Kawasaki Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Thought there might be some interest in this shootout... I'm surprised by a few things, first and foremost the torque and hp of the Kawi 1700. I've read 108 ft.-lbs. of torque and 82 hp. This write-up puts the torque at 86 and hp at 72. Doesn't seem right.

2010 Kawasaki Vulcan 1700 Classic vs. 2010 Triumph Thunderbird - Motorcycle.com

The T-bird looks like a nice bike but I'd put my denaro on the Classic. Wouldn't even be close.

windman
 

·
Vegas Vulcan
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
Thought there might be some interest in this shootout... I'm surprised by a few things, first and foremost the torque and hp of the Kawi 1700. I've read 108 ft.-lbs. of torque and 82 hp. This write-up puts the torque at 86 and hp at 72. Doesn't seem right.

2010 Kawasaki Vulcan 1700 Classic vs. 2010 Triumph Thunderbird - Motorcycle.com

The T-bird looks like a nice bike but I'd put my denaro on the Classic. Wouldn't even be close.

windman
No thanks, I'll take the T-Bird. A sharp looking bike, more power, and a better handling chassis. Plus I have a hard time justifying an $1800 price increase for the Kawi in one year for 100cc's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Thought there might be some interest in this shootout... I'm surprised by a few things, first and foremost the torque and hp of the Kawi 1700. I've read 108 ft.-lbs. of torque and 82 hp. This write-up puts the torque at 86 and hp at 72. Doesn't seem right.
windman
Manufacturers usually measure HP and torque at the crank, and then brag about the optimistic crank numbers in their propaganda. Magazines, on the other hand, measure HP and torque at the rear wheel using a dyno, which yields far more realistic HP and torque numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,156 Posts
I've never really liked that big ol hunk of manifold that comes out the front, pretends like it's an engine guard and then swings all the way around to go back to the muffler. The review complains about the effort needed to cut into corners with that big tire on the front of the Kawi. Well scuse me if you went out and compared a Classic front tire to a Custom front tire PLUS what pressure did they run the Classic at? Kawi manual always states too low on the 900 I bet they did the same on the review bike. Still, apples to apples.

But, as always, buy the bike that moves you. That Tbird just don't do it for me. Then again neither does a bike without a windshield around here in the spring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
Ive had the Tbird for 4 months now. The dyno tests show 97 f/lbs at the rear wheel and 78 hp. It looses very little from the crank to rear wheel. Amasing build to get those kind of numbers.

I tried the 1700 and I didnt like it if Im honest. Each to his own isnt it but on British roads the TBird destroys the VN on corners and power and breaking . The VN is a bit more comfortable I guess for long rides but I have now added the touring seat with riders backrest so that has fixed any minor discomfort over the hour ride mark.

The Bird just feels solid and machined and it burns any HD with any upgrade from stock and out handles them. Mate of mine has a stage one softtail, we did a straight line test and i beat him over a 1/2 mile by about 10 bike lenghs.

On country roads forget it I am at the pub before he has taken the first bend.

I loved my VN900 but the Bird is a totally different machine and TBH its a totally different bike to the VN1700 as well. Best piece of kit I have ever bought.

Thats just me though and by no meens a definitive review.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Manufacturers usually measure HP and torque at the crank, and then brag about the optimistic crank numbers in their propaganda. Magazines, on the other hand, measure HP and torque at the rear wheel using a dyno, which yields far more realistic HP and torque numbers.
Right, but that's close to a 25% loss from the crank to the rear wheel. I thought belt-drives were more efficient in this respect than shaft drives, but this rate of loss is no better than rate of loss in my shaft drive 1500.

I just think it's ridiculous that an engine that big would put out such numbers. Thanks.

windman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Ive had the Tbird for 4 months now. The dyno tests show 97 f/lbs at the rear wheel and 78 hp. It looses very little from the crank to rear wheel. Amasing build to get those kind of numbers.

I tried the 1700 and I didnt like it if Im honest. Each to his own isnt it but on British roads the TBird destroys the VN on corners and power and breaking . The VN is a bit more comfortable I guess for long rides but I have now added the touring seat with riders backrest so that has fixed any minor discomfort over the hour ride mark.

The Bird just feels solid and machined and it burns any HD with any upgrade from stock and out handles them. Mate of mine has a stage one softtail, we did a straight line test and i beat him over a 1/2 mile by about 10 bike lenghs.

On country roads forget it I am at the pub before he has taken the first bend.

I loved my VN900 but the Bird is a totally different machine and TBH its a totally different bike to the VN1700 as well. Best piece of kit I have ever bought.

Thats just me though and by no meens a definitive review.
I like the overall riding posture of the v-twin cruiser. I like footboards, big saddlebags, windshield, etc... I had a 750 Bonneville in the late 70s, it was my first bike and I loved it, and I'm sure this new T-Bird will prove to be an excellent machine, but I just couldn't see myself making many multiple-day trips on it. Then again, I haven't sat on it so at the moment I'm shooting from the hip. Just out of curiosity, what's the T-Bird getting for fuel mileage?

windman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
Ive ridden for 3 hours solid with the new seat with no problems . Very comfortable and the 6th gear is perfect for doing 80mph with no stress and no noise or vibration. It will still pull hard from 80-110 where it drops off a bit and gets me to 120 where I dont feel comfortable anyway. The bike dosnt mind I do lol.

Im getting 50+ miles to the gallon that UK though so I guess about 42-44 US .
The tank takes me 230 miles with no problems in the summer and 190 odd in the cold.

I will say the ride is a bit stiffer than the VN but I prefer it that way as I want the handleing .

Boards and screen are available as are highway pegs sissy bar , rack bags ect ect.
 

·
Workin' to ride
Joined
·
559 Posts
Ive ridden for 3 hours solid with the new seat with no problems . Very comfortable and the 6th gear is perfect for doing 80mph with no stress and no noise or vibration. It will still pull hard from 80-110 where it drops off a bit and gets me to 120 where I dont feel comfortable anyway. The bike dosnt mind I do lol.

Im getting 50+ miles to the gallon that UK though so I guess about 42-44 US .
The tank takes me 230 miles with no problems in the summer and 190 odd in the cold.

I will say the ride is a bit stiffer than the VN but I prefer it that way as I want the handleing .

Boards and screen are available as are highway pegs sissy bar , rack bags ect ect.
I for one am envious! Sweet ride...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,037 Posts
Ive had the Tbird for 4 months now. The dyno tests show 97 f/lbs at the rear wheel and 78 hp. It looses very little from the crank to rear wheel. Amazing build to get those kind of numbers.
Druid, I was about to PM you about the dyno results for the TBird in this magazine comparison. When they said the Kawi 1700 had 86.3 ft/lb & 66 hp and the TBird had 90.5 ft/lb with 69 hp I was thinking something was not right. I am very glad to hear you are still happy with your new bike and the way it rides. I was a bit surprised to see the spec that the TBird is 5 inches shorter than the VN900. Also I was searching the TBird and RAT forums to find out what octane gas is used in that bike and could not find it anywhere. Over here I run 87 in my VN900 and it runs just fine. What does Triumph recommend in your TBird? So are you going to TriDays in June?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
well i am in the uk so we only have 2 types 93 and 95 or is it 95 and 97 lol so I cant really help there im afraid. I cant imagine it will struggle on 87.

Update . I have just ordered the Big bore kit . Gives the bike 100 bhp and 118 torque at the crank. The guys on the rat and thunderbird1600 forums are quoting huge performance increases and burning rubber at 30 mph when opening it up.

Not for eveyone I guess as it turns into a fire breathing beast apprently. But hey I cant wait personaly.
 

·
Deeppurple52
Joined
·
2,072 Posts
761# curb weight and that is without and bags, accessories, etc. With any add-ons at all you have the proverbial 800# gorilla. Excessive weight is the biggest issue with the 1700. My 1600 tipped the scales at 781# equipped for the road. That is a lot of weight to haul around a curve...... or a parking lot. I never noticed how limited it was until I moved on to something other than a cruiser.
The grossly exaggerated torque figures from Ma Kawi have come to rooste on most of the road tests. Still those are pretty good numbers for a V-twin.
What does all of this mean? Nada, as long as you are happy with your bike.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top