Why does the KLR engine suck in HP

So was the engine in my lawn mower. It doesn't make me want to ride the damned thing for fun.

My thought:
http://klrworld.com/forums/modifications/patman's-continuing-klr-power-mods-report/

I have a guy in AZ who does a lot of cage engine head porting and has done a few Honda motorcycle heads. I will likely be sending him my head and I will also be installing a little larger valve. I am also considering doing a ceramic coating on the faces of the valves to help with heat.

At the end of the day, I will likely have all of this into a bike that will still be a KLR.


***this is on a pre-08 bike***

If you dont have access to the site, it summarizes that the 685 with a ported head and larger valves nets extra power. Patman went from a stock 34hp to 46hp with a very nice power curve to 6300 rpms. It falls of drastically at about 7100rpms.

Patman says "The 685 kit is a pretty good boost even to a stock bike and has the added benefit of lessening the vibration through a lighter piston. Also the kit I got, and I'm not sure on the production kits ) cut oil consumption by...welll 100% I guess. I haven't used any yet."

KLR Cary who built the engine says "The head is a "Stage-2". That runs about $585.00. The valves are oversize, but will clear even with the stock piston. There are options that can add, or deduct from that price. I feel that it is a practical place to stop. There is an afull lot more that can be done to the head, but the returns for the dollar start to fall off steeply. Total cost for both, if you do the assembly is just under $1000

Some other things you shoud know:
The exhaust noise level will increase a good amount, no matter what system your using.
Jetting is more difficult, and what worked before will no longer do. The piston alone won't change it. The head WILL. Slide lift hole must not be bigger than 7/64". The difference in lift hole size makes a much larger change. I'm running a stock size lift hole in mine. It will also require the KLX needle. The DJ needle will work in some situations, but the KLX needle is more likely to make it easier to jet. The stock needle will not work!
Heavier clutch springs are wise. Stock is OK, but borderline, though that depends somewhat on how you use it.

Cary"

I have spoken to Schnitz and they advised me to ship my head to
http://www.mtechmotorcycles.com/performance-projects-kawasaki-klr-685-705-kits.htm

I'd just note; maximum torque and maximum horsepower do not occur at the same rpm.

One can calculate horsepower at maximum torque, and torque at maximum horsepower, but . . . two different rpm values are involved . . .

I agree with those that mention the heavy weight of the KLR. I think that's the main reason it is slow compared to other 650 singles mentioned. The power to weight ratio is poor.

I've owned all of the aforementioned bikes and honestly, the KLR does not feel down on power related to the other bikes. I even owned the XRL and the KLR at the same time. The XRL is not more powerful. It is more abrupt and has a cruder more dirt bike like engine character, whereas, the KLR is much smoother and thereby makes it feel slower, but it's not.

I have a 2000 model and have stripped it down to a reasonable level, but could go much further if I wanted. I estimate I've taken between 20-30 lbs off, but really it's still going to be much heavier than the stock XRL or DR.

Now having said that, I've been searching and researching performance mods for the motor that are reasonable and practical. (By my estimation) Things that can be done that fall in this category are as follows: (in no particular order, but done together) Porting, aftermarket cams, bigger valves with better springs, the 688cc (Wyman) kit, and lighten the flywheel, and switch out the carb. IIRC, the compression ratio on the stock motor is acceptable, somewhere around 11:1, so I wouldn't try decking the head or anything else to bump up the compression, although you could if you wanted to. Then you need to make some modifications to the cooling system to compensate.

Patman and KLRCary did great work, but that was all done 5 years ago and since they were pioneers, others have seemingly built upon their work, but the documentation is spotty.

Food for thought.

I agree wholheartedly with the above post

having owned an 08 and then selling that to fund an 88 xr600 rebuild I can compare both honestly and objectively

the klr has tractor torque UNRIVALED right off idle, in fact they are famous for this and can idle pretty much up anything...the klr in fact has more torque at idle than both the xrl, and xr, aaaaaaaaaaaaaand dr.

now midrange and topend is different but the internal gearing of the higher gears and final gearing give me a higher topspeed on the klr...again gearing

in any case the figure of 20hp of a klr is wrong at the rear wheel I remember being at 28hp and at the crank in the area of 34-36hp depending on who you ask very very close to the xrl...in fact some places put the klr as having more hp, especially the older models

power to weight ration went down even more when they upgraded the 08 and up models...gaing an estimates 30lbs give or take...again hp and torque being completely different animals especially in the case of the klr

lastly weight and how the bike handled(supsension) especially on dirt are the only detrimental points one could argue against the KLR objectively, having said that I did some funky and gnarly stuff on the klr when it was my only bike...

lose weight and improve the suspension before doing any engine mods

this applies to most budget dualspots and dirt bikes even the mights xr.

cheers

It is cheaper to make a ktm a klr than a klr a ktm... even after all the money, you still don't have a ktm.
when on open trails, a klr with the right rider can over take the ktm with the wrong rider... on the 690 there is a little switch making the ktm a klr...
if you want more torque put a bigger sproket and if you want more speed put a smaller one... how many riders can out preform the bike... which ever bike...:huh

Someone would have to be a mental patient to put that kind of money into a KLR. Better off selling it, adding the 1k and getting a 640 LC4.

Well, were not comparing lawn mowers....

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.

I couldn't ride a KLR either. Too fat, slow & under sprung. So many other great options out there for the kind of money they go for new

The KLR is a great bike if you don't need a lot of power. If you do want more thrills (try a KLR, I did) consider buying a used 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...

See therein lies the rub. I think there are a lot of folks that remember the Euro bikes from the 90s...fickle, fragile and rare. That was 20 years ago, folks.

Euro bikes have come a loooong way since then, and it shows because they dominate almost all offroad markets.

Fear of change. It's a common malady these days. Hell, even I had it when I was shopping for a bike.

That said, there is a place for the venerable KLR....perhaps a young, fit rider that wants to explore remote places and does not care about comfort, speed, or stopping. It is a pack hound, that's for sure.

Motorcyclist Magazine dyno puts the KLR at 36 hp @ 6,230 rpm. This is a screen shot of it I got off the KLRWorld site. . Dark blue is the 2008 torque numbers, light blue the 2007. Dark orange is the 2008 hp numbers and light orange the 2007. The whole article can be found in the Motorcyclist archives. I can't link to it because I'm on a government computer. Notice that the 2008 and 2007 both make the same peak hp but the 2008 makes it about 500 rpm lower than the 2007.

He didn't say that, he said they were the same (crossed) at 525rpm. See the chart below:

And the pope is a bit catholic. Just to pick two, his KTM 640 number is about 25% high and his KLR number is about 40% low.

- Mark

Interesting mix of fact and fiction in this thread!

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.

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.

My klr never burnt anymore oil than any other bike I owned. Shock was fine even loaded. And the doo was fine as well. Your talking about the old Gen. Mine was bulletproof. Still is, I'm friends with the person who owns it now.

I'm hunting down a blue 2012 this spring I like the bike so much. I love the klr for the riding here. Nope, its not a euro trash bike, but its a tractor, that will motor through everything and not have crazy maintenance costs, or have parts that cost an arm and a leg. If something does happen to it, its nothing serious.

Sent from my ARCHOS 80G9 using Tapatalk 2

Sorry asshat,

I gots you blocked...I dont ready what you writy because it 100 percent crap!

peace!

I figure its you still whining that I am using the dos equis guy in my avatar, god knows I have enough pms in my inbox with you freaking out over that....

time to grow up whiner!

No offence to the REAL KTM riders, just directed to the holy'r than thou KTM POSERS like codyY