NC750X hp/tq vs Transalp 750 hp/tq

[senecagreen]

I just read a comparison between the Transalp 750 vs Tiger 850 vs V Strom 800 RE. The biggest complaint about the Honda was you had to rev it to get decent power out of it as they stated compared to the Suzuki and Triumph it noticeably lacked low and midrange power which is what they were looking for in a adventure bike.

I thought the only thing the NC750Xlacks is top end as it levels off right after 6000 rpm. So I looked up the dyno charts and hp wise the NC is right there with the Transalp to 6000 but starts with lots more torque on bottom and maintains it to an equal peak but at a lot lower peak rpm.

I really like the NC powerband and shifting at 6000 when you ride it agressively is no big deal to me as I rode Harleys for years and on the twin cams you shifted at 5000 anyway.


If the Transalp had the bottom end of the NC it probably would have fared better in the comparison.

 

[dduelin]

Clearly stated senecagreen. The NC engine trades hp off the top for torque right off idle. As internal friction builds rapidly with rpm Honda chose efficiency over hp which comes with rpms.

 

[the Ferret]

At 6000 rpms the horsepower and torque numbers are very similar it appears (approx 45 torque & 50 HP). It's above and below that figure that the numbers vary with torque benefitting the NC below (48 tq) and horsepower benefiting the Transalp above 6K (70 hp).

The NC has a distinct advantage in both in the 2500-3500 rpms that my DCT usually runs in

 

[670cc]

The NC makes more horsepower than the Transalp at any RPM below the 5252 RPM crossover. That’s what is important to me, and tells me pretty much all I need to know. However, I wish the NC graph showed it’s power between 2000 and 2800. That is a usable RPM range on the NC.

 

[Dan German]

My all-time favourite bike was my R80GS. When the valves needed attention, I lost my mind and went through the CC Products catalogue ticking every box that said “torque” ”midrange” or “low-end”. What I ended up with was a 10% hp increase, and a torque curve that looked like a Saskatchewan horizon (but without grain elevators). Cracking the throttle at 1500 pulled the front wheel off the ground. I’ve ridden many faster bikes, but that one stands out as the most entertaining, and the most useful in the real world. My NC immediately reminded me of the R80, although more sedate. I care nothing for horsepower, I want torque, and I want it flat as a pancake.

(For the record, I spent a weekend with a Transalp, and I never felt it was lacking low end, it just liked spinning faster. It was fun, and I can see why we can’t keep them in stock, but if I had the purchase price there are a few other bikes I would buy first. Oh wait, I spent less than a Transalp in the past four months, and I did buy a few bikes!)

 

[Dan German]

The NC makes more horsepower than the Transalp at any RPM below the 5252 RPM crossover. That’s what is important to me, and tells me pretty much all I need to know. However, I wish the NC graph showed it’s power between 2000 and 2800. That is a usable RPM range on the NC.

Indeed. I have found that I sometimes UPshift before overtaking, because I can then complete the pass without shifting during it. Dropping the RPM has less negative effect on my acceleration than the shift would. Or so it seems.

 

[670cc]

My all-time favourite bike was my R80GS. When the valves needed attention, I lost my mind and went through the CC Products catalogue ticking every box that said “torque” ”midrange” or “low-end”. What I ended up with was a 10% hp increase, and a torque curve that looked like a Saskatchewan horizon (but without grain elevators). Cracking the throttle at 1500 pulled the front wheel off the ground. I’ve ridden many faster bikes, but that one stands out as the most entertaining, and the most useful in the real world. My NC immediately reminded me of the R80, although more sedate. I care nothing for horsepower, I want torque, and I want it flat as a pancake.

(For the record, I spent a weekend with a Transalp, and I never felt it was lacking low end, it just liked spinning faster. It was fun, and I can see why we can’t keep them in stock, but if I had the purchase price there are a few other bikes I would buy first. Oh wait, I spent less than a Transalp in the past four months, and I did buy a few bikes!)

I understand what you mean, but torque alone will get you almost nowhere. 1000 lb-ft of torque would seem like a lot, but at 10 RPM that would yield less than 2 horsepower. Good luck with that. People read the charts and graphs differently, and that’s fine, but I ignore the torque line and read the final product of the equation, which is power output. The torque is already baked into the power number.

Horsepower = Torque x RPM / 5252.

 

[Dan German]

I understand what you mean, but torque alone will get you almost nowhere. 1000 lb-ft of torque would seem like a lot, but at 10 RPM that would yield less than 2 horsepower. Good luck with that. People read the charts differently, and that’s fine, but I ignore the torque line and read the final product of the equation, which is power output. The torque is already baked into the power number.

Horsepower = Torque x RPM / 5252.

Yes, I didn’t mean to say that ONLY torque matters, but it matters more than the HP-focused world likes to pretend. And it’s not the amount of torque I care most about, it’s the delivery. Whatever I have, I prefer it to be available as soon as possible, and stay as long as possible. The Transalp actually isn’t bad for a 10,000 rpm engine, but I’d still like to see that delivery a bit more even if possible. When I rode it, I could feel what that graph shows; it starts out like it’s going to pull from the bottom, then there’s a soft area before the fun begins. Definitely happiest from 4K on up.

 

[670cc]

Yes, I didn’t mean to say that ONLY torque matters, but it matters more than the HP-focused world likes to pretend. And it’s not the amount of torque I care most about, it’s the delivery. Whatever I have, I prefer it to be available as soon as possible, and stay as long as possible. The Transalp actually isn’t bad for a 10,000 rpm engine, but I’d still like to see that delivery a bit more even if possible. When I rode it, I could feel what that graph shows; it starts out like it’s going to pull from the bottom, then there’s a soft area before the fun begins. Definitely happiest from 4K on up.

That lack of Transalp low end power does not seem ideal for an adventure bike. My Honda CRF250L has the same mismatched engine type. It is useless below 4000 RPM. On a dual sport I would rather have better low RPM power.

I wonder if because the motorcycle world likes to focus on peak power specs, Honda plays into that and gives them what (they think) they want.

 

[the Ferret]

Some guys are torque riders (I call them luggers), and some are horsepower guys (I call them revvers).

 

[MZ5]

Greg, you may be the only online-forum member (on any forum) I've encountered who understands that in terms of the engine, power is the ONLY graph that matters.

Folks, torque and speed (meaning engine rpm) are almost-freely exchangeable, and that is exactly what the transmission's job is. Therefore, the only graph you need to look at is the power curve.

It looks like the NCX makes ~5 hp more than the Transalp at 3k rpm. That's very little. OTOH, it's 25% more, and that's a lot.

My question is: What do Suzuki's and Triumph's power curves look like? That's the comparison one needs if one wants to try to figure out how the 'feel' of a bike relates to its power output. Gearing may factor in more significantly than one would think in this comparison, too.

If I was to hazard a guess, I'd speculate the flat spot in the Transalp's power output between 3k & 4k rpm is a major issue in the feel of the bike.