Kawasaki KLR Forum banner

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello. I would like to ask about this bike. I would like to buy it but I am worried about the fact that the engine power is 18 kilowatts.
I read the specification for these bikes and they are 31 kilowatts.
They had a way to get it back to its original power and how.
this is the bike :

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
This is done to drive the motorcycle with a lower driving category A.
I guess there is a restricter ... But where is it and how is it removed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,699 Posts
In some countries, I understand carburetor slides were modified to restrict power and meet maximum-power limits (for licensing purposes). I'd think installation of a "righteous" carburetor slide would cure the problem, if my impression is correct.
 

·
Registered
klr 650 c
Joined
·
18 Posts
I have the same bike, not the same color, and I do not have any restrictions, but as others have written it is probably restricted in the carb. Damocles is right, usually carb slide has two holes which prevent it from opening all the way up. If this is the case order a new slide(there is also a harley part mentioned here in some posts which will fit and You can also find it on ebay.). I am also a new owner of a 2004 bike, if You are not in to speed and You are at least 180 centimeters tall it is a good bike.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,249 Posts
All KLR's, all years and all models have about 34hp stock to the rear wheels (approx 25kw). Some were restricted by the carb slide as mentioned above but I've only heard that in Australia - not sure if the European C models ever did the same thing or not.

Dave
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,194 Posts
All KLR's, all years and all models have about 34hp stock to the rear wheels (approx 25kw). Some were restricted by the carb slide as mentioned above but I've only heard that in Australia - not sure if the European C models ever did the same thing or not.

Dave
Dave, Look in the specs page at the front of the OEM Gen 1 (Supplement) service manual.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,194 Posts
I don't have one at work; so what does it say?


Dave
The long & short of it. 4 different power levels, dependant on country and year model.

35.3 kW / 34.2 kW / 32.4 / 19.9kW

And these are factory rated crankshaft numbers, not rear wheel dyno numbers. (info for the less informed)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,249 Posts
The long & short of it. 4 different power levels, dependant on country and year model.

35.3 kW / 34.2 kW / 32.4 / 19.9kW

And these are factory rated crankshaft numbers, not rear wheel dyno numbers. (info for the less informed)
Other than the LAMS bikes and maybe the C models, I don't believe a word of it. .......any dyno testing I've seen showed no apparent difference. 35.3 kw = 47hp.......and even though they are rated at the crank, typical driveline losses are 5-10% on a chain driven motorcycle down from about 15% for a modern car......but even at 15% that means we should be seeing RWHP at 40 whereas I've seen multiple, credible dyno results at 34hp. ( both KLR-A's and E's, for that matter).

Any idea about specific changes from 1987 - 2007 that you believe could be responsible for hp differences up to 4hp? tranny and clutch changes have no bearing on power production....I say it has to do with marketing, etc. rather than any real mechanical changes or output differences.

Dave
 

·
Registered
klr 650 c
Joined
·
18 Posts
Maybe the earlier ones from 87 had lighter flywheel and developed a bit more power? Anyway we need to hear from offroad coffe if he bought the bike or not...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,249 Posts
Maybe the earlier ones from 87 had lighter flywheel and developed a bit more power? Anyway we need to hear from offroad coffe if he bought the bike or not...
a change in flywheel weight affects the engines quickness to rev, but not power.

Dave
 

·
Registered
klr 650 c
Joined
·
18 Posts
I always tought that the engine spends some of it s power to rotate a flywheel but googling it it makes sense now that it only revs slower with heavy flywheel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,699 Posts
I always tought that the engine spends some of it s power to rotate a flywheel but googling it it makes sense now that it only revs slower with heavy flywheel.
Newton's First Law Of Motion suggests otherwise.

The only torques (forces) acting on a rotating flywheel are bearing friction, and perhaps some air and lubricating fluid resistance.

A lighter flywheel accelerates faster; a heavier flywheel has greater roational inertia.

This material WILL be on your quiz! :)
 

·
Registered
klr 650 c
Joined
·
18 Posts
I am more afraid how to pull that magneto with a force to replace doohickey than all the other forces that might act on it. 45000 kilometers and previous owner did not know that he needs to adjust it...maybe thats why it still runs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,249 Posts
Newton's First Law Of Motion suggests otherwise.

The only torques (forces) acting on a rotating flywheel are bearing friction, and perhaps some air and lubricating fluid resistance.

A lighter flywheel accelerates faster; a heavier flywheel has greater roational inertia.

This material WILL be on your quiz! :)

Yep and I'd point out that the bearing friction (assuming the same bearings) is the same regardless of flywheel weight, the same is also possibly true of the "air and lubricating fluid resistance" depending on actual shape. Suffice to say; that isn't the reason for any hp deviation.


Dave
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top