Ace wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:44:31 +0100, (E-Mail Removed) (The
> Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/190518541155
>
> FFS. At 4 grand I'm not surprised at the zero bids.
>
> Even if it were reasonably priced, and I wanted another one[1] I'd
> really hate to deal with someone whose spelling was that bad.
>
>
>
> [1] Which of coutse a part of me does, as it was my first ever bike,
> back in 1976.

Pot, kettle?

D&RFC

--
Old Nick

Mark Olson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> TOG@Toil wrote:
>
> > Kawasaki never seemed to develop the ZG. They gave it some new colours
> > from time to time, and then, IIRC, they detuned it by about 10-15bhp,
> > for some inexplicable reason. But later ones really looked exactly
>
> The de-tuning is news to me. Not saying it didn't happen but I'm fairly
> sure nothing of substance changed in the engines or carbs over the bike's
> lifetime[1]. If this had happened I'm sure I would have caught a whiff of
> it on the COG forum, if only from one group of owners needling others
> with lesser-spec engines.
>
> If you meant that they detuned it when they created the ZG shaft-drive
> variant from the Ninja 1000, that may well be.
>
> [1] cams[2] and carbs are the same from 86-06.
> [2] IIRC the intake and exhaust cams are the same part[3], but the sprockets
> are bolted on differently.
> [3] I know because I have a ruined set of cams I hadn't the heart[4] to
> throw away.
> [4] or brains.

I'll have to dig out Bike magazine's late-model test. I'm sure they said
it had been detuned.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ERx2 GN250. Only seven bikes now.
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

M.Badger wrote:
> Mark Olson wrote:
>
>> TOG@Toil wrote:
>>
>>> Kawasaki never seemed to develop the ZG. They gave it some new colours
>>> from time to time, and then, IIRC, they detuned it by about 10-15bhp,
>>> for some inexplicable reason. But later ones really looked exactly
>>
>> The de-tuning is news to me. Not saying it didn't happen but I'm fairly
>> sure nothing of substance changed in the engines or carbs over the bike's
>> lifetime[1]. If this had happened I'm sure I would have caught a whiff of
>> it on the COG forum, if only from one group of owners needling others
>> with lesser-spec engines.
>
> Whether they were de-tuned or Kawasaki were just being honest with the
> 100HP, and optimistic with 115HP they are remarkably easy to tweak.
>
> Aftermarket single skin headers and 'fruity' silencers made a heck of a
> difference to mine. Acceleration went from fairly rapid to 'FECK!' after a
> little mixture tweaking. That just highlighted the chassis shortcomings and
> made it fun.
>
> Maybe the de-tune was just to European bikes?. The quoted power figures did
> drop though.

FWIW, Motorcycle Consumer News tested the Concours in Dec 1996 and reported
88.4 hp at the rear wheel. My seat-of-the-pants dynamometer measurements of
my '98 model would agree with that number. Given the typical 15% reduction
in hp from what is claimed at the crank to the back wheel, that would make
a 100hp at the crank number believable. The Cycle World magazine review
from their September 1986 issue says the hp claimed by Kawasaki was 108.

Anyhow- with the smaller 32mm CVK carbs and milder cams I am sure it did not
make the same power as the ZX1000R with 36mm carbs and hotter cams, which
Cycle magazine tested at 105 rear wheel hp.

The Older Gentleman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Mark Olson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > TOG@Toil wrote:
> >
> > > Kawasaki never seemed to develop the ZG. They gave it some new colours
> > > from time to time, and then, IIRC, they detuned it by about 10-15bhp,
> > > for some inexplicable reason. But later ones really looked exactly
> >
> > The de-tuning is news to me. Not saying it didn't happen but I'm fairly
> > sure nothing of substance changed in the engines or carbs over the bike's
> > lifetime[1]. If this had happened I'm sure I would have caught a whiff of
> > it on the COG forum, if only from one group of owners needling others
> > with lesser-spec engines.
> >
> > If you meant that they detuned it when they created the ZG shaft-drive
> > variant from the Ninja 1000, that may well be.
> >
> > [1] cams[2] and carbs are the same from 86-06.
> > [2] IIRC the intake and exhaust cams are the same part[3], but the sprockets
> > are bolted on differently.
> > [3] I know because I have a ruined set of cams I hadn't the heart[4] to
> > throw away.
> > [4] or brains.
>
> I'll have to dig out Bike magazine's late-model test. I'm sure they said
> it had been detuned.

Just dug it out. They claimed 92bhp for the 1994 model - the article
said it had had 18bhp lopped off it due to emissions regs. Whether that
was the same spec as the US model, I dunno.

For 1994, the UK model got uprated suspension, tandem-piston brake
calipers and semi-floating discs, a lower seat, new switchgear and
slightly revised instruments. Oh, and a new front mudguard.



--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ERx2 GN250. Only seven bikes now.
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

The Older Gentleman wrote:
> The Older Gentleman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Mark Olson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> > TOG@Toil wrote:
>> >
>> > > Kawasaki never seemed to develop the ZG. They gave it some new colours
>> > > from time to time, and then, IIRC, they detuned it by about 10-15bhp,
>> > > for some inexplicable reason. But later ones really looked exactly
>> >
>> > The de-tuning is news to me. Not saying it didn't happen but I'm fairly
>> > sure nothing of substance changed in the engines or carbs over the bike's
>> > lifetime[1]. If this had happened I'm sure I would have caught a whiff of
>> > it on the COG forum, if only from one group of owners needling others
>> > with lesser-spec engines.
>> >
>> > If you meant that they detuned it when they created the ZG shaft-drive
>> > variant from the Ninja 1000, that may well be.
>> >
>> > [1] cams[2] and carbs are the same from 86-06.
>> > [2] IIRC the intake and exhaust cams are the same part[3], but the sprockets
>> > are bolted on differently.
>> > [3] I know because I have a ruined set of cams I hadn't the heart[4] to
>> > throw away.
>> > [4] or brains.
>>
>> I'll have to dig out Bike magazine's late-model test. I'm sure they said
>> it had been detuned.
>
> Just dug it out. They claimed 92bhp for the 1994 model - the article
> said it had had 18bhp lopped off it due to emissions regs. Whether that
> was the same spec as the US model, I dunno.

I /think/ we had a California spec and a 49 state spec version at some point,
but I CBA to bother checking. Usually the only CA difference is adding an
evaporative canister, but sometimes hard parts are changed as well.

> For 1994, the UK model got uprated suspension, tandem-piston brake
> calipers and semi-floating discs, a lower seat, new switchgear and
> slightly revised instruments. Oh, and a new front mudguard.

Yep, we got the same updates here. Anecdotal reports say that none of those
mods made any difference worth mentioning except that some parts don't
interchange between early and late models.