I had a chance to sit in the 04 600/750 at the WERA GNF this weekend at Road Atlanta and they feel a whole lot smaller than my 02 1k. The main difference is in the width of the gas tank between your knees. They felt more like my wifes 250 ninja. I compared them with an 04 1k and they are considerably narrower than it was. I asked the rep about hp#'s and he stated that he had not seen a dyno yet, but that the target for the 600 was 120 hp with the 750 @140hp. If they got close to those numbers the bikes should dominate.

Thats the way, uh huh uh huh I likeee it, uh huh uh huh...

try 138hp for the 750...and 118hp for the 600. Those are both numbers for hp at the crank

fido said:

I had a chance to sit in the 04 600/750 at the WERA GNF this weekend at Road Atlanta and they feel a whole lot smaller than my 02 1k. The main difference is in the width of the gas tank between your knees. They felt more like my wifes 250 ninja. I compared them with an 04 1k and they are considerably narrower than it was. I asked the rep about hp#'s and he stated that he had not seen a dyno yet, but that the target for the 600 was 120 hp with the 750 @140hp. If they got close to those numbers the bikes should dominate.



that's a good thing, should be easy to get back and forth and give you an easier time moving around in the saddle. I have a feeling this new 600 is going to be a corner-speed beast!

G-FORCE said:

try 138hp for the 750...and 118hp for the 600. Those are both numbers for hp at the crank



So much is left by the time they get to the rear wheel?

148 at the crank......for the 750

where did you get that info from? I've never read 148 crank, highest I saw was 140 roughly.

for example like here...

Here (http://www.zweirad-grisse.de/pages-neuheiten2004/suzuki-gsxr750.html)

i'm from Italy and i read InMoto/Motociclismo that explain how the new engine of the 750 is near 150Hp at the crank ( xcuse my english, i'm Italian http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif) ...

and here http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif

here (http://www.moto-station.com/article555.html)

and they talk about 120HP for the 600 that seem to be correct


here (http://www.inpiega.com/Forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=222160&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

...another Italian Forum that confirm what i'm tanking about.

hmmmm interesting, but here in the states its 140 max from all the resoures I have read.

its all good though...the bike will kick ass anyway.

mmmh...i don't know, here in Italy the 2003 gixxer ( 750 ) came with 141Hp ah the Crank... mmmhh... http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif ..

can you post a link where i can read something about HP in US ? thnks http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/banana.gif

I'm sure the rear wheel hp of the six hundred at it's highest is gona be 105-108 hp max

PS is a german abreviation that means horsepower, however, the two numbers are slightly off. 148 PS should be around 140 as I recall.

Correct me if I am wrong http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/wait.gif, but I've talked to a couple of my German friends about this...

D

PS stands for horsepower, but it's not that skewed compared to ours. I figured it one time at ~1.5 difference per 100 horsepower.

hey lets just hope they get the soddin motor reliable and them titanium valves prove to be a better fit on the collets this time.........!

SVBoy said:

PS stands for horsepower, but it's not that skewed compared to ours. I figured it one time at ~1.5 difference per 100 horsepower.



Yeah, that's more like it. 109kw=146.17hp.

dazzler62 said:

hey lets just hope they get the soddin motor reliable and them titanium valves prove to be a better fit on the collets this time.........!



what problems are we talking here dazzler? isn't the titanium valves a first on the gixxers? whats the soddin motor? sry bout the newbie question, but I want to purchase a 04 750.

gixxerjoey said:


dazzler62 said:

hey lets just hope they get the soddin motor reliable and them titanium valves prove to be a better fit on the collets this time.........!



what problems are we talking here dazzler? isn't the titanium valves a first on the gixxers? whats the soddin motor? sry bout the newbie question, but I want to purchase a 04 750.



soddin is British for fucking http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

According to Suzuki my 2000 750 has 141ps at the crank, so I'd definitely want more from a 2004 model.

http://www.gixxer.com/uploads/199.jpghttp://www.gixxer.com/uploads/293.jpg

When the GSX-R750Y first hit our shores AMCN did a comparo with a CBR929RR interestingly Honda claimed 152ps and only had 126ps on the dyno while the Suzuki claimed 141ps and recorded 127ps, admittedly the CBR has more torque but the Gixxer still kicks its arse.

The latest issue of Performance Bikes just hit the shelves over here in the UK, they have a brief interview with some technical guy from Suzuki UK and they are quoting 148HP for the 750 and a genuine 175mph top speed.

Those numbers dosent surprize me. after all the early models went 172 mph...and got around 120+ rear wheel power. Hate to say it but the ugly front end pays off with good aero, which helps plenty. http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/burnout.gif

All this talk I can't wait to REALLY know what it's going to do. I might have to try and get that 750.

here in belgium, the numbers I have ridden is
148 HP at the crank for the 750
126 HP at the crank for 600 and 161 kg http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/banana.gif http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/banana.gif

a racer at a local bick shop here told me that for every added 7 pounds = 1 hp loss? Doesnt leave much power left with a 200 lb rider like myself.If anyone can add some truth to that I would like to know? Thats it Im never racing a skinny puke !!! http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/nono.gif
If ya see a fat guy riden ....you can give him a head start !!!

liquid72 said:
a racer at a local bick shop here told me that for every added 7 pounds = 1 hp loss? Doesnt leave much power left with a 200 lb rider like myself.If anyone can add some truth to that I would like to know? Thats it Im never racing a skinny puke !!! http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/nono.gif
If ya see a fat guy riden ....you can give him a head start !!!



Well, i suppose that has some truth...because the theroy is every 7-8 pounds shaved is adding 1 hp... also drag racer are usually small and light...aint no heavy large successful drag racers are there!

A pound is a unit of (mass * acceleration), which is also known to physicists as FORCE. OK class, when measuring an engine's performance, what measurement is also done in the units of (mass * acceleration)? The answer is torque, also called rotational force. If you want to measure apples with apples, then pounds must be compared with torque.

Horsepower, however, is force divided into time multiplied across a distance. It is not even the same unit of measure as pounds of force. Therefore you cannot make a direct equation between horsepower and weight, as they are apples and oranges.

For example, you would have the same top-speed for a certain horsepower no matter how much the bike weighed. Extra weight would just take way longer to get to that speed. Every one pound of weight makes zero difference for horsepower. Horsepower will compute top-speed, provided you know the force of aerodynamic friction.

On the other hand, for acceleration, a lighter bike does much better than a heavier bike. However, peak horsepower has absolutely jackshyt to do with acceleration. Acceleration is calculated by integral torque divided by mass. Integral torque means adding up how much torque you have across the entire used powerband (not just the one peak spot that you are usually not even at).

Peak horsepower at the crank is a bullshyt number that we motorcyclists should boycott. It is an insult to our intelligence that we judge the strength of a motor based on peak horsepower. We bikers should seriously make an organized movement to

<peak horsepower figures> http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/piss.gif

The only decent way to figure out how strong a motor is, are integral torque measurements. But NO ONE reports integral torque, only peak torque. That is why, from the info we are given currently, there is actually no way to determine which engines are stronger and more powerful.

But that's about to change. With you help, we can get integral torque measurements explained, understood, and in wide circulation. From now on you will see a single number, integral torque divided by weight of the bike, which will be where the buck stops. Any bike with a higher number is stronger, any bike with a lower number is weaker, PERIOD.

Let's put an end to the bullshyt lies of peak horsepower measurements.

To answer the original question, yes they're a bit tiny. They're 29mm narrower to be exact.

DeathCannon said:
Horsepower, however, is force divided into time multiplied across a distance.



horsepower can be expressed as the mathematical product of torque and rpm. horsepower is the rate at which torque does work. that's meaningful, because torque by itself doesn't even imply motion. however, the horsepower equation, by multiplying torque by rpm, takes motion into account.



For example, you would have the same top-speed for a certain horsepower no matter how much the bike weighed.



that's why you often hear the term 'power to weight ratio' being thrown around. notice it's not 'torque to weight ratio'.



<peak horsepower figures> http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/piss.gif

there is actually no way to determine which engines are stronger and more powerful.



what do you think horsepower is a measure of?

why do you think nobody says things like 'torque to weight ratio' when they're discussing performance? is this some sort of anti-torque conspiracy?



Let's put an end to the bullshyt lies of peak horsepower measurements.



yes, let's just use meaningless engine torque figures instead.

if you're not happy with peak horsepower measurements, then insist on seeing a dyno sheet, where you can see the entire horsepower curve.


http://www.elephantracing.com/techtopic/hpvstorque.htm

read the entire article.

DeathCannon said:
Every one pound of weight makes zero difference for horsepower. Horsepower will compute top-speed, provided you know the force of aerodynamic friction.





except us big kids also tend to present a larger surface for wind friction, so fundamentally the size of the rider is a critical consideration in top speed capability

DeathCannon said:
...However, peak horsepower has absolutely jackshyt to do with acceleration. Acceleration is calculated by integral torque divided by mass. Integral torque means adding up how much torque you have across the entire used powerband (not just the one peak spot that you are usually not even at)....




Acceleration = HP/(speed * mass)

or

HP = Acceleration / (speed * mass)

If you aren't at peak HP, you are in the wrong gear.

gixxerjoey said:
Thats the way, uh huh uh huh I likeee it, uh huh uh huh...



http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif...........agree.

My guess is that the 04 750 will be THE bike of the year. While the HP war in the litre class is going ballistic, the 750 will prove itself to be an excellent combination of power and handling.

It's a winner http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif

It will be the best new bike of the year, but I just don't know if it's "politically correct" to let the 750 win bike of the year during the so-called "Year of the Thou". I agree with you though, it's probably going to be the sweetest "pure" sportsbike ever.

COMEBACK said:

gixxerjoey said:
Thats the way, uh huh uh huh I likeee it, uh huh uh huh...



http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif...........agree.

My guess is that the 04 750 will be THE bike of the year. While the HP war in the litre class is going ballistic, the 750 will prove itself to be an excellent combination of power and handling.

It's a winner http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif



I always thought the 7 was the best combo as well....I think it'll still post one of the fastest lap times with the magazine test editors compared to the open class...hehe. Hell it might post faster times with professional riders on board too... http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

I'm not soo sure about those numbers listed on the Italian site. Anyone else notice the 1000 hp figures?
They list the 04 1000 at 164 PS at the crank which given the usual loss of about 15% translates to only about 139hp at the rear wheel?? A typical 1000 puts out about 150 so that would only be a loss of about 8.5%...Hmm if that translated to the 600 and 750 numbers that would be insane http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/punk.gif Not gonna happen but it would be nice

i'm glad to hear they feel tiny. i only weigh 105 lbs. , 5'5 it's hard for me to handle wide bikes. i'm getting a gix 600 04' in june. i've heard nothing but compliments so far! good to hear. Are they lighter too? i really haven't looked at all the specs.

GixxerGirl18 said:
i'm glad to hear they feel tiny. i only weigh 105 lbs. , 5'5 it's hard for me to handle wide bikes. i'm getting a gix 600 04' in june. i've heard nothing but compliments so far! good to hear. Are they lighter too? i really haven't looked at all the specs.



I sat on the gixxers at the show and yes they are tinner and lighter (355lbs dry) then last years model...your frame will be fine on it if you already know how to ride. I must say its not the smallest of 600's I think the R6 is still smaller and honda thinner, but the gixxer is around there.