[2wheelsvaga]

Hi all. I was looking around to get hold of the toque curves for RE and other bikes and came across dyno tests on motorbeam.

I am shocked to see that the loss for the Meteor 350 J-series engine is a whopping nearly 38%. (1:52)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lr2d48Jb2E

The figure for the Himalayan is a respectable 11.5% (1:36)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6A34nFlYaU

The loss for the Int 650 is an impressive 2.8%. (1:55)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2iTD3Sc5nE

These are strange figures and if the Meteor tests are true then it’s quite the scam. I’ve heard so much praise for the J-series engines that it didn’t occur to me to check the actual figures, so the result for the Meteor is even more unsettling. What is going on at RE? Are they aware about this? Have they issued a statement?

On the other hand, how come there is this sheer inconsistency when it comes to the other 650 cc and 411 cc engines?

Am I missing something here?

And this is not just an issue with RE, but plagues other companies too. The vaunted KTM 390 Adv has a 19% (!) drop in torque.

Thanks

[Rachit.K.Dogra]

Originally Posted by 2wheelsvaga

Hi all. I was looking around to get hold of the toque curves for RE and other bikes and came across dyno tests on motorbeam.

I am shocked to see that the loss for the Meteor 350 J-series engine is a whopping nearly 38%. (1:52)

The figure for the Himalayan is a respectable 11.5% (1:36)

The loss for the Int 650 is an impressive 2.8%. (1:55)
Thanks

With my limited expertise, here is what I have learned:
Comparing Horse Power on wheels of 2 different vehicles even on the same dyno has few variable which can impact the readings.

This is a video that explains it nicely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkNfmW44zuA

Basically Fuel quality, Temperature, Humidity, even how tightly a bike is strapped to a dyno can also impact its reading.

Other thing to keep in mind is Motorcycle manufacturers claim horsepower at the crank, which means horsepower the engine produces. Dyno measures the horsepower at wheels. In general I have read 10-15% transmission losses is expected.

In this particular case, if all of these bikes were measured on the same day on the same dyno, then the difference in numbers could have given a slightly better picture.


Rachit

[Shreyans_Jain]

There is always a difference between wheel horsepower and crank horsepower, the latter being higher because is doesn’t account for transmission losses. The figures claimed by manufacturers are usually crank horsepower and torque figures, though this is not a hard and fast rule. Can’t really say what the protocol is at RE, and a single dyno run is not evidence enough of any foul play. Chances are, the Meteor dyno run had some inconsistencies. The two other bikes have given very respectable figures. Maybe the Meteor was simply not strapped in properly.

In cars, German horses are generally considered superior to others. This is because time and again, it has been found that the power and torque figures claimed by the VW group cars are actually the at wheel figures.

[anjan_c2007]

With these figures we can add 6%, which is the official figure for drop in engine efficiency with the 10 % ethanol blending.

[aargee]

As Super Meteor is a fusion of Meteor 350 & Interceptor 650, it will be very interesting to observe the powertrain loss for Meteor 650.

[dhanushs]

Originally Posted by 2wheelsvaga

...

I am shocked to see that the loss for the Meteor 350 J-series engine is a whopping nearly 38%. (1:52) ...

The loss for the Int 650 is an impressive 2.8%. (1:55)

...

Could you shed some light on to what would be the final drive ratios of these vehicles? Including the tyre dia.

Like one roation of the crank would take the bike how far ahead?

[boniver]

Originally Posted by aargee

As Super Meteor is a fusion of Meteor 350 & Interceptor 650, it will be very interesting to observe the powertrain loss for Meteor 650.

It will be the same as that of the Interceptor 650.

[2wheelsvaga]

Originally Posted by Rachit.K.Dogra

With my limited expertise, here is what I have learned:
Comparing Horse Power on wheels of 2 different vehicles even on the same dyno has few variable which can impact the readings.

This is a video that explains it nicely.

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=NkNfmW44zuA

Basically Fuel quality, Temperature, Humidity, even how tightly a bike is strapped to a dyno can also impact its reading.

Other thing to keep in mind is Motorcycle manufacturers claim horsepower at the crank, which means horsepower the engine produces. Dyno measures the horsepower at wheels. In general I have read 10-15% transmission losses is expected.

In this particular case, if all of these bikes were measured on the same day on the same dyno, then the difference in numbers could have given a slightly better picture.


Rachit

Thanks for sharing this. It certainly puts some context to the issue. It does make sense to consider the effects of temperature and other variables on the test results. Obviously, the most important is that the bike should be fastened properly to the dyno.

That said, it is interesting to note that considering the data of the tests, the Int and the Meteor tests are separated by around 5 months. That is a significant time difference. But note that the Meteor was actually tested in the peak winter months. That implies favourable conditions. The Int and Himalayan were both tested in the monsoon period, and humidity would have been much higher than when it was for the CL 350 test. That said, I wonder if the difference can amount to one of 26% (if we compare the CL with the Himalayan). Second, I think it's only natural to assume that the testers would have run multiple tests and cross-checked the drastic result thrown up in the Meteor test.

[2wheelsvaga]

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

There is always a difference between wheel horsepower and crank horsepower, the latter being higher because is doesn’t account for transmission losses. The figures claimed by manufacturers are usually crank horsepower and torque figures, though this is not a hard and fast rule. Can’t really say what the protocol is at RE, and a single dyno run is not evidence enough of any foul play. Chances are, the Meteor dyno run had some inconsistencies. The two other bikes have given very respectable figures. Maybe the Meteor was simply not strapped in properly.

In cars, German horses are generally considered superior to others. This is because time and again, it has been found that the power and torque figures claimed by the VW group cars are actually the at wheel figures.

I hope so, and I suppose we should assume that this is the case. I feel that manufacturers should be asked to specify both their claimed figures at the crank, but also those measured at the rear wheel.

[2wheelsvaga]

Originally Posted by anjan_c2007

With these figures we can add 6%, which is the official figure for drop in engine efficiency with the 10 % ethanol blending.

Whoa, that's quite a bit. That means it might not be a bad idea to make the purchase before the OBD-2 compliant bikes start coming in. I imagine that given that we are already in May, it won't be long before the only CL 350 or Meteors one can buy will be the ones with OBD-2 compliance and this 6% drop in engine efficiency.

Do you know what the manufacturers, and in particular RE, are planning to do about this? I mean will they actively compensate for this 6% loss of efficiency?

[alpha1]

1) The most obvious reason is that published BHP numbers are inflated by a significant margin. From this experiment I will conclude that Interceptor's published figures are tweaked only slightly (perhaps because it is exported also and hence need to be careful about misleading consumers in foreign land); whereas 350 meteor being targeted to the commodity market in India, "warrants" greater fudging in order to look attractive in marketing literature.

2) There will be some loss between engine BHP and wheel BHP, but it cannot vary this much and usually will be similar across the models, unless there is a difference in technology (automatic transmission vs manual, different configuration of clutch plates, chain vs belt drive etc)

3) The only way to determine powertrain losses would be to FIRST measure the crankshaft brake horsepower. Since that is not being done, I think the thread title is a conjecture only. (Mods please note: "38% loss" is technically incorrect in light of absence of this)

[CLASSICREBORN]

Hi everyone.
This is a very interesting thread and I have some numbers to share here. In motorbeam's dyno testing The Meteor 350 did not live up to the expectations. But there is another channel on YouTube by the name of Cycle World. After testing the bike on dyno the figures displayed are 17.9 hp at 6070 rpm and 18.2 lb ft ( approximately 24.67 Nm) at 2800 rpm.
So if we are to look at this video the figures that came out are very acceptable. The drop in hp and torque is hardly around 10% approx. Now the question is does the fuel used in running this engine in India and abroad make any significant difference in the final output at wheels!
Experts here will be able to further comment on it.

I could not find the way to attach the link to this post but it is very easy to find. Just type "Meteor 350 dyno test" on YouTube and the video will pop up.