[IDWingrider]

I was just reading on the GWRRA tech board this morning and read where someone posted the hp and torque figures for the GL1800 Wing. Seems that the models subsequent to the '01 have less power than the '01. Can anyone fill me in as to why this is?

This was posted by Al Schuman on the GWRRA board:

"Rear wheel torque listed on a 99 [email protected] 91.2 a 97 SE @ 87.7 Rear wheel HP was 79.7 and 75.6

A 2001 @ 108.3 lbs. and 100.7 HP

a 2004 @ 104.1 lbs and 96.0 HP"

 

[Lucky Phil]

You can't believe everything you see/read anymore. Remember the video of Goldwings being built, and the host said that 1800's had air conditioning?

 

[Ed Jenkins]

My early 01 purchased in Dec 00, was the most powerful one. The ECM changeout for overheating negated some of that raw power. The new 07 is much better engine managed but, I feel the raw power is down. Just as the results show. The old 01 with the original ECM, would jump out from under you when rolled on full throttle at 80MPH. The new ones just roll on.

Ed Jenkins, Pawnee, Il
01, 190,000 miles
07, 7,000 miles

 

[slather1]

If you look at Honda's History most all their engines are down on horsepower after the first year. Why? I don't know but my friend who is a Honda dealer and I have talked about this in the past but never got or came up with a reason.

 

[joe_flash]

If you look at Honda's History most all their engines are down on horsepower after the first year. Why? I don't know but my friend who is a Honda dealer and I have talked about this in the past but never got or came up with a reason.

Engines are always a tradeoff between power and service life. You gotta work out the details and go for what you want. You can run test units all you want, but when you put a few thousand on the road and see what happens to them under all those possible conditions, adjustments become inevitable. Sound they were optmistic on the new design, and when the '01 hit the road, they found they had been TOO optimistic..

 

[ANGUS]

1800 hp

The pre 2001 model was a 1500 that is why it had lower HP.

 

[nedro]

I'm not too worried. :lol:

Different dynos show different results. [/url]

 

[DrtiBird]

I don't know, but I suspect that when Mother Honda addressed the overheating issue by replacing the ECM the bikes lost torque and HP. :wink:

I felt like my '02 w/o the new ecm was more powerful that my '03 with the new ecm. :wink:

 

[nedro]

I don't know, but I suspect that when Mother Honda addressed the overheating issue by replacing the ECM the bikes lost torque and HP. :wink:

I felt like my '02 w/o the new ecm was more powerful that my '03 with the new ecm. :wink:

Hardly...A lean engine is a hot engine. They most assuridly fattened it up a bit. What you felt is more likely a smoother power band. Which would make the very flawed, "Seat O' the pants Dyno", thinks its slower.
A lean mixture would hesitate just a bit before turning on the torque. That is probably how it felt faster and yet, was slower.

 

[Roadie]

You can bet when Honda was developing the 1800's engine they tried many different timing maps and settled on the first (01 to 03) ECM because it made the most power and torque with this engine and still met the 08 carb emissions that honda used to brag about in the sales ads. The newer ECM is a compromise to help with the heat issues.

 

[nedro]

You can bet when Honda was developing the 1800's engine they tried many different timing maps and settled on the first (01 to 03) ECM because it made the most power and torque with this engine and still met the 08 carb emissions that honda used to brag about in the sales ads. The newer ECM is a compromise to help with the heat issues.

Right. So if you know how to cool down an engine using only an ECM, you know what they did.

 

[Roadie]

Nedro

I not quite sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that when Honda fatten up the fuel mixture a bit and what ever else they did with the newer ECM in 04 the bike made more power than the earlier bikes did?

 

[nedro]

Dirt Bird claims to have lost a little power. I was pointing out that, as you open up the throttle with a lean engine, there is always a bit of a stumble. Maybe even unnoticable for some, but it is there and the power drops. As soon as the enrichment kicks in (from the accelerator circuit), you get a jolt of power seemingly catapulting you forward. It makes you think you are accelerating harder than if it simply started accelerating with the correct amount of fuel from the get-go.
That's where the, "seat of the pants dyno" really suffers for feedback.
My point is that a smooth powerband can make for a faster/more powerful running engine than one that "feels" faster and has a lean spot with a jolting powerband.

Also, it is common knowledge that manufacturers absolutely lean out the mixture at, "Cruising speeds/RPMs"
Try this. Take a pre cat reading on any FI car or bike. Run it up to 1500 RPM, note reading. Then take it up to 2500 RPM. It will be way leaner. Then take it up to 3500 RPM. SOB if it isn't running fat again. They do this to pass smog.

I'm not saying that one year is more powerful than another. I'm showing you how close these figures are from year to year by displaying my personal Dyno sheet.


I'm also under the impression that Honda didn't care so much about the "08 CARB standards when they upgraded the ECM on a bike that will never have to get smogged.

Oh! And I'm also saying you should've bought an '04! psst...it's faster.

 

[WingWing]

Oh! And I'm also saying you should've bought an '04! psst...it's faster.

Probably a dumb question ... but

will an ECM from an '04 fit into an '07?

thanks,
Dennis

 

[nedro]

The '04 being faster was just a running joke on this board. I wouldn't go changing out ECMs from one year to another.