Kawasaki ATV Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,254 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Had a call from a customer in NV last week, he installed one of our 880 kits this winter and dynoed the other day at 112.7 RWHP.
The full story, this customer had someone else's 840 with an MPI S/C at 7-8 PSI. It made 70RWHP on the same dyno and ran low 30's MPH in a teryx up Comp hill.
The main reason he went with our 880 is he couldn't keep oil in it with the plated 840 cylinders, just pushed it out from to much crank case pressure leaking by the plated cylinders.
That was all he really cared about was stopping the blow by and blowing oil. I told him our 880 would fix that so he bought the kit.
He installed it and first run out, he didn't have enough injector for the 880 with the charger so he couldn't run it wide open but he still went in to the 50's MPH up Comp hill.
He got the bigger injectors in it and dynoed it again a week or so ago at 112.7 RWHP. Haven't heard how fast he is on Comp hill yet with the injectors, but he doesn't blow oil anymore, imagine that, LOL :lol:
Ray
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,254 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
100% truth.
No oil consumption from my 880 and 1000cc kits.
Ray's cylinder design is the best i have used.
Thanks Mark, but you had a part in the final design as well. Years ago when we still slight distortion issue's, you gave me an idea, we tried it and that was the final piece to the puzzle.
Thanks,
Ray
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,254 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
By the way Mark, NEW high HP numbers this week:
Stock head 730 with 38mm carbs at almost 109HP.
Stock carb 880 at almost 116HP (still a couple things that don't make sense on this one that I have to do some more testing this weekend. These cam SHOULD have made BIG bottom end and fell off on top, but they made HUGE bottom and mid and still more peak and didn't fall off on top?? This was a Low compression 880 as well.

Still have another new cam to run Monday, which should be the REAL deal on bigger motors but won't know for sure until Monday. Running it first in a 1000.
Ray
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
By the way Mark, NEW high HP numbers this week:
Stock head 730 with 38mm carbs at almost 109HP.
Stock carb 880 at almost 116HP (still a couple things that don't make sense on this one that I have to do some more testing this weekend. These cam SHOULD have made BIG bottom end and fell off on top, but they made HUGE bottom and mid and still more peak and didn't fall off on top?? This was a Low compression 880 as well.

Still have another new cam to run Monday, which should be the REAL deal on bigger motors but won't know for sure until Monday. Running it first in a 1000.
Ray
You must be talking cshp?
That should be around 75 rwhp? Seems a little high to me out of a 730.
Why only 7 cshp between the 880 & 730? Should be more difference rw, never mind crank? no?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,490 Posts
It says RWHP.

My 2006 730 TRP with some extras including carbs and trail cams made 104 "crank hp".

The 880 is a beast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Would have to agree with the power from the 880. The future of my teryx looks like it may get one also so i have twins!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,254 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
By the way Mark, NEW high HP numbers this week:
Stock head 730 with 38mm carbs at almost 109HP.
Stock carb 880 at almost 116HP (still a couple things that don't make sense on this one that I have to do some more testing this weekend. These cam SHOULD have made BIG bottom end and fell off on top, but they made HUGE bottom and mid and still more peak and didn't fall off on top?? This was a Low compression 880 as well.

Still have another new cam to run Monday, which should be the REAL deal on bigger motors but won't know for sure until Monday. Running it first in a 1000.
Ray
You must be talking cshp?
That should be around 75 rwhp? Seems a little high to me out of a 730.
Why only 7 cshp between the 880 & 730? Should be more difference rw, never mind crank? no?
The first post, 112.7 was RWHP, that was our low comp 880 with a little boost. I usually don't post RWHP as it's just a useless number that doesn't really tell you anything.
The 109HP 730 and 116HP 880 are actual engine HP. There really isn't a direct conversion from actual HP to RWHP. To show big RWHP you need an engine setup for low RPM power with cam timing, lobe centers or smaller cams ect.
To make an engine that works good on the track and in the field, you need RPM to make big HP and that doesn't show up on a chassis dyno. If you give up low RPM power to make mid and peak, you'll show less RWHP but be still be WAY faster/quicker in the field.

Difference between and 730 and an 880 is nothing, if your running the same heads, carbs and cam's. The displacement just changes where you make the power and add's more low and mid RPM power.
On a chassis dyno, displacement makes a big difference. Most of our 880's that have been chassis dynoed around the world show about 20RWHP more then our std bore with the same cams but at the engine, with stock carbs/throttle bodies, the 880 only make 2 more peak HP.
Ray
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,254 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
How much hp does the 880 make with just 38mm throttle bodys added:D?
Everything setup perfectly, with a Muzzy Pro ect, you can tickle 120HP or very close. To get more then that, you need bigger valves and bigger throttle bodies.
Ray
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
By the way Mark, NEW high HP numbers this week:
Stock head 730 with 38mm carbs at almost 109HP.
Stock carb 880 at almost 116HP (still a couple things that don't make sense on this one that I have to do some more testing this weekend. These cam SHOULD have made BIG bottom end and fell off on top, but they made HUGE bottom and mid and still more peak and didn't fall off on top?? This was a Low compression 880 as well.

Still have another new cam to run Monday, which should be the REAL deal on bigger motors but won't know for sure until Monday. Running it first in a 1000.
Ray
You must be talking cshp?
That should be around 75 rwhp? Seems a little high to me out of a 730.
Why only 7 cshp between the 880 & 730? Should be more difference rw, never mind crank? no?
The first post, 112.7 was RWHP, that was our low comp 880 with a little boost. I usually don't post RWHP as it's just a useless number that doesn't really tell you anything.
The 109HP 730 and 116HP 880 are actual engine HP. There really isn't a direct conversion from actual HP to RWHP. To show big RWHP you need an engine setup for low RPM power with cam timing, lobe centers or smaller cams ect.
To make an engine that works good on the track and in the field, you need RPM to make big HP and that doesn't show up on a chassis dyno. If you give up low RPM power to make mid and peak, you'll show less RWHP but be still be WAY faster/quicker in the field.

Difference between and 730 and an 880 is nothing, if your running the same heads, carbs and cam's. The displacement just changes where you make the power and add's more low and mid RPM power.
On a chassis dyno, displacement makes a big difference. Most of our 880's that have been chassis dynoed around the world show about 20RWHP more then our std bore with the same cams but at the engine, with stock carbs/throttle bodies, the 880 only make 2 more peak HP.
Ray

hmmm not questioning you, but ive never heard of such a thing. how could a low rpm motor show more on a chassis dyno then a high rpm one? thats the 1st ive heard that. i always thought with with a properly tuned cvt plus the shaft drive you lose 35% going to the wheels, atleast from what i have been seeing. a stock kfx700 makes 48 at the crank and on most dynos ive seen 35 at the wheels which = 35% loss
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,254 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
You must be talking cshp?
That should be around 75 rwhp? Seems a little high to me out of a 730.
Why only 7 cshp between the 880 & 730? Should be more difference rw, never mind crank? no?
The first post, 112.7 was RWHP, that was our low comp 880 with a little boost. I usually don't post RWHP as it's just a useless number that doesn't really tell you anything.
The 109HP 730 and 116HP 880 are actual engine HP. There really isn't a direct conversion from actual HP to RWHP. To show big RWHP you need an engine setup for low RPM power with cam timing, lobe centers or smaller cams ect.
To make an engine that works good on the track and in the field, you need RPM to make big HP and that doesn't show up on a chassis dyno. If you give up low RPM power to make mid and peak, you'll show less RWHP but be still be WAY faster/quicker in the field.

Difference between and 730 and an 880 is nothing, if your running the same heads, carbs and cam's. The displacement just changes where you make the power and add's more low and mid RPM power.
On a chassis dyno, displacement makes a big difference. Most of our 880's that have been chassis dynoed around the world show about 20RWHP more then our std bore with the same cams but at the engine, with stock carbs/throttle bodies, the 880 only make 2 more peak HP.
Ray

hmmm not questioning you, but ive never heard of such a thing. how could a low rpm motor show more on a chassis dyno then a high rpm one? thats the 1st ive heard that. i always thought with with a properly tuned cvt plus the shaft drive you lose 35% going to the wheels, atleast from what i have been seeing. a stock kfx700 makes 48 at the crank and on most dynos ive seen 35 at the wheels which = 35% loss
Unfortunately, that's just the way it is. That's the reason no one that understands CVT's uses chassis dyno's for anything other then quick/basic tuning.
There isn't a fixed loss on a chassis dyno with a CVT, we have both engine and chassis dyno's and we have seen (as all the other top CVT engine builders around the world have) anywhere from 15 to 60% loss from engine HP to RWHP on different engine combinations.
Ray
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
By the way Mark, NEW high HP numbers this week:
Stock head 730 with 38mm carbs at almost 109HP.
Stock carb 880 at almost 116HP (still a couple things that don't make sense on this one that I have to do some more testing this weekend. These cam SHOULD have made BIG bottom end and fell off on top, but they made HUGE bottom and mid and still more peak and didn't fall off on top?? This was a Low compression 880 as well.

Still have another new cam to run Monday, which should be the REAL deal on bigger motors but won't know for sure until Monday. Running it first in a 1000.
Ray
You must be talking cshp?
That should be around 75 rwhp? Seems a little high to me out of a 730.
Why only 7 cshp between the 880 & 730? Should be more difference rw, never mind crank? no?
The first post, 112.7 was RWHP, that was our low comp 880 with a little boost. I usually don't post RWHP as it's just a useless number that doesn't really tell you anything.
The 109HP 730 and 116HP 880 are actual engine HP. There really isn't a direct conversion from actual HP to RWHP. To show big RWHP you need an engine setup for low RPM power with cam timing, lobe centers or smaller cams ect.
To make an engine that works good on the track and in the field, you need RPM to make big HP and that doesn't show up on a chassis dyno. If you give up low RPM power to make mid and peak, you'll show less RWHP but be still be WAY faster/quicker in the field.

Difference between and 730 and an 880 is nothing, if your running the same heads, carbs and cam's. The displacement just changes where you make the power and add's more low and mid RPM power.
On a chassis dyno, displacement makes a big difference. Most of our 880's that have been chassis dynoed around the world show about 20RWHP more then our std bore with the same cams but at the engine, with stock carbs/throttle bodies, the 880 only make 2 more peak HP.
Ray
Ray, I'm not disputing your numbers but a comment like "with a little bit of boost" is far more erroneous than stating rwhp lol. Is your "a little" 2 psi or 20?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,254 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
You must be talking cshp?
That should be around 75 rwhp? Seems a little high to me out of a 730.
Why only 7 cshp between the 880 & 730? Should be more difference rw, never mind crank? no?
The first post, 112.7 was RWHP, that was our low comp 880 with a little boost. I usually don't post RWHP as it's just a useless number that doesn't really tell you anything.
The 109HP 730 and 116HP 880 are actual engine HP. There really isn't a direct conversion from actual HP to RWHP. To show big RWHP you need an engine setup for low RPM power with cam timing, lobe centers or smaller cams ect.
To make an engine that works good on the track and in the field, you need RPM to make big HP and that doesn't show up on a chassis dyno. If you give up low RPM power to make mid and peak, you'll show less RWHP but be still be WAY faster/quicker in the field.

Difference between and 730 and an 880 is nothing, if your running the same heads, carbs and cam's. The displacement just changes where you make the power and add's more low and mid RPM power.
On a chassis dyno, displacement makes a big difference. Most of our 880's that have been chassis dynoed around the world show about 20RWHP more then our std bore with the same cams but at the engine, with stock carbs/throttle bodies, the 880 only make 2 more peak HP.
Ray
Ray, I'm not disputing your numbers but a comment like "with a little bit of boost" is far more erroneous than stating rwhp lol. Is your "a little" 2 psi or 20?
Well, actually, not really, LOL
But Shaun was running 6 psi I think it was.
Ray
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top