I've now run both in stock trim on my 250i. Both under 200 miles.

What i have shown here is graphs in both SAE and STD. This is important to note because the 2 figures can be very different so when comparing like with like you should always check the correction factor on the print out.

http://www.racedevelopments.co.uk/images/k6%20600vs750.gif

Well I can guess where th dead spot will be on the 750.
Thanks for the comparrison.

wow Im amazed at the AF ratio between 5 and 9 grand. The 600 gets pretty damn lean, where the 750 is way fuckin rich..... strange.

Great post!!! Thanks for the comparison.

Joe I think you have that backwards

great post thks !

any chance you can pull a comaro on either of the bikes showing one pull with the set working and one with it disabled ?

Joe I think you have that backwards

Umm no. 750 is red right....

at 8000 rpm the 750 is at 11:1
at 8000 rpm the 600 is at 15:1


For gasoline the stoichiometric air/fuel mixture is approximately 14.7 times the mass of air to fuel. This is the mixture that modern engine management systems employing FI attempt to achieve in light load cruise situations. Any mixture less than 14.7 to 1 is considered to be rich, any more than 14.7 to 1 is lean

12.5 to 13.5 is what I strive for for peak power. So when talking about POWER anything over 13.5 is considered lean, and less than 13.5 rich, Thus the dotted red line on the graph

The US bikes must have something different than the UK bikes. Your 600 is the only one over 104 HP that I know of.

I put my tuned '01 600 on the new dyno to compare it with my new stock '06 that I ran last week. The '01 with full TI exhaust, degreed stock-lift cams, BMC filter, 520 conversion, running VP-U4 fuel with a nearly "perfect" fuel map got 104.5 HP, same as It got on the old dyno last year. So I know the two dynos are within about 1 HP.

The new '06 barely makes 102. I've seen other posts of '06 600's making 99, 101, 104.

Maybe the UK has better fuel?? Different emmission requirements and hence better fuel mapping? Either that or you have a gem of a 600.

Yep, buddy dynoed his Yesterday in Oklahoma and it was 99.6

A lot depends on the dyno. Certain makes can read very low and others read even higher than dynojet.
Stock 04/05 600's make around 103-106 on my dyno so the new 6 is a good 5 up on that.

Another point worth noting is the break-in period. Both of these machines have been thrashed from new and i know there have been many discussions on the forum regarding break-in and the possible high figures from bikes that are abused from day one. Maybe these have read especially high due to not being cruised around for the first few hundred miles?!

A lot depends on the dyno. Certain makes can read very low and others read even higher than dynojet.
Stock 04/05 600's make around 103-106 on my dyno so the new 6 is a good 5 up on that.

Another point worth noting is the break-in period. Both of these machines have been thrashed from new and i know there have been many discussions on the forum regarding break-in and the possible high figures from bikes that are abused from day one. Maybe these have read especially high due to not being cruised around for the first few hundred miles?!


i've been driving my moto all weekend k6 750, and i can say that after 400 kms, engine seems to be much smoother, works definintely much lighter that it used when it was 10 kms or so... anyway, transimission has to brake in also, don't forget that... once i will complete my break in fully, i will go on a dyno, to see the results and post them here...

Wow! that graph on the left must be another 750. 126 hp from a 600? :?

Wow! that graph on the left must be another 750. 126 hp from a 600? :?

BOTH graphs show BOTH 600 and 750.. pay attention foo :wacko :lol :cheers

BOTH graphs show BOTH 600 and 750.. pay attention foo :wacko :lol :cheers
Sure thing there Joey!:D

113 hp stock 600 .... O.O

i've been driving my moto all weekend k6 750, and i can say that after 400 kms, engine seems to be much smoother, works definintely much lighter that it used when it was 10 kms or so... anyway, transimission has to brake in also, don't forget that... once i will complete my break in fully, i will go on a dyno, to see the results and post them here...


I totally agree my bike is smoothing out alot lately with all the riding I am doing

It would be nice to see an overlapped dyno chart of the k5 750 vs k6 750. I'm Really curious how the new bore stroke compares to last year.

:punk

wow Im amazed at the AF ratio between 5 and 9 grand. The 600 gets pretty damn lean, where the 750 is way fuckin rich..... strange.


Maybe I'm retarded but it looked to me like the exact opposite. I thought the 750 was going lean and not the 600. :confused

Higher number on air fuel mean lean, lower number means rich. 10:1 very rich, 16:1 very lean, 13:1 just right.

Maybe this will help the confused....Air fuel ratio of 13:1 is telling you there are 13 parts of air to 1 part of fuel...with that said the lower the ratio the richer due to less parts of air to 1 part fuel. Just wanted to add too that atmospheric pressure decreases with elevation which could possibly be why you see different dyno #'s in different area's. Air temp could be a key factor as well..cold air is more dense than hot air, so cold air temps equals more power.

Maybe this will help the confused....Air fuel ratio of 13:1 is telling you there are 13 parts of air to 1 part of fuel...with that said the lower the ratio the richer due to less parts of air to 1 part fuel. Just wanted to add too that atmospheric pressure decreases with elevation which could possibly be why you see different dyno #'s in different area's. Air temp could be a key factor as well..cold air is more dense than hot air, so cold air temps equals more power.

and humidity

Good dyno software will compensate for humidity and baro pressure and temperature. Its the correction factor and it should bring any raw HP number to within 1 or 2% of the 'actual" number you'd get at standard atmospheric conditions.

I'm still having a hard time believing there can be stock 2006 600's with a HP spread from 98 to 113.

>>>> Just wanted to add too that atmospheric pressure decreases with elevation which could possibly be why you see different dyno #'s in different area's. Air temp could be a key factor as well..cold air is more dense than hot air, so cold air temps equals more power. <<<<

is it just me? My 05 750 seemed to be more responsive. Maybe its because the the new 750 has been bored more instead of stroked as mush. It seems like the performance gap between the 600 and the 750 has been lessened.

is it just me? My 05 750 seemed to be more responsive. Maybe its because the the new 750 has been bored more instead of stroked as mush. It seems like the performance gap between the 600 and the 750 has been lessened.

Ummm yeah. Here's yer sign.... :wacko

K5 750 -Bore/Stroke:72.0 x 46.0mm
http://www.suzukicycles.com/Products/GSXR750K5/Specs/Default.aspx

k6 750
Bore/Stroke:70.0 x 48.7mm
http://www.suzukicycles.com/Products/GSXR750K6/Specs/Default.aspx

is it just me? My 05 750 seemed to be more responsive. Maybe its because the the new 750 has been bored more instead of stroked as mush. It seems like the performance gap between the 600 and the 750 has been lessened.

:ohmy And thats his first post!!! :lol

:ohmy And thats his first post!!! :lol

??And thats my first post?? a joke?? :lol The bore numbers dont make sense to me. The k5 was bored more than the k6. and vise versa on the stroke. So the K6 should feel more tourqey because it has a longer stroke. But it dosent. I think something is wrong with the k6 750's this year. The average dyno i've seen is 120. with a couple of them getting to 125 and 128. My k5 last year dynoed 127 with a yoshi rs-3 slip on. Mabye i'm just crazy. :hammer Mabye Suzuki did something to smooth the bike's power curve to make it less prone to wheelies. it seems like there is a hesitation when i give it WOT. I have seen some posts with other people having the same problem as me but no solution yet. despite everything the bike handles amazing.

They moved the engine foward and lengthened the swingarm. That's why it doesn't like to wheelie. theres more weight up front over the wheel..

They moved the engine foward and lengthened the swingarm. That's why it doesn't like to wheelie. theres more weight up front over the wheel..



i.e. suzuki's idea of mass-centralization...the closer the weight is to the center of the bike (from left to right, and forward to back) while keeping it as low as possible, the easier/better the bike will handle

why the hell are the k6 and k5's producing the same power?

sometimes it's not all about more hp....