Suzuki GSX-R Motorcycle Forums Gixxer.com banner

41 - 43 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Admittedly, I've been contemplating this more than I probably should heh. I've been busy with school work this week, but now the week is winding down and I've actually spent the last couple of hours contemplating all the physics involved in this...

Although it's hard for me to tell from the graphs and I may be reading them wrong, it does seem that the Kawasaki's had a bit steeper slope. Of course that could be because they had the most consistent pressure readings (the Busa had a excessively erratic pressure with multiple large spikes and dips). I mainly compared the GSXR-750 to the ZX-7R because those were the only two bikes within a decent size range of each other. Suzuki had higher acceleration compared to Kawi. For instance the GSXR-750 hit 160mph in about 3100 feet whereas the ZX-7R hit 160mph at about 3700 feet.

The 750 didn't hit ambient until 100 mph, whereas the ZX-7R hit it at about 60. Like the slope of the graphs, that could be because the 7R had the more consistent pressure readings. I do think fluctuations in the Suzuki's pressure was due to their placement. Instead of the air flowing directly into them, it tends to flow over them after breaking on the nose. Basically, they pick up most of the air, but there are small amounts that flow straight over it. That air flow would actually produce a negative pressure area just outside the intakes (think blowing cigarette smoke out of a cracked window in your car and how it gets sucked out).

It's hard for me to rule one way or another in all honesty. The fluctuations in the Suzuki pressure didn't seem to affect the overall performance in a terribly noticeable way. The Kawi had more steady pressure throughout it's power range, but it didn't seem to give it any advantage. In fact, it's acceleration was slower than the Suzuki. But I'm not willing to say that's entirely because of the intake placement.

Sorry it's long-winded. Took me a while to organize the thoughts even to that short point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
It boggles my mind that someone can claim horsepower increases from air filters and slightly less restrictive intakes and dismiss the value of having air literally shoved into the engine - let alone spending money on a tune that doesn't take this into consideration. From what I've seen it looks like tunes are for RPMs/throttle, but is there anything in the map for speed/gear?
 
41 - 43 of 43 Posts
Top