Why does the KLR engine suck in HP

[warewolf]

Interesting mix of fact and fiction in this thread!

Originally Posted by DualsportWA

KTM 640 LC4 or Husqvarna TE610. Both have about ~55 hp at the crank, modern suspension, and weigh less by over 100lb! Both bikes will go 20,000+ miles before major maintenance...

Dunno 'bout the Husky but the LC4 is good for about 120,000km before major maintenance. Top end likes a freshen up at half that, but it's still double the 20,000 mile mark.

Originally Posted by kojack

I would totally rather ride a bike that will finish the ride instead of grenade 1/2 way through and have to be towed home by a KLR....now if your ride consists of riding in your back yard..then by all means ride your crackhead. I will take the kawi products and make it back after a LONG day in the saddle.

If you've got enough engine oil to stop it seizing after burning it all, or enough spare shocks because they keep blowing, or the doohickey stays put, or...

To the OP; the KLR engine as has been pointed out doesn't suck that bad compared to similar Jap machinery. But the reason they all suck in HP compared to the KTM LC4 is that the LC4 has all of the previously suggested mods and more - except big-bore kit - done ex-factory. Big valves, ported head, high compression ratio (11.5:1), high rev ceiling, cam profiles/timing, and smaller alternator and one less balance shaft to reduce parasitic losses. I'm "reserving my judgement" on which style is better.