Gen I vs Gen II Comparison

[ionbeam]

FWIW, Motorcycle Consumer News -- January, 2007

 Yr    RW HP    RW lb/ft    Wet lbs  Top Speed  0-60 mph   ¼ Mile Sec     ¼ Mile MPH      60-0 ft.
2003  120.7    87.6          637      153        2.97        10.68         126.8        117.8
2006  121.2    87.4          682      152        4.05        11.85         117.7        130.5

Edit: For you quick clickers, I had a bit of formatting to clean up -- preview and acutal post spacing is different.

 

[Feejer/Weejer man]

Damn. I am sure glad I have an 03 rather than the detuned and heavier 06. I have just under 130hp at the rear wheel. I am a happy camper.

 

[madmike2]

Damn. I am sure glad I have an 03 rather than the detuned and heavier 06. I have just under 130hp at the rear wheel. I am a happy camper.

Yeah, baby! :yahoo: BUT you should confess a complete Holeshot system and a PCIII.

 

[SkooterG]

Wow!

45 lbs heavier for the new ones? Yikes.

Am really surprised by the acceleration numbers. I expected the 06 to be off the mark a bit due to more weight and taller gearing, but not as much as they show.

What really got me though was the braking distances. The 06s I have ridden have had superior feeling brakes than the first Gen models. Wonder why the braking numbers were so much longer?

 

[shokdimn]

:questionmark:

Am wondering if it’s possible some typos were made?

Or perhaps, test methods could be….questioned?

 

[chickey191]

FWIW, Motorcycle Consumer News -- January, 2007

 Yr    RW HP    RW lb/ft    Wet lbs  Top Speed  0-60 mph   ¼ Mile Sec     ¼ Mile MPH      60-0 ft.
2003  120.7    87.6          637      153        2.97        10.68         126.8        117.8
2006  121.2    87.4          682      152        4.05        11.85         117.7        130.5

Edit: For you quick clickers, I had a bit of formatting to clean up -- preview and acutal post spacing is different.

I'd take another look - the 2006 tested in MCN was an AE.

 

[ionbeam]

The '06 performance numbers are in line with other publications. The most important comparison difference is that one was tested on 7/02 + 3/03 and the other was tested on 8/06. For the test results to be meaningful both should be tested on the same day, at the same place, by the same crew. As I opened with -- FWIW.

Chickey is correct, the '06 results are for an AE which is why the 0-60 is 4 seconds. Dunno what's up with the 130' 60 - 0.

 

[airboss]

Tires? tire pressure? track surface? track tempeture?

 

[Warchild]

The most important comparison difference is that one was tested on 7/02 + 3/03 and the other was tested on 8/06. For the test results to be meaningful both should be tested on the same day, at the same place, by the same crew.

Concur. This would have made for a more level playing field.

Chickey is correct, the '06 results are for an AE which is why the 0-60 is 4 seconds. Dunno what's up with the 130' 60 - 0.

One could chalk it up to the extra 45lbs of pork on the 2006 model has to haul down. Or the fact that the 2006 is an ABS, and the 2003 is standard.

Yet, the 2006 model has significantly larger larger brakes than the 2003 (320mm rotors, vice 298mm rotors on the '03), and again, unless the test was done using the identical rider under identical conditions, then it's hard to put all that much validity into these numbers....

 

[madmike2]

The most important comparison difference is that one was tested on 7/02 + 3/03 and the other was tested on 8/06. For the test results to be meaningful both should be tested on the same day, at the same place, by the same crew. As I opened with -- FWIW.

Exactly what I was thinking as I was reading through this thread. I wonder if Yamaha is trying to "back" some of the performance out of the bike. With sooooo many "fall downs" happening lately, it isn't just the acceleration. And, truth be told, the 0-60 time may not be as important in real world, daily riding as say, 60-90 time might be.

 

[dcarver]

Wow!
45 lbs heavier for the new ones? Yikes.

Am really surprised by the acceleration numbers. I expected the 06 to be off the mark a bit due to more weight and taller gearing, but not as much as they show.

What really got me though was the braking distances. The 06s I have ridden have had superior feeling brakes than the first Gen models. Wonder why the braking numbers were so much longer?

Skooter, you crack me up.. 45 pounds? BFD. Most FJR pilots could lose 45 lbs by going on a diet, removing 4 gallons of extra fuel, 15 pounds worth of electronic farkles, fork braces that aren't really needed, SmarTire systems, wearing ATGATT, stuffing enough crap into 52 liter top bags to keep 2 women happy on a 1k ride, and enough video gear to make HollyWeird jealous..... OH, and I forgot the 8 pounds of worth of additional lights, brackets, ballast. Oh, and of course a gallon of water. And cruise control systems. And hi way pegs. You get the drift. Seriously, the FJR was too heavy, even back in 03', to be a true sport bike. What it is good at is long distance riding. When taken to extremes the IBA members and wannabees only add weight to the platform.
OBTW I'm just freakin' kidding.Don't dog pile me..yet!

 

[pickax]

What really got me though was the braking distances. The 06s I have ridden have had superior feeling brakes than the first Gen models. Wonder why the braking numbers were so much longer

I've heard that regular brakes will beat ABS every time with a good operator and clean dry surface. ABS doesn"t shine until it gets sloppy out.

But the weight has to count too.

 

[sprint_st]

Wow!
45 lbs heavier for the new ones? Yikes.

Am really surprised by the acceleration numbers. I expected the 06 to be off the mark a bit due to more weight and taller gearing, but not as much as they show.

What really got me though was the braking distances. The 06s I have ridden have had superior feeling brakes than the first Gen models. Wonder why the braking numbers were so much longer?

Skooter, you crack me up.. 45 pounds? BFD. Most FJR pilots could lose 45 lbs by going on a diet, removing 4 gallons of extra fuel, 15 pounds worth of electronic farkles, fork braces that aren't really needed, SmarTire systems, wearing ATGATT, stuffing enough crap into 52 liter top bags to keep 2 women happy on a 1k ride, and enough video gear to make HollyWeird jealous..... OH, and I forgot the 8 pounds of worth of additional lights, brackets, ballast. Oh, and of course a gallon of water. And cruise control systems. And hi way pegs. You get the drift. Seriously, the FJR was too heavy, even back in 03', to be a true sport bike. What it is good at is long distance riding. When taken to extremes the IBA members and wannabees only add weight to the platform.
OBTW I'm just freakin' kidding.Don't dog pile me..yet!

Don't worry about the dog pile, I'll help to shovel. Compare on the same day??? Whip out your time machine and lets do it!!! Then you could make the argument about how old the 03/04 was on the day of the test. And what does all this mean? Nuthin' Absolutely nuthin'!!! The FJR is meant to ride loaded so is there a National Bureau of Standards load??? All this is is 'my bike is better than your bike' BS. The comment on rider weight is dead on. As for the comments on ABS, here we go with old wives tales. ABS wins or is dead even on just about every test EXCEPT on a race track. Do you REALLY think you are that good??? Dose Nicky Hayden ride an FJR?? These are great bikes, all years, be happy you have one.

 

[slapnpop]

As for the comments on ABS, here we go with old wives tales. ABS wins or is dead even on just about every test EXCEPT on a race track. Do you REALLY think you are that good??? Dose Nicky Hayden ride an FJR?? These are great bikes, all years, be happy you have one.

The comment on the ABS is aimed at the extra weight involved in the system (valving and computers). Extra weight=longer braking distance all other things equal.

What's with the attitude?

 

[RonBB]

Dunno what's up with the 130' 60 - 0.

The Gen II model has linked brakes doesn't it? Never liked the idea of those at least for me. Could that explain the difference?

 

[blueman]

The performance numbers don't suprise me. Why? the weight differance,just as I always thought. Gen 1 bikes are faster period! The Gen 2 bikes to me are a typical low cost way for yamaha marketing to create a NEW and IMPROVED model by addressing issues that really had little or know importance in the real world. The sacrifice to me was too great, added weight! I never got that heat issue.

 

[pickax]

ABS wins or is dead even on just about every test EXCEPT on a race track.

The source for my commentWas MCN magazine, they explained their test riders could feel and hold the brakes closer to full lockup, where ABS had already started pulsing.

Do you REALLY think you are that good???

Of course, arent you? It might be fun to compare at EOM next year just for giggles.

 

[lucky]

Wow!
45 lbs heavier for the new ones? Yikes.

Am really surprised by the acceleration numbers. I expected the 06 to be off the mark a bit due to more weight and taller gearing, but not as much as they show.

What really got me though was the braking distances. The 06s I have ridden have had superior feeling brakes than the first Gen models. Wonder why the braking numbers were so much longer?

Skooter, you crack me up.. 45 pounds? BFD. Most FJR pilots could lose 45 lbs by going on a diet, removing 4 gallons of extra fuel, 15 pounds worth of electronic farkles, fork braces that aren't really needed, SmarTire systems, wearing ATGATT, stuffing enough crap into 52 liter top bags to keep 2 women happy on a 1k ride, and enough video gear to make HollyWeird jealous..... OH, and I forgot the 8 pounds of worth of additional lights, brackets, ballast. Oh, and of course a gallon of water. And cruise control systems. And hi way pegs. You get the drift. Seriously, the FJR was too heavy, even back in 03', to be a true sport bike. What it is good at is long distance riding. When taken to extremes the IBA members and wannabees only add weight to the platform.
OBTW I'm just freakin' kidding.Don't dog pile me..yet!

As someone who has been in the car business for the last 25 years and doesnt know too much about mororcycle stuff, I say ABS will beat out regular brakes no matter how good you are. ther is just now comparision!!! ABS for me.

Lucky :dribble: :dribble: :dribble:

 

[Dan23]

Just to give all you arrogant pissing contest cry babies something to think about overnight, Motorcyclist's test numbers for an '03 ar 126.8 hp, 90.0 lb-ft of torque and turning the quarter mile in 11.02 seconds. Top gear, 60 to 80 was 3.65 seconds.

So, we have slower results but more hp. than MCN. Shrug.

Where MCN got their figures, who knows... what's more, who the hell cares? Now turn out the light and go to sleep.