all. At least make it an accessory. This is something that I feel everyone will benefit from. It doesn't matter so much to racer types because they remove the lights anyway most of the time. But more so for 90% of people who ride trails.
7. Make it so the subframe and the rear grab bar are NOT one piece. If you mangle your rear grab bar you have to replace the whole subframe. What were they thinking?
These are all REALISTIC changes that I feel should be done to the 400EX. Honda if you're reading this when you say "Performance First" you should mean what you say. The 400EX was a great machine when it was introuduced in '99 and it still is now. It wouldn't take very much R&D time to do all of this and overall customers would be happier.>>
need4speed, I agree with you, however as long as we are dreaming why not have yamaha build a quad with 400ex handling and reliability with the yz426f motor in it
1. Liquid cooling... Sure more things can go wrong with liquid cooling like impellars, bearings, etc... but all around it is way more efficient then air.
2. Make handlebars that have a cross bar and a pad on them.... I think everyone could agree with me on this one.
3. Bump it up to a 440... Why not? The head already outflows the stock engine so increasing the displacement wouldn't be that big of an issue.
4. Reverse... I have never seen anyone refuse to buy a machine because it has reverse.
5. Redesign the rear end... Any racer will tell you that the swingarm is a weak link. Sure the average joe might never break it but what does it hurt to know that the swingarm will hold up against the test of time.
6. Brake lights... This feature would be welcome by all. At least make it an accessory. This is something that I feel everyone will benefit from. It doesn't matter so much to racer types because they remove the lights anyway most of the time. But more so for 90% of people who ride trails.
7. Make it so the subframe and the rear grab bar are NOT one piece. If you mangle your rear grab bar you have to replace the whole subframe. What were they thinking?
These are all REALISTIC changes that I feel should be done to the 400EX. Honda if you're reading this when you say "Performance First" you should mean what you say. The 400EX was a great machine when it was introuduced in '99 and it still is now. It wouldn't take very much R&D time to do all of this and overall customers would be happier.>>
need4speed, I agree with you, however as long as we are dreaming why not have yamaha build a quad with 400ex handling and reliability with the yz426f motor in it
Mar 25, 2002 | 01:24 PM
#113
Pro Rider
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,629
Likes: 0
TRXhead, and everyone who thought that the "750EX" was real, go look at the front cover, it tells you right there that it is fake without reading anything except one sentence.
"To good to be true<u>!</u>"
See, it tells you on the front cover by adding the exclamation point, not a question mark!
"To good to be true<u>!</u>"
See, it tells you on the front cover by adding the exclamation point, not a question mark!
Mar 25, 2002 | 11:41 PM
#117
The Facility
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,062
Likes: 1
From: Mississippi
aklem64,
The numbers ARE from Cannondale. The only manufacturer to ever do dyno studies on machines and make them public. If some of you don't believe them to be accurate, that's fine. Just remember that these come from a manufacturer and not some guy trying to sell pipes or to make their buddies quad seem more powerful than it is. Also, if you look back a few posts, I corrected my statement. The figures are at the wheels and NOT at the crank. They were run on a Super Flow CycleDyn dynometer, so they probally wont show similar results like those in the magazines which usually run "water brake" dynos anyway.
oldrguy,
From what little I have of 250R data this is the closest thing I found without doing a week long search.
1989HondaTRX250R...30.4HP@7000RPM
1986HondaATC250R...33.7HP@7200RPM
The numbers ARE from Cannondale. The only manufacturer to ever do dyno studies on machines and make them public. If some of you don't believe them to be accurate, that's fine. Just remember that these come from a manufacturer and not some guy trying to sell pipes or to make their buddies quad seem more powerful than it is. Also, if you look back a few posts, I corrected my statement. The figures are at the wheels and NOT at the crank. They were run on a Super Flow CycleDyn dynometer, so they probally wont show similar results like those in the magazines which usually run "water brake" dynos anyway.
oldrguy,
From what little I have of 250R data this is the closest thing I found without doing a week long search.
1989HondaTRX250R...30.4HP@7000RPM
1986HondaATC250R...33.7HP@7200RPM
Mar 25, 2002 | 11:59 PM
#119
Pro Rider
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 0
Aklem64, why do you say, "There's no replacement for displacement" when you ride a Honda? Thats usually a saying that goes along with the big bore Raptors and DS 650's. Unless you ride a the 650 bike, that wouldn't make any sence.
Knowsalot- would you happen to know the stock HP of the Zilla? I've always wondered what it was.
Knowsalot- would you happen to know the stock HP of the Zilla? I've always wondered what it was.
Mar 26, 2002 | 12:24 AM
#120
The Facility
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,062
Likes: 1
From: Mississippi
Hey yodaddy,
Actually I don't have any anything like that pertaining to Suzuki's.
Let me know when you get those 18" TurfTamers mounted up. I'm thinking of running some on the Cannibal for the next hare scramble if it isn't to rutted up. I haven't spoke to anyone yet who is running the 18's on theirs, so I need some input before trial and error.
Actually I don't have any anything like that pertaining to Suzuki's.
Let me know when you get those 18" TurfTamers mounted up. I'm thinking of running some on the Cannibal for the next hare scramble if it isn't to rutted up. I haven't spoke to anyone yet who is running the 18's on theirs, so I need some input before trial and error.