Whats better-horsepower or torque

[delivery58]

I went for a short ride yesterday with 5 bikes ( I was the "lightweight" on my 98 Valkyrie Tourer), 1) Triumph Rocket III 2300cc 1) Boss Hoss 350 V8, 2) Goldwing GL1800. I started to ponder the question.. what's better: Horsepower or Torque. The Goldwings/Valkyries- has horspower / the Rocket III has 141lbs Torque and the Boss Hoss is a freak of Nature. There is good aspects of my Nomad (and most V-twins) given there Torque / but there is also benefits for more Horsepower..... Thoughts and Suggestions

[Cajunrider]

I've always figured more torque will give you better pulling and acceleration power while more HP will belt out more top end speed.

[ringadingh]

Cajunrider explained it well, torque is what helps you climb hills and have good takeoff power.

[AlabamaNomadRider]

I agree. If you want to start off good you need the torque.

[ponch]

There are other factors as well, like gearing, weight of the bike, rpm range where the engine makes power just to name a few. The Goldwing has plenty torque BTW, more than the nomad or any another Kawasaki short of the V2K. It's also has some horsepower too. A lighter bike doesn't need as much torque to get moving, so losing weight in getting a lighter bike is on way to get better performance with engines that have similar HP and/or torque numbers. To put it in perspective, I used to have a 2007 Nomad. It made may be, 55hp and 75-80 ft/lbs torque at the rear wheel. I used to just keep up with the HD's in my church riding group, which are mostly 88's. If they had pipes or cams, no way and forget about a Goldwing. My beemer makes around the same torque, almost double the HP and is 250 lbs lighter than the nomad. Those 88's are like 150 scooters now...But the GW and the Rocket do about the same overall, as they have lots of torque and horsepower even though they weigh 300-350lbs more. It all depends on what you want in a bike. I can say say when reading the tests for motorcycle selection for the CHP that the HD with the 103 could keep up until about 30mph after which the others left it in the dust and the HD couldn't reach 100mph in the course length where they were measuring time to 100mph. The HD did do well in low speed handling and very well with braking, surprisingly so for the size of the bike. CHP went with the C14. Again, it depends on what are your requirements. I would think if someone wanted a stock big Vtwin with some stonk, the Victory would be the way to go. If you want to spend a little money, the HD with 255 cams, an air kit and pipes does real well. If you want to enjoy riding a well mannered dependable big vtwin that is affordable, get a kawasaki and be happy.

[jims]

Originally Posted by ponch

There are other factors as well, like gearing, weight of the bike, rpm range where the engine makes power just to name a few. The Goldwing has plenty torque BTW, more than the nomad or or another Kawasaki short of the V2K. It's also has some horsepower too. A lighter bike doesn't need as much torque to get moving, so losing weight in getting a lighter bike is on way to get better performance with engines that have similar HP and/or torque numbers. To put it in perspective, I used to have a 2007 Nomad. It made may be, 55hp and 75-80 ft/lbs torque at the rear wheel. I used to just keep up with the HD's in my church riding group, which are mostly 88's. If they had pipes or cams, no way and forget about a Goldwing. My beemer makes around the same torque, almost double the HP and is 250 lbs lighter than the nomad. Those 88's are like 150 scooters now...But the GW and the Rocket do about the same overall, as they have lots of torque and horsepower even though they weigh 300-350lbs more. It all depends on what you want in a bike. I can say say when reading the tests for motorcycle selection for the CHP that the HD with the 103 could keep up until about 30mph after which the others left it in the dust and the HD couldn't reach 100mph in the course length where they were measuring time to 100mph. The HD did do well in low speed handling and very well with braking, surprisingly so for the size of the bike. CHP went with the C14. Again, it depends on what are your requirements. I would think if someone wanted a stock big Vtwin with some stonk, the Victory would be the way to go. If you want to spend a little money, the HD with 255 cams, an air kit and pipes does real well. If you want to enjoy riding a well mannered dependable big vtwin that is affordable, get a kawasaki and be happy.

What he said.

[Blueraven]

Originally Posted by ponch

If you want to enjoy riding a well mannered dependable big vtwin that is affordable, get a kawasaki and be happy.

Don't worry, BE HAPPY!. I agree.

[Loafer]

My last bike was a Honda V-65 Magna, it had claimed 72 foot pounds of torque and claimed 116 hp. I had a lot of fun with it, surprisingly it made a good cruizer. I had a lot of fun weekends. The Nomad 1500 has a claimed 71 foot pounds of torque and claimed 47 hp. As I have aged the torque seems to be great for me. Traveling at triple digit speeds doesn't do it for me any more.

[ponch]

Originally Posted by Loafer

My last bike was a Honda V-65 Magna, it had claimed 72 foot pounds of torque and claimed 116 hp. I had a lot of fun with it, surprisingly it made a good cruizer. I had a lot of fun weekends. The Nomad 1500 has a claimed 71 foot pounds of torque and claimed 47 hp. As I have aged the torque seems to be great for me. Traveling at triple digit speeds doesn't do it for me any more.

I rarely go over triple digits anymore, but it's nice to be able to get there quickly. ;) The RT is 110 HP claimed and 85 ft/lbs claimed.

[markclark57]

When I got my '06 "Maped" last time it maxed out at 84 ft.Lb. of torque and 72 h.p.

I've only had it up to 115 mph, but I think that it would have gone faster if it didn't have a rev limiter.

[ponch]

Originally Posted by markclark57

When I got my '06 "Maped" last time it maxed out at 84 ft.Lb. of torque and 72 h.p.

I've only had it up to 115 mph, but I think that it would have gone faster if it didn't have a rev limiter.

That's indicated. Probably between 100-105 real speed. Without the rev limiter, you'd have a very heavy and expensive Cuisinart.

[markclark57]

Originally Posted by ponch

That's indicated. Probably between 100-105 real speed. Without the rev limiter, you'd have a very heavy and expensive Cuisinart.

Just short of 130 on the speedometer on 2 different attempts. The 115 was my estimated actual speed.

Doesn't matter much since I don't intend on a repeat performance.

[ponch]

Originally Posted by markclark57

Just short of 130 on the speedometer on 2 different attempts. The 115 was my estimated actual speed.

Doesn't matter much since I don't intend on a repeat performance.

I can't imagine going that fast on a 1600.

[replay13]

Torque is good for a cruiser I think. My last bike had about as much HP but not as much torque. It would accelerate about as fast but I had to keep shifting to keep it in its power range. With all the torque that the 1700 makes I don't have to down shift all the time, just twist the right side grip and it goes.
James

[markclark57]

Originally Posted by ponch

I can't imagine going that fast on a 1600.

Long flat open road with miles of visability and no trafic. Not my normal riding style. I just wanted to see what it maxed out at before and after mods. The first run I had the PC3 and Cobra true duals. Second run I had added Chuckster single plate intake, had it mapped, and took off the back seat. Both were on the same road/conditions. Second run got there quicker but wouldn't go any faster.

FYI, I won't do it again. :-)