Peder_y2k Posted October 1, 2012 Share #1 Posted October 1, 2012 For those who know, why does the '88 have less advertised power than the '83? The '88 has a bigger bore, and slightly bigger carb, and a little more torque, but the rest seems the same, yet the '88 is advertised with 11PS less power? What would account for this difference? Just askin'.... -Pete, in Tacoma WA USA '83,88 Venture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twigg Posted October 1, 2012 Share #2 Posted October 1, 2012 AFAIK, the '83 has 90 Hp and the '86 on has 97 Hp PS is not quite the same ... nearly, but it is lower than HP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bongobobny Posted October 1, 2012 Share #3 Posted October 1, 2012 I believe it has to do with the compression ratio primarily. Yes the 1200's weere quicker than the 1300's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peder_y2k Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share #4 Posted October 1, 2012 '83 and '88 have same advertised compression ratio 10.5-1. Granted the '83 is faster than the '88 (just a little), but it weighs less, and weight is the enemy of performance. I'm wondering if the ratings are at different RPM, 5000RPM vs 7000RPM. -Pete, in Tacoma WA USA '83,88 Venture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twigg Posted October 1, 2012 Share #5 Posted October 1, 2012 When they produce those figures they have the engine on a test bed, and they measure the power and torques curves at the crank. The quoted Hp would be right around the red line, or just before. Figure 25% loss at the rear wheel, even for a chain driven bike ... It will be more for a shaft. They both will cruise at 80 mph, fully loaded. Good enough for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddevilmedic Posted October 1, 2012 Share #6 Posted October 1, 2012 works for me too! i have no problem passing my buddy's 09 110 SE Road King! at a tenth of the price, no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairiehammer Posted October 1, 2012 Share #7 Posted October 1, 2012 Yes the 1200's weere quicker than the 1300's... Not according to Cycle Magazine. They ran the '83 Venture through the ¼ mile in 12.69 seconds at 103.92 mph. They also tested the 1986 Venture and it ran the ¼ mile in 12.5 seconds at 104.5 mph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venturous Randy Posted October 1, 2012 Share #8 Posted October 1, 2012 Not according to Cycle Magazine. They ran the '83 Venture through the ¼ mile in 12.69 seconds at 103.92 mph. They also tested the 1986 Venture and it ran the ¼ mile in 12.5 seconds at 104.5 mph. Yeah, but the MKII rider only weighed 98 pounds and the MKI was two up, pulling a trailer. RandyA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgn Posted October 1, 2012 Share #9 Posted October 1, 2012 Yeah, but the MKII rider only weighed 98 pounds and the MKI was two up, pulling a trailer. RandyA My 99 was two up and you knew you were going to "take off" so how do you explain a little Red and white still on your tail ..... Tell me you Purple Devil you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twigg Posted October 1, 2012 Share #10 Posted October 1, 2012 Yeah, but the MKII rider only weighed 98 pounds and the MKI was two up, pulling a trailer. RandyA Let's not break ranks here ... They are both faster than a Second Gen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingy Posted October 1, 2012 Share #11 Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) Attached is a Dyno curve for RWHP only that was done on my almost stock 83. Only thing I think it had was a K&N filter and maybe drilled out slightly last baffle in exhaust. 81.65 hp. Tweety is now putting out a little more with a 1300, but it isn't an apples to apples comparison. 109.4 hp. Gary Edited October 2, 2012 by dingy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Posted October 2, 2012 Share #12 Posted October 2, 2012 Let's not break ranks here ... They are both faster than a Second Gen! Yea, yea, but with the 2Gen you don't have to keep going back and picking up parts like you do with a 1Gen so the 2 Gen will usually get to destination first. :crackup::crackup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmelah Posted October 2, 2012 Share #13 Posted October 2, 2012 those are HD parts you see on the ground we just go back and get them for the HD riders cause we like that :rotf:on a side note an HD rider would have to wait hours for a 2nd gen to bring him/her their parts :whistling::rotf: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted October 2, 2012 Share #14 Posted October 2, 2012 What is whrite in the french " revue technique " . http://imageshack.us/a/img18/854/12001f.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us http://imageshack.us/a/img42/5225/13001d.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us Michel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddevilmedic Posted October 2, 2012 Share #15 Posted October 2, 2012 its all Chinese to me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peder_y2k Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share #16 Posted October 2, 2012 Well I definately understand the power/torque graphs, but don't yet know what differences between the engines account for the change. Only difference I know of is 100cc and 1mm larger carbs. Must be camshaft design, so I'm going to start comparing part numbers and carb jet sizes. From the graphs, one can deduce the 1200 has a higher top speed, while the 1300 would have better low speed manners (handling). This is confirmed by my 'feeling' the 1200 to be more of a hotrod, and the 1300 is better at low speed rubber neck sight-seeing with plenty of power on tap with very close performance to the 1200, just not at the blistering speeds that I would never experience. Both bikes are easily capable of 110mph and more, but who in their right mind gives a rip about 130 vs 140mph two up in the twisties? I, for one, like the fact my '88 1300 can deliver 49.6mpg on 89 octane gas with the 10% ethenol riding through the local mountans. My '83 can't do that, or even come close. PS, maybe if I lived in Canada and wanted to get from Banff to Regina before dark an extra 10 mph at 7000rpm could be useful. -Pete, in Tacoma WA USA '83,88 Venture Learned to ride on a 1956 650 Triumph back in the day when 650cc was BIG, and those were considered continent crossers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peder_y2k Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share #17 Posted October 2, 2012 I'll be darned.......I looked up part numbers and the 1983-1993 all have the same camshafts and carb main jet. The fact the YICS is not on the 1300 should make zero difference at peak power. Maybe the difference is in the TCI spark timing? I know the boost sensor for the digital ignition (1990-1993) is different. Now I really want to know............ Ok, back to work for me. -Pete, in Tacoma WA USA '83,88 Venture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twigg Posted October 2, 2012 Share #18 Posted October 2, 2012 I'll be darned.......I looked up part numbers and the 1983-1993 all have the same camshafts and carb main jet. The fact the YICS is not on the 1300 should make zero difference at peak power. Maybe the difference is in the TCI spark timing? I know the boost sensor for the digital ignition (1990-1993) is different. Now I really want to know............ Ok, back to work for me. -Pete, in Tacoma WA USA '83,88 Venture Well it is a larger engine, and burns more gas per firing stroke ... That energy has to go somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
friesman Posted October 2, 2012 Share #19 Posted October 2, 2012 [quotePS, maybe if I lived in Canada and wanted to get from Banff to Regina before dark an extra 10 mph at 7000rpm could be useful. -Pete, in Tacoma WA USA '83,88 Venture . Hey thats only about a 9 hour ride on 4 lane superslab the entire way.... but my mileage was only about 36mpg Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted October 3, 2012 Share #20 Posted October 3, 2012 According to this manuel scan, admission camshafts is not the same on 1300 http://imageshack.us/a/img585/9383/51869271.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us http://imageshack.us/a/img822/2210/13746835.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us Michel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peder_y2k Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share #21 Posted October 3, 2012 Thank you Michel, Those inlet camshaft specifications certainly are different! What is confusing is that the part numbers posted on the internet are the same 1983-1993. Since your source is in French, perhaps there is a European version not reflected in the USA parts catalog I am exposed to. The opening and duration of the cam timing certainly would account for most of the power and torque difference between the 1200 and 1300. Again, thanks for bringing this to my attention. For my style of riding, the 1300 is more to my preference for touring in my region of the world. -Pete, in Tacoma WA USA '83,88 Venture 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