top speed?
#22
07-10-2006, 01:59 AM
#23
07-11-2006, 11:56 PM
RE: top speed?
Hell as long as we're posting indicated speeds by the speedo, Im -1 and bucking a head wind of about 10mph or so, just nudged 181 before shutting down. Surely we all know the 900RR is no good for anything over 170 unless heavily modded. A 929 with more power (supposedly) in 2000 would only manage around 169-171 depending on the magazine you read. I've read on the given day a 93 will push 163 stock, and a 98 will run 166 stock. Those are what I've read, surely they differ a bit given air temp, pressure, altitude, etc. Nobody on this forum is hitting an ACTUAL 180+ with a remotely stock bike. It's a nice thought, but only a thought.
#24
07-13-2006, 08:46 AM
RE: top speed?
ORIGINAL: gixxereater
Hell as long as we're posting indicated speeds by the speedo, Im -1 and bucking a head wind of about 10mph or so, just nudged 181 before shutting down. Surely we all know the 900RR is no good for anything over 170 unless heavily modded. A 929 with more power (supposedly) in 2000 would only manage around 169-171 depending on the magazine you read. I've read on the given day a 93 will push 163 stock, and a 98 will run 166 stock. Those are what I've read, surely they differ a bit given air temp, pressure, altitude, etc. Nobody on this forum is hitting an ACTUAL 180+ with a remotely stock bike. It's a nice thought, but only a thought.
Hell as long as we're posting indicated speeds by the speedo, Im -1 and bucking a head wind of about 10mph or so, just nudged 181 before shutting down. Surely we all know the 900RR is no good for anything over 170 unless heavily modded. A 929 with more power (supposedly) in 2000 would only manage around 169-171 depending on the magazine you read. I've read on the given day a 93 will push 163 stock, and a 98 will run 166 stock. Those are what I've read, surely they differ a bit given air temp, pressure, altitude, etc. Nobody on this forum is hitting an ACTUAL 180+ with a remotely stock bike. It's a nice thought, but only a thought.
Besides gearing, I had a slightly dropped front end, raked back windscreen, loosened mirror brackets so I could fold them flat (they're removed now), flushmounts, exhaust that exited behind my right foot, Uni foam filter, rejeted carbs, free mods.
#26
07-26-2006, 05:10 AM
#27
09-12-2006, 04:10 PM
RE: top speed?
94' 900rr ... rebuilt carbs, new jet kit, iridium spark plugs from ngk, micron full exhaust, race clutch, cams, mild porting and polish of head, 5,000 miles on new motor. i just got the bike but it was my friends for a little bit after he dumped all this money into it. the other night i wanted to see how fast i could go. my friend was next to me doing 150 mph in my twin turbo rx7 and i blew past him. my tach is dim towards the end but it looked about 170mph if not just a small amount higher. it was pulling a little but i found myself letting off the throttle after looking at the speedometer, it scared the **** out of me not going to lie.
#28
09-12-2006, 10:11 PM
RE: top speed?
since we're completely lying, i did 210mph.......
are you guys kidding me. a stock cbr is good for 163-167mph.
to go faster you'll need more hp and different gearing. you need to gear it for a lower final drive ratio not a higher one like most of you guys are posting. once you go -1 front and +2 rear it is mathematically impossible to go faster than stock gearing. yeah the bike might be faster on the bottom but you LOSE top speed.
anyway, be honset when posting. my RR on GPS has been clocked at 151mph screaming. 15/45 gearing and 132bhp on a constant rate mustang dyno...............
are you guys kidding me. a stock cbr is good for 163-167mph.
to go faster you'll need more hp and different gearing. you need to gear it for a lower final drive ratio not a higher one like most of you guys are posting. once you go -1 front and +2 rear it is mathematically impossible to go faster than stock gearing. yeah the bike might be faster on the bottom but you LOSE top speed.
anyway, be honset when posting. my RR on GPS has been clocked at 151mph screaming. 15/45 gearing and 132bhp on a constant rate mustang dyno...............
#30
09-13-2006, 04:57 AM
RE: top speed?
ORIGINAL: ducatijay
since we're completely lying, i did 210mph.......
are you guys kidding me. a stock cbr is good for 163-167mph.
to go faster you'll need more hp and different gearing. you need to gear it for a lower final drive ratio not a higher one like most of you guys are posting. once you go -1 front and +2 rear it is mathematically impossible to go faster than stock gearing. yeah the bike might be faster on the bottom but you LOSE top speed.
anyway, be honset when posting. my RR on GPS has been clocked at 151mph screaming. 15/45 gearing and 132bhp on a constant rate mustang dyno...............
since we're completely lying, i did 210mph.......
are you guys kidding me. a stock cbr is good for 163-167mph.
to go faster you'll need more hp and different gearing. you need to gear it for a lower final drive ratio not a higher one like most of you guys are posting. once you go -1 front and +2 rear it is mathematically impossible to go faster than stock gearing. yeah the bike might be faster on the bottom but you LOSE top speed.
anyway, be honset when posting. my RR on GPS has been clocked at 151mph screaming. 15/45 gearing and 132bhp on a constant rate mustang dyno...............
With 15/45, what rpm was 151mph?