OK Riders,
Well I for one am not going to knock our FJR's or why they did so well because I know why, I ride mine all the time...
I have pondered a couple things(three to be exact) about some of the numbers they printed and would like some of your actual opinions..
Please bear with me, I think I have a couple valid points:
(1st)
The Dyno results particularly... In the MCN paper article they showed the FJR having around 121 HP, the C14 having around 136 HP and the St1300 having around 109 HP. Here I go........... Motorcyclist Magazine reported: the FJR around 127(consistently over the years), their C14 around 135 and the St1300 around 114. Yes, Yes, YES..... I know different dyno's always mean different numbers and of course different weather test factors BUT.... Why is this particular MCN paper article have such a large difference between the FJR and the C14... They report the C14 as having around a 15 HP advantage. When Motorcyclist reports only a 8 HP difference between the two bikes. Also the dyno inconsistency (between MCN's latest paper test and Motorcyclist's reported numbers) already seems to be around only 5hp... If you compare the MCN's latest paper results of their test on the St1300(109 HP) and Motorcyclist's test on the St1300(114 HP). Something is up with the FJR's reported HP. Check it out:
https://www.motorcyclistonline.com/performancedata/
*******Also to help support this conclusion:
(2nd)
The top speed tests... The MCN paper article showed the FJR top speed of 148, the C14 top speed of 157 and the St1300 top speed of 142. Here is the interesting thing... The MCN Online magazine previously reported individual performance tests of these same bikes. The FJR top speed of 154, the C14 top speed of 151 and the St1300 top speed of 141. Again a BIG discrepancy of the FJR (then VS now) they tested for the latest paper article as being down 6 mph(from their own previous test of the Gen II) and the C14 up 6 mph (from their own previous test of the same model also). I can personally object to their reported top end speeds of the FJR(148 paper and 154 online) because I have had mine(on GPS) slightly faster than they even reported on the online test(Yes, Ponyfool-closed track of course). Check it out:
FJR
https://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/bikerevi...e|1&id=1899
C14
https://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/bikerevi...amp;R=EPI-93946
(3rd)
Also, I am not even gonna get into the weird braking data reported for the FJR because it was previously addressed on this thread. Just another example of my final point below.
I am not questioning the validity of any of the MCN's tests. I too have found them to be the least model specific bias of all the magazines BUT... I wonder if they got their hands on a BRAND SPANKING NEW FJR (not broke in yet) OR had some type of performance problem with the FJR they tested.. Bad gas, FI problem ect etc or just a weak factory floor version... Who knows. Yes, I also know that "most sport tour riders don't care about Dyno numbers and top speed" BUT I found this kind of interesting.
IF ANYTHING.... THE MCN TESTERS FOR THIS LATEST SIDE BY SIDE COMPARO HAD A IRREGULAR FJR (not a c14)!! AND THEY STILL RATED IT NUMBER ONE!!
Just my take.
WW