mikemax04
Well-Known Member
Does anybody really know what the hp on the stock Euro Max really is? Either at the crank or at the rear wheel.
TIA
TIA
Help Support VMAX Forum:
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 45
I thought it was 100 HP, at least that is what I've always been told.
mikemax04
Well-Known Member
The question is Buster, is that 100hp at the flywheel or rear tire? Got into a discussion on another forum where even guys from Europe state that this 100hp is at the crank. I just find that hard to believe but nobody has anything in black and white.:confused2:Buster Hymen said:
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 45
I would believe that would be 100 HP at the crank. Since the motor is based on the Venture motor, which according to the VMax history, is a 90 HP motor, I guess the motor without the VBoost loses about 40 HP.
mikemax04
Well-Known Member
Hmmmmmm thanks, anybody know what the V65 Magna's hp was?Buster Hymen said:
Mike, check here: http://www.magnaownersoftexas.org/v65/v65article.htm
Looks like 105 at the rear wheel with 69 ft/lbs of torque.
Looks like 105 at the rear wheel with 69 ft/lbs of torque.
mikemax04
Well-Known Member
Thanks Mark, that was a good read. I was amazed that the Magna has 100cc less displacement, no v-boost to speak of and almost as many ponies and torque as the Max. 1/4 mile times also hardly any difference with 30-40 lbs lighter. This all goes back to the v-boost debate where it's taken for granted that the boost gives an extra 40-45hp. To me the numbers just don't add up. Yamaha should have come out with the real hp at the back wheel like almost everybody else does.maleko89 said:
Rusty McNeil
Well-Known Member
I've owned one V45 and several V65's...The max is definetly faster....And handles way better...If you think the Max handles bad try a V65....
I never had the V65 to the track.
Honda claimed 116 at the crank I believe.......
As for vboost and this is my opinion only...I think it's way overrated... When whomever it was (Yamaha, the magazine industry???) Started throwing around phrases like "supercharging without the mechanical losses" it was a joke in my opinion....While Vboost was an ingenious idea for it's time it's not nearly as big a deal as variable valve timing, variable intake tracts, and variable exhaust volumes that we are seeing today... The Max is strong for several reasons mostly having to do with cams, compression, and decent heads for its time.....
I've run my bike through the quarter at various times with Vboost open full time, closed full time and also operating normally.
Normal operation and open full time were not much different, Bearing in mind at the strip RPM's are usually above 4500 anyway..on the street open all the time gives away some bottom end...I DO run mine open at all times.....Besides the fact it gives it a really nasty idle that I like; I believe the gain in midrange is worth the loss in low end anyway since dropping to a lower gear for a roll-on, slipping the clutch enough to run the RPM's up higher for a lower speed roll on, or launching at a higher RPM from a dead stop makes up the difference.....this is all seat of the pants mostly tho' and I could be full of it except for the 1/4 mile times that I have gotten...
If I didn't have Vboost I wouldn't go to the trouble to get it I would just want the crossover tubes in order to leave them open all the time.
The quarter mile passes I made with it closed were almost identical to the ones open and normal operation except it started to "fall on it's face" past about 8500rpm and gave away 2-3 mph trap speed and .15-.25 secs......
I think what Vboost did was to allow Yamaha to run a small enough carb to allow for very snappy low end response due to high velocity air flow and ingeniously figure out a way to still provide enough air flow to support higher RPM operation.......still tho' I think they are a compromise for high RPM's even with the Vboost...look how a bigger setup wakes this motor up on the top end...as usual at the sacrifice of bottom end unless your an old timer that knows how to "use" flatslides...
Again in my opinion only but also knowing a little about how intake tract size affects overall response as well as high speed airflow....determining the specs of a motor from the carbs to the tailpipe is usually done with one strong rpm range in mind at the sacrifice of others...Vboost was a forerunner to the attempts we are seeing today to to make an engine behave strong at all rpm ranges......
Hell if it was not for Variable valve timing the overlap and duration of some of these 270-300HP 3.5 litre non turbo import engines wouldn't even idle 'cause the cams are so agressive but are able to have the overlap decreased at low rpm's..That's ingenious...
While Vboost was an ingenious idea for it's time it's not nearly as big a deal as variable valve timing, variable intake tracts, and variable exhaust tracts that we are seeing today...
Oh, I have a question also..
Is Vboost the only difference between Our and the Euros bikes?
I never had the V65 to the track.
Honda claimed 116 at the crank I believe.......
As for vboost and this is my opinion only...I think it's way overrated... When whomever it was (Yamaha, the magazine industry???) Started throwing around phrases like "supercharging without the mechanical losses" it was a joke in my opinion....While Vboost was an ingenious idea for it's time it's not nearly as big a deal as variable valve timing, variable intake tracts, and variable exhaust volumes that we are seeing today... The Max is strong for several reasons mostly having to do with cams, compression, and decent heads for its time.....
I've run my bike through the quarter at various times with Vboost open full time, closed full time and also operating normally.
Normal operation and open full time were not much different, Bearing in mind at the strip RPM's are usually above 4500 anyway..on the street open all the time gives away some bottom end...I DO run mine open at all times.....Besides the fact it gives it a really nasty idle that I like; I believe the gain in midrange is worth the loss in low end anyway since dropping to a lower gear for a roll-on, slipping the clutch enough to run the RPM's up higher for a lower speed roll on, or launching at a higher RPM from a dead stop makes up the difference.....this is all seat of the pants mostly tho' and I could be full of it except for the 1/4 mile times that I have gotten...
If I didn't have Vboost I wouldn't go to the trouble to get it I would just want the crossover tubes in order to leave them open all the time.
The quarter mile passes I made with it closed were almost identical to the ones open and normal operation except it started to "fall on it's face" past about 8500rpm and gave away 2-3 mph trap speed and .15-.25 secs......
I think what Vboost did was to allow Yamaha to run a small enough carb to allow for very snappy low end response due to high velocity air flow and ingeniously figure out a way to still provide enough air flow to support higher RPM operation.......still tho' I think they are a compromise for high RPM's even with the Vboost...look how a bigger setup wakes this motor up on the top end...as usual at the sacrifice of bottom end unless your an old timer that knows how to "use" flatslides...
Again in my opinion only but also knowing a little about how intake tract size affects overall response as well as high speed airflow....determining the specs of a motor from the carbs to the tailpipe is usually done with one strong rpm range in mind at the sacrifice of others...Vboost was a forerunner to the attempts we are seeing today to to make an engine behave strong at all rpm ranges......
Hell if it was not for Variable valve timing the overlap and duration of some of these 270-300HP 3.5 litre non turbo import engines wouldn't even idle 'cause the cams are so agressive but are able to have the overlap decreased at low rpm's..That's ingenious...
While Vboost was an ingenious idea for it's time it's not nearly as big a deal as variable valve timing, variable intake tracts, and variable exhaust tracts that we are seeing today...
Oh, I have a question also..
Is Vboost the only difference between Our and the Euros bikes?
Last edited:
Rusty McNeil
Well-Known Member
maleko89 said:
Wow! Is that the first documented use of the word streetfighter in refering to a hooligan bike?
mikemax04
Well-Known Member
Rusty, don't ever kid yourself about not knowing. Many times I wanted to say almost the same thing but I also wasn't sure so kept quiet. Supposedly there are several changes between the N.A. version and Euro. One is the V-boost, some carb restrictions to prevent them from opening completely, jet size and possibly different TCI/CDI unit. To me that sounds like a 10 - 15 hp difference (just guessing). I have also felt that Yamaha was after a smoother/straighter power curve that they couldn't get with carbs alone. Every carb has different stages of supplying air/fuel mixture, from idle to 10K. These particular carbs provide the optimum mixture up to the 6+K in three different stages already and would be much more complicated and touchy if another higher stage was needed. To compensate for this extra stage they figured out a way to have two carbs supply one cylinder past the 6K rpm's to keep the power band steady. That's why a stock Max pulls the same all the way to red line. To accomplish this feat, they would have to figure out the firing order of the cylinders and the cam timings so it would work.
If bigger carbs were used to take care of the correct mixture on the high end, there would be bigger dips in the power band and give slower times in the 1/4 mile. The best distribution/mixture of fuel is still the FI. It is regulated by a computer that is programmed for one certain setup motor to mist just the right amount of fuel with the amount of air intake all through the RPM range. There is no more HP from FI, but a more idealistic mixture through the whole range.
This is my concept and sounds pretty parallel to yours. I wasn't sure about the 1/4 mile differences but what you have experienced, just pretty well nails it. On other forums they would criticize such a theory and call it hogwash. Way to go fellow member!!!
If bigger carbs were used to take care of the correct mixture on the high end, there would be bigger dips in the power band and give slower times in the 1/4 mile. The best distribution/mixture of fuel is still the FI. It is regulated by a computer that is programmed for one certain setup motor to mist just the right amount of fuel with the amount of air intake all through the RPM range. There is no more HP from FI, but a more idealistic mixture through the whole range.
This is my concept and sounds pretty parallel to yours. I wasn't sure about the 1/4 mile differences but what you have experienced, just pretty well nails it. On other forums they would criticize such a theory and call it hogwash. Way to go fellow member!!!
mikemax04
Well-Known Member
I might be wrong but I think the CB750 Honda in 1969, which actually was a 1970 model, was the beginning of the fast bike era. I was challenged many times by stockers and souped up whatever and always came out ahead. Even made a little money on some side bets. That thing was a rocket after owning two Harleys. Before I finally sold it after 35 years of trouble free riding, my buddy with his newer 1500cc Harley (twice the engine size) challenged me to a race, title for title. After he got beat, I told him to keep his bike. Heck, I had enough junk in my garage already. LOLwfcall said:
Similar threads
