7 most underrated motorcycles of All Time

All,

Ran across this last night. GRiSO is #2 at about 2min 50 seconds. Not completely accurate but............MG needs a new GRiSO like bike!

108 HP!

I should get one!!

One of our former members who had a 2013 with a GPR pipe and Beetle map, told me he had his on a dyno and it put out 106.

JohnA wrote:

One of our former members who had a 2013 with a GPR pipe and Beetle map, told me he had his on a dyno and it put out 106.

Comments about short legged horses incoming

Sorry, I fear it's another example of a 'Thumb on the scales' dyno more than anything else. Mark's maps can do a lot. They can't change the laws of physics and engineering.

A correctly mapped and tuned 8V will make *About* 100 RWHP. Anywhere between 96 and 102 is the usual number, and it's CONSISTENT! Over many years and many bikes. The one thing that always stands out though is the higher the HP figure the more the torque curve is compromised.

I can tell you my GRiSO makes 120 at the rear wheel! It would be what is commonly known as a 'Lie'. I still think my GRiSO is smashing!

+1 on how horsepower and torque relate, at least when pushing for max of one or the other. That goes along with how the mods/kool-aid about higher flow intakes, straightened exhaust and open mufflers will build performance. As has often been said, one or some of those might gain a couple HP in the rpm stratosphere, but kill torque at the bottom/mid. True for most of my cages too, not so much a GRiSO thing. Anyway, I don't how the 108 statistic was framed in the video, but wouldn't 108 crank be somewhat close to 90/100 RWP? Or is there more drivetrain loss? I think the demo model was on a bit of diet too, according to the narrator's stats.

SMTCapeCod wrote:

+1 on how horsepower and torque relate, at least when pushing for max of one or the other.  That goes along with how the mods/kool-aid about higher flow intakes, straightened exhaust and open mufflers will build performance.  As has often been said, one or some of those might gain a couple HP in the rpm stratosphere, but kill torque at the bottom/mid.  True for most of my cages too, not so much a GRiSO thing.  Anyway,  I don't how the 108 statistic was framed in the video, but wouldn't 108 crank be somewhat close to 90/100 RWP? Or is there more drivetrain loss?  I think the demo model was on a bit of diet too, according to the narrator's stats.

Exactly, cars have had variable valve timing and intake flaps that change position based rpm and load for decades now, not to mention sophisticated electronic feedback loops for precise fueling. Especially regarding an engine without these accoutrements, there's no free lunch--it's very unlikely you'll improve the situation at home in the garage with a set of pod filters or a hacked exhaust. At best, you'll simply move the power peak up or down the RPM range. The 1970's logic applied to specific cases of factory neutering during the early era of emissions reduction, but for some reason it became a broad brush that we're still stuck with.

20 years ago already, I recall reading a Road & Track comparison of a new BMW 5 series vs its Dinan modified counterpart... the stock vehicle performed better both 0-60 and in the 1/4. Makes me cringe when I see an expensive Merc come in the shop with the nicely engineered airbox, typically equipped with high quality large surface area paper filters, replaced with a long plastic tube and a K&N cone filter stuck on the end. Most of these folks are well-intended, but clueless, and the increased induction noise lends a sense of performance increase. In most cases it's a complete waste of money.

Not to mention allowing more dirt in the engine. I fart in K&N’s general direction!