Guest tx2sturgis Posted March 23, 2009 Share #1 Posted March 23, 2009 This comes up again and again in the forums...I wonder...has anyone actually proved or disproved this? Say you took one of each, with equal ability riders, and had a quarter mile shootout? Make sure the bikes are both in a good state of tune, about equal (stock) weight, more or less, and ran them down the strip...wonder who would win? Is there any real difference in the motors? Or is there just a big weight difference? Hmmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBJ Posted March 23, 2009 Share #2 Posted March 23, 2009 To be perfectly objective and not getting into our usual silliness over this subject it depends on a few things. I'm not sure about the weight but I think the 2nd gen weights a little more. The early models of the 2nd gen had grossly detuned engines. Where as the 1st gen is listed at 95 bhp. The earlier 2nd gens were only rated at 75 bhp. I remember the comments from owners and reviewers alike that thought Yamaha was nuts for taking out so much horsepower in exchange for some added torque. Eventually they added it back to where they are both pretty close now. Third thing is aerodynamics the 1st gen was desigened to compete with the Gold wing and out do it. It was designed to be sleeker, sportier,and handle better. There may also be a gear advantage to the 1st gen because again Yamaha wanted a bike that was in league with not only the Gold Wing but BMW's RT900/1000/1100. The spec's are on the history page here ( at least as far as the manufacturing spec's go) That may help a little. Interesting question though and thats my objective answer . Now onto the silliness........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBJ Posted March 23, 2009 Share #3 Posted March 23, 2009 Just checked the spec sheet and the horsepower rating and near identical but the 2nd gen carries a lot more weight . Its 22 lbs. heavier without oil or gas in it So with a full tank at 6 gals. its pushing 35lbs. heavier rough guessitmate. With the same horsepower it has a definite disadvantage weight wise. So based on spec's alone the 1st Gen should be faster in a quarter mile side by side. Okay now the silliness can really begin!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG54172 Posted March 23, 2009 Share #4 Posted March 23, 2009 Just checked the spec sheet and the horsepower rating and near identical but the 2nd gen carries a lot more weight . Its 22 lbs. heavier without oil or gas in it So with a full tank at 6 gals. its pushing 35lbs. heavier rough guessitmate. With the same horsepower it has a definite disadvantage weight wise. So based on spec's alone the 1st Gen should be faster in a quarter mile side by side. Okay now the silliness can really begin!!! Same power, but the 1st gen can rev much higher. I have ridden an 84 and a 2001. The 84 would smoke the 01 in every class except for comfort and braking ability. I'd wager a decent sum on that. Not to mention, I paid about 5 times more for the 01 than the 84. So I'd be more willing to beat on the 84. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Ardrey Posted March 23, 2009 Share #5 Posted March 23, 2009 To be perfectly objective and not getting into our usual silliness over this subject it depends on a few things. I'm not sure about the weight but I think the 2nd gen weights a little more. The early models of the 2nd gen had grossly detuned engines. Where as the 1st gen is listed at 95 bhp. The earlier 2nd gens were only rated at 75 bhp. I remember the comments from owners and reviewers alike that thought Yamaha was nuts for taking out so much horsepower in exchange for some added torque. Eventually they added it back to where they are both pretty close now. Third thing is aerodynamics the 1st gen was desigened to compete with the Gold wing and out do it. It was designed to be sleeker, sportier,and handle better. There may also be a gear advantage to the 1st gen because again Yamaha wanted a bike that was in league with not only the Gold Wing but BMW's RT900/1000/1100. The spec's are on the history page here ( at least as far as the manufacturing spec's go) That may help a little. Interesting question though and thats my objective answer . Now onto the silliness...........I wasn't aware that there had been any changes in the 2nd Gen engines from 99 to present. If so what year did they change and what changes were made. I know there has been significant changes between the royalstar beginning in 96 to the current Royalstar tour deluxe. They now have the same engine essentially as the RSV. Back to the original 1st gen vs 2nd gen. The 1st gen had the vmax rear end ratio that made it higher torque. that may be what you are talking about re; gear advantage. If so disregard my comment about rear end specs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Bates Posted March 23, 2009 Share #6 Posted March 23, 2009 True Story: I wondered about the same thing myself, so I decided to take the "test" and called Swifty and his 1st Gen. out. From a dead stop, my 2nd gen broke traction, but still pulled ahead about 2 bike lengths in first and second gear, but in third gear, the 1st gen went flying by....all I can say, is the 1st gen has the most wicked third gear I have ever seen in a motorcyle. So, in conclusion, I believe the 1st gen would win in a quarter mile, but probably lose in an eighth mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midnightventure Posted March 23, 2009 Share #7 Posted March 23, 2009 All of the RSVs had the same HP. The lower HP was in the original Royal Star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venturous Randy Posted March 23, 2009 Share #8 Posted March 23, 2009 Back to the original 1st gen vs 2nd gen. The 1st gen had the vmax rear end ratio that made it higher torque. that may be what you are talking about re; gear advantage. If so disregard my comment about rear end specs. Actually, the 1st and 2nd gens have the same rearend gear ratio. The difference in gearing is like comparing the four speed car transmissions of wide ratio and close ratio. The 1st gens have a lot closer transmission ratio thru the gears, therefore keeping in the sweet spot from one gear change to another. I also believe the 1st gens had larger carbs, especially the 83's but not positive. Another thing to consider is a good running 1st get will pull good to at least 8,500 rpms and that is way more than a 2nd gen. In reality, a 1st gen is a lot more of a "hot rod" than a 2nd gen, especially the 83's. RandyA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG54172 Posted March 23, 2009 Share #9 Posted March 23, 2009 Let me fix my clutch and I will go to the drag strip this summer. i will take my 01 and see what it can do. Someone else should do the saem with a 1st gen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarley Bill Posted March 23, 2009 Share #10 Posted March 23, 2009 a first gen will dust a stock venture. i raced lowell at vogel. with my rstd, it which was'nt stock. it was rejeted had sraight through bag slashers and a dyna 3000 set to shift at 7500 rpm. he had me by about three bikes at 94 mph by his gps. we did a rolling start. i short shifted to and gear before we started la jumped me and i never could catch him. swifty and wingman were in front of us and long gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Ardrey Posted March 23, 2009 Share #11 Posted March 23, 2009 Actually, the 1st and 2nd gens have the same rearend gear ratio. The difference in gearing is like comparing the four speed car transmissions of wide ratio and close ratio. The 1st gens have a lot closer transmission ratio thru the gears, therefore keeping in the sweet spot from one gear change to another. I also believe the 1st gens had larger carbs, especially the 83's but not positive. Another thing to consider is a good running 1st get will pull good to at least 8,500 rpms and that is way more than a 2nd gen. In reality, a 1st gen is a lot more of a "hot rod" than a 2nd gen, especially the 83's. RandyAI had forgotten these specs you quote. Pretty compelling argument for the first gen as the winner. I sure thought the rear end ratio's were different as well. Just the simple laws of physics convince me that the 1st gen is the winner. I really don't care. If I wanted a hotrod it wouldn't be either ventures. For long distance comfort and reasonable performance I choose the 2nd gen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mini-muffin Posted March 23, 2009 Share #12 Posted March 23, 2009 Jeff's helped a few 2nd gens find their rev limiter. Margaret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegscraper Posted March 23, 2009 Share #13 Posted March 23, 2009 I saw the beginning of one such run between Al and Swifty. The end was out of sight though, so we have to take their word for what happened. The gear ratios in the 2nd gen transmission are too far apart. This is why a 1st gen is quicker than a 2nd. The weight difference might make a little difference, but not much. Rider skill is a bigger factor than this. The 1st gen not having a rev limiter means nothing to anything. With the small cams these bikes have (and they're all the same), the powerband is all done around 6500 - 7000 rpms anyway. By the time a 2nd gen hits the rev limiter, it should have already been shifted up so as to stay in the powerband for the best ET. So a 1st gen can rev higher. So what. Wind it up that high, and you're so far out of the powerband that you're actually hurting your ET. You'd be better off to upshift and get back into the powerband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonRider Posted March 23, 2009 Share #14 Posted March 23, 2009 Yep, I heard all of that comotion between Wingman and Swifty and LA and Snarley, but thats all, couldnt see them from where I was but the Wing took the 1st Gen and the 1st Gen took the RSTD. The 83 definitely are the faster of all the Ventures, hands down, but I may be a little biased about that........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyRich Posted March 23, 2009 Share #15 Posted March 23, 2009 The first Gens don't suffer the rev limit the second gens do so it would be close but the first gen would probably win. If you can use a Dyna3000 and set the rev limit the same as the first gen then it would probably be a tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeeze Posted March 23, 2009 Share #16 Posted March 23, 2009 I had forgotten these specs you quote. Pretty compelling argument for the first gen as the winner. I sure thought the rear end ratio's were different as well. Just the simple laws of physics convince me that the 1st gen is the winner. I really don't care. If I wanted a hotrod it wouldn't be either ventures. For long distance comfort and reasonable performance I choose the 2nd gen. This is why some People think all2Gens should have the Vmax final Drive instead of the longer geared Venture Pumpkin. The very loooooooong geared 2Gen Tranny really benefits from the shorter overall gearing without hurting much of the Fuel Consumtion, if any at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FJR Rider Posted March 23, 2009 Share #17 Posted March 23, 2009 Hmmm...equal riders? I guess I'd have to say a 1st Gen! But hmmmmmmm...I haven't seen a lot of 2d Gens have problems keeping up with 1st Gens ....but I have seen a few 1st Gens that haven't been able to keep up with some 2d Gens. Okay, the butterflys are now flying in formation....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mother Posted March 23, 2009 Share #18 Posted March 23, 2009 i can vouch that the mk1 (83-85) 1200 cc is faster than the mk11 (86-90) 1300cc. there is this feller south of the border that i know, and we were doing some throttle roll on comparisons, same speed, same gear, even if i rolled on the throttle a second sooner his 1200 would walk away from my 1300. we did 1st gear roll on, 2nd gear roll on, and 3rd gear roll on and he was faster accelerating on all three. we did not do 4th or 5th gear tests as this test was done on a clear, empty, pedestrian free road and we were doing so in a safe manner and respecting the speed limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeM8560 Posted March 23, 2009 Share #19 Posted March 23, 2009 1200 venture is fastest in blue http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/yamaha/yamaha_xvz1200td_l.htm http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/yamaha/yamaha_star_royal_star_venture%2009.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_in_london Posted March 23, 2009 Share #20 Posted March 23, 2009 I'm afraid that a stock second gen would be able to pull away from my 1983 VR - but only because I have a double adult sidecar bolted on... Stick 150kg deadweight on the RSV and I'd smoke it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1rooster Posted March 23, 2009 Share #21 Posted March 23, 2009 Over the last two weekends I put over 1200 miles on my 86.And all those miles was in the mountains of NC. 1. Handling in the twisties both bikes are pretty equal. 2. Comfort.definately the 99 3. Gas mileage..99 4. Acceleration.maybe the 86 5. We dont have any roads with a 1/4 mile straight on it so I cant comment on the fastest. 6.Brakes...99 7.On a scale of 1 to 10 I give the 99 a 9 and the 86 an 8 . Being as I live in the mountains both bikes are fast enough for me and both bikes are slow enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capton Posted March 24, 2009 Share #22 Posted March 24, 2009 I've had a 83,86&04 83 fast 04 best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
91nwl Posted March 24, 2009 Share #23 Posted March 24, 2009 I remember a magazine test that clocked a 90 VR at 12.78 sec. in the 1/4. That's the same time as the current GL1800. I have an 05 GL 1800 and a 91 Venture. The Goldwing "feels" faster because it has a lot more torque, but the Venture pulls all the way to 7,600 rpm and the GW signs off at about 6,000, so I really don't know which one would win in an all-out race. They're both plenty fast. The Goldwing has a lot more "power" under the curve in the "easy-to-get-to" rpm range, so it is more usable power. But, hey 1300 vs 1800, it's what you would expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50btripn Posted March 24, 2009 Share #24 Posted March 24, 2009 Having ridden both extensively, I can tell you, without a shadow of doubt, through my own personal experiences, the FIRST GEN would win, hands down. MUCH quicker than the 2nd Gen, and higher top end speed. The 1st Gen's would flat out fly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yammer Dan Posted March 24, 2009 Share #25 Posted March 24, 2009 I think I have said, 84's will do 115 MPH in 3rd gear!! Thats enough for me!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now