MV Agusta Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
im sure nobody here knows, because i searched. But if the 1078 in the Brute is the same as the one in the F4, then shouldnt it be more than 154 at the crank. Should be something like 180 HP!!!??!!!??
154 sound too conservative for 1078c.c.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Guaranteed it's crank HP. it's moderated from the F4 (and other 1100cc I4 SS engines) because the camshafts for the Brutale are selected for optimum midrange power, rather top-end peak power.

BTW, I wouldn't have it any other way! Top-end peak HP is useless on the street.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
I looked into this when I first bought my 910R, and the cam spec's from the 1000s are almost identical if I'm not mistaken. If they are only claiming 154hp, that piss poor put of 1078cc's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
Some Guy said:
If they are only claiming 154hp, that piss poor put of 1078cc's.
Hardly. Depends what the entire power curve looks like. Peak power by itself is pretty meaningless since it's impossible to ride at the peak for more than a moment unless... a) you're content maintaining a constant speed or b) you've got a 24 speed transmission. The rest of the curve matters. A lot. I'll take a flat 145 over 160HP worth of spike any day. Hell, even Mick Doohan couldn't ride that stuff without maiming himself.

Obviously they could have gotten more peak HP out of that many cc's as they currently get more out of less. On a bike like the Brutale a wide and fat power curve is what they were after. For obvious reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
emmvee said:
Hardly. Depends what the entire power curve looks like. Peak power by itself is pretty meaningless since it's impossible to ride at the peak for more than a moment unless... a) you're content maintaining a constant speed or b) you've got a 24 speed transmission. The rest of the curve matters. A lot. I'll take a flat 145 over 160HP worth of spike any day. Hell, even Mick Doohan couldn't ride that stuff without maiming himself.

Obviously they could have gotten more peak HP out of that many cc's as they currently get more out of less. On a bike like the Brutale a wide and fat power curve is what they were after. For obvious reasons.
You missed my point. With that many CC's on hand, a healty, flat, and tractable curve should be more than attainable, along with a screaming top end. I still think 154hp is a little embarassing from that size engine in an inline 4 configuration, especially when ducati is pulling similar #'s out of a twin.

This arguement as to what you are actually going to use always cracks me up, what the hell does it matter if I ever reach my motocycle's limits or not? I didnt buy my 910R beacuse I knew I would use it to its fullest potential , its part of the fun to have more than I need.....no one NEEDS a $20K sportbike, but here we are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,193 Posts
MV have never quoted 'wheel hp' before so why would they start now? the 1078 F4 is quoted at 190 hp at the crank, if that was 'wheel hp' as well the crank figure would be around the 225 mark :jsm:

wheel hp's are very hard to repeat from bike to bike, the figure will be crank hp from an engine dyno.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,937 Posts
Some Guy said:
You missed my point. With that many CC's on hand, a healty, flat, and tractable curve should be more than attainable, along with a screaming top end. I still think 154hp is a little embarassing from that size engine in an inline 4 configuration, especially when ducati is pulling similar #'s out of a twin.

This arguement as to what you are actually going to use always cracks me up, what the hell does it matter if I ever reach my motocycle's limits or not? I didnt buy my 910R beacuse I knew I would use it to its fullest potential , its part of the fun to have more than I need.....no one NEEDS a $20K sportbike, but here we are.
Why would you want 154 rwhp on a bike that you ride upright on.

You'd never have the front wheel on the ground, sounds pointless to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
Ozboy said:
Why would you want 154 rwhp on a bike that you ride upright on.

You'd never have the front wheel on the ground, sounds pointless to me.
I have ridden several upright bikes putting signifigantly more power to the ground than that, and its alot of fun. Yes, its hard to keep the front wheel down, but its alot of fun. I can fry the tires off my Impala through the first 3 gears, without the NO2 system, its almost impossible to make the car hook without slicks, you've got to be really careful or it will kill you.......but its alot of fun. Is any of this making sense? :) The point is (at least for me) to have fun, if i wanted something sensible, I would have bought a moped :moped: , or a Honda Civic.


Again, people keep asking the same question, "why would you want that"....I never said that I did. That wasn't the point I was trying to convey. Its got nothing to do with what I want, I'm just suprised by the numbers.

154 rwhp (this number is most likely at the crank, even more dreadful) out of almost 1100 cc is less than spectacular, especially with an inline 4cyl configuration, and MV's reputation of being the "premire" marque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,193 Posts
Some Guy said:
I have ridden several upright bikes putting signifigantly more power to the ground than that, and its alot of fun. Yes, its hard to keep the front wheel down, but its alot of fun. I can fry the tires off my Impala through the first 3 gears, without the NO2 system, its almost impossible to make the car hook without slicks, you've got to be really careful or it will kill you.......but its alot of fun. Is any of this making sense? :) The point is (at least for me) to have fun, if i wanted something sensible, I would have bought a moped :moped: , or a Honda Civic.


Again, people keep asking the same question, "why would you want that"....I never said that I did. That wasn't the point I was trying to convey. Its got nothing to do with what I want, I'm just suprised by the numbers.

154 rwhp (this number is most likely at the crank, even more dreadful) out of almost 1100 cc is less than spectacular, especially with an inline 4cyl configuration, and MV's reputation of being the "premire" marque.
I agree that 154hp at the crank from 1100cc is not spectacular, but they will have 'tuned' the motor for greater midrange, this may/will involve milder cams, smaller throttle bodies (probably 1000S one's) longer inlet plastic trumpets, lower compression ratio, in fact the opposite of what you would do to increase top end hp.

I suspect the change to 1078 is for a couple of reasons,
1/ sales of 312R's are falling away and with no new model on the horizon they have very few other options to facelift teh bike.

2/ I'm guessing the 1000 motor was just about maxxed out hp wise, another increase in top end hp would just rob the midrange even more (if you figure that the 312R is 5hp down to the 1000R which itself was 5hp down to the 1000S in the midrange, a higher again hp 1000cc bike would end up roughly 15 hp down on the original 1000S :jsm: and that would be too much against the japs)

CC originally ALWAYS said when interviewed that MV would NEVER fit the 1000cc motor to the Brutale as it is too much (they did have one fitted) after riding a couple of 750 Brutale's I kind of agreed with him, I though with the introduction of the 910 they may be pushing it a little but 1078 :jsm: shit, that sounds like a handfull to me,

You can have too much hp, I came close to doing that with an S4R monster, as did someone I spoke with who had John Hackett (BIG Ducati tuner) tune his S4R, he took his back after a couple of weeks and asked John to down tune it a little, so bare it in mind, you can have too much..........and it does make the bike quite hard to ride quickly :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
mikef4uk said:
You can have too much hp,
In the real world, yes. In America, where we never run out of straight roads and most of our "motorcyclists" never learn to turn, no.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I just want to see the statistics of 1078 buyers and how long until their first "incident".

Talk is one thing, but that's a short bike with a LOT of power. A sportbike has two things in its favor when dealing with that amount of power. The lower handlebar location, and usually a longer wheelbase.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
A 154 hp, naked bike is very very powerfull. I dont understand that its ok to have 140 hp out of 910cc's but 154 out of 1078 is too low... ??? It's almost the same hp per cc, if they would have keep the same ratio the bike would have 163 hp, oh man big deal 8 more hp. Most of you use %40 of the power of the bike anyways.

Also if you look at every single naked bike out there that comes with an engine thats de-tuned from a race bike, has the same cc's but less peal hp and more mid range.
I dont understand what is this peak horsepower figure that everybody is obssed with?
U hit that number only if you almost redline the bike and if you want to compare it to other bikes, record your average riding rpm's, look at the dyno sheet of your bike and the comparing motorcycle and see how the power curve is effecting your riding. Race bikes have most of their power up top on the rpm range because thats where they spend all their time, they dont slow down for a rocky corner, a traffic light, car congestion etc... in real life situations with a real life riding style "upright" vs totally commited race tuck, the power of the brutale is great and i am sure the new 154 peak hp engine is a thrill to ride. I am expecting improvement at every rev and a flatter power curve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Some Guy said:
I looked into this when I first bought my 910R, and the cam spec's from the 1000s are almost identical if I'm not mistaken. If they are only claiming 154hp, that piss poor put of 1078cc's.
put a race cam in it then and you'll easily get 175 crank HP. none of the stock brutale's so far have been cam'd for peak HP, they've always been set up for midrange streetability. i'll take the street cam any day for the street.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,291 Posts
I agree, seeing as how it's 1100cc and "only" 154hp...that's kinda sucky. Especially considering the B-King is a perfect example of a naked beast, even if it is ugly, it has lots of ponies.

That said, the wheelsbase is short as heck on the Brute. Also, like Octan090 said, the important part is looked at: MIDRANGE. Although I wouldn't mind seeing a higher HP number, what's important, is the HP, even if lower is USEABLE HP, unlike on jap bikes with that peaky crazy powerband, half of your horses are unuseable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
A lot of u give MV lots of credit assuming they will tune for mid range, I am really praying for that to be true, because im skeptic. Have you wind up ur current 910s to 9k??? where it isnt peak hp yet, and the handles are already buzzing to shake your hands off?? If they tune it down to 154, i hope it happens at 8 or 9k. But i know i just be dreaming.


mikef4uk said:
I agree that 154hp at the crank from 1100cc is not spectacular, but they will have 'tuned' the motor for greater midrange, this may/will involve milder cams, smaller throttle bodies (probably 1000S one's) longer inlet plastic trumpets, lower compression ratio, in fact the opposite of what you would do to increase top end hp.....
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top