Suzuki Burgman USA Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've looked all over to determine the power and torque specifications for my new 2013 Burgman 400. Finally, I found a website in Great Britain that shows the specs (for British sold Burgman's) which should be close to those sold in the USA.

The only significant difference I noticed was their compression ratio is only 11.2:1, whereas in the USA it is shown as 12.5:1. So the British specs might actually be slightly lower than in the USA.

The listed specs are as follows:

25.00 KW @ 7300 rpm = 33.0 hp
36.30 Nm @ 5800 rpm = 27.0 lb ft torque

The only reason I wanted these figures, is that a typical naturally aspirated gasoline engine has its lowest fuel consumption at the peak BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) which nearly always is also peak torque rpm. Therefore, riding at 5800 rpm SHOULD produce the best fuel economy.

I found this reference (the only place I have found ANY reference to horsepower or torque on the new Burgman 400) at the following web address:

suzuki-gb.co.uk/motorcycles/scooter/burgman/burgman.400

It is too bad that something so simple should not be readily published by Suzuki for their scooters. I cannot imagine why they don't provide that without a great deal of research!

Use it as you see fit. And, if you are aware of any contrary information, please reply to this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
I don't believe the compression ratio for the 2013 - or any other year - US Burgman 400 is 12.5:1. According to most literature and the service manuals I've seen the ratio is 10.6:1 which would seem to be confirmed by only requiring 87 octane. I'm not sure where the 12.5:1 info came from - I've seen it listed before - but Suzuki seems to be great at getting info mixed up at times.

http://adplanner.suzukicycles.com/Assets/2013_SalesGuides/2013_Burgman_400.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
It amazes me that they are as good on fuel as they are as when you see a dyno run they rarely get more than 25 HP at the wheel, so near a third of the power is disappearing in heat and friction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
I have also seen a few 400 dyno runs, all in the 25 rwHP range.

Rule of thumb for engine to wheels power loss, for manual transmission automobiles is 15% and 18 to 20% for slushboxes. On the 400 the rubber band CVT is not especially efficient (that's where the belt-dust and heat come from) so a 25% overall loss at peak output is not unrealistic...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
It amazes me that they are as good on fuel as they are as when you see a dyno run they rarely get more than 25 HP at the wheel, so near a third of the power is disappearing in heat and friction.
Kind of like a bumblebee -science says it can't fly... huh?
These Burgies are a wonder!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,083 Posts
I found this in my files:

Estimated horsepower and torque settings for the 2005 Burgman 400:


HP – 32 @ 7,600 rpm

Torque – 23.6 @ 6,000 rpm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
Kind of like a bumblebee -science says it can't fly... huh?
These Burgies are a wonder!
Yep but luckily nether the Bumblebee or the Burgman can read.


:D:D:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,545 Posts
Just for interest. As a techie with easy access to the dyno, last year I ran my B400z abs 2012 on the workshop dyno at 2500 miles.

The bike was (and still is) in standard factory trim and was using Castrol semi synthetic oil. The standard book method of running in was used as I've always believed this gives the best long term reliability and power output, although it can take longer for the engine to give it's best. I didn't use the recommended 4000rpm ceiling though as Suzuki GB said I could use upto 5k rpm. I did because 4k is too low. I used an inertia dyno for real world accuracy. Prior to testing, the bike was fully warmed up, both coolant and oil. Ambient temp was 20 degrees C. My bike was putting out 25.4hp/25.75ps at the rear wheel. Engine revs were 7,400rpm. Suzuki quote 33hp at the crank at 7,300rpm. My figure is the mean average from two runs. Interesting that both runs were quite close anyway. That's what I was expecting at such low miles as the engine conforming was still going on.

On seeing this post I ran the bike again on the dyno yesterday for two runs. My bike now has 6,000 miles on the clock and is now running fully synthetic oil. Everything about the bike is factory standard. Bike fully warmed up, ambient temp 19 degrees C. The first run produced 26.9hp/27.27ps. Second run 27.4hp/27.8ps. Both figures obtained at 7,250rpm. This is with a slightly dirty air filter and the original spark plug. Though the fully syn oil certainly helps with friction reduction about 5% overall.

However, the really big difference was the torque output. The engine power spread was much much wider than at 2500 miles. Torque comes in much earlier in bigger amounts (as you would expect now conforming is virtually finished) and hangs on longer, sustaining maximum working load at lower revs. Cannot give you figs for the torque as I wasn't really set up for that on the Palandyne dyno I was using. I didn't extrapolate the info. But overall the max torque fig was coming in around 550-600rpm earlier than at 2500 miles. That makes a huge difference to the ride on a 400 bike. Nice! Just interesting I thought!
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top