KX Riders
Maintenance & Technical => KX500 Original => Topic started by: Dutch-K5 Fan on March 14, 2008, 06:55:35 AM
-
There many ways here to make the k5 faster.
Are there tips to make him more usable :? :?
http://www.mxworksbike.com/1989%20RC500.htm (http://www.mxworksbike.com/1989%20RC500.htm)
This is a nice article from geboers about his 89 RC500.
That power would be great!!!!!
Dutchie
-
thats a great read and lots of truth there ,,,
-
that's insane 17,000 for forks 1,000 for a rotor. what was the cost of the hole bike 100,000+?
-
that's insane 17,000 for forks 1,000 for a rotor. what was the cost of the hole bike 100,000+?
thats 2000.00 less than i have spent on working on my 3 bikes if i made 5 cents an hour
-
i,ve got a pic of baileys genuine gp winner rc500
look the tank shaped round the lever
this original bike costs over usd 100.000 back in these days
pic is bit poor but still :-P
-
that's insane 17,000 for forks 1,000 for a rotor. what was the cost of the hole bike 100,000+?
Thats wy the AMA ban Factorybikes, there's to much difference.
Today's AMA and MXGP bikes aren't cheep. The first crf450 was $1000.000,- I believe.
dutchie
-
Nobody any good ideas????
Doordie's G2 throttle looks good.
:cry: Am I so difrent than? :-D
Dutchie
-
i know this .. just blast the thing..
k5 power is fully useable @ all times,
i got my mx turned into sumo
nothing,s more a blast to ride
even my sophisticated road k5 isn,t that brute :evil:
the rougher the better :-D
-
The many ways here to make the k5 faster.
Are there tips to make him more usable :? :?
http://www.mxworksbike.com/1989%20RC500.htm (http://www.mxworksbike.com/1989%20RC500.htm)
This is a nice article from geboers about his 89 RC500.
That power would be great!!!!!
Dutchie
A Steahly 15oz. flywheel weight, and the Moose torque spacer.
Turned my KX500 from "wild and snappy" off the bottom end, into a smooth, controllable beast that has eye watering top end and speed.....
A flywheel weight also lenghtens the peak rpm's from the added spinning engine mass..... try one you will love it!
-
The two factory teams, Kawasaki and Honda, had widely differing views on making usable power. Which can be seen today in the two 500's.
Honda chose to reduce reciprocating mass and use cylinder porting and head shaping to deliver power. Kawasaki's factory bikes, in the US and Europe, increased reciprocating mass and lowered compression to do the same. Kedrowski's and Larroco's SR500's all had much heavier cranks than what ours are. With little changes to the cylinders original design.
You're never going to get your KX to run anything like Goebers non power valved, steel sleeved Honda. But you can add a thicker head gasket and flywheel weight to your KX and make it run similar to Kawasaki's factory machines.
-
On my K5, I found that reed spacer combined with some intake porting and boysen dual-stage reeds made the most difference in making the power more rideable with no reduction in top end rush. When I put on the gnarly it hugely enhanced the low, but at the sacrifice of the high. With these mods the power is soo smooth and sweet that when I put on a Steahly FWW I barely nticed it (which surpised the heck out of me - last bike I put one on made it a different bike). My bike is tuned for MX & single track trails the way I like it - good bottom end and huge midrange blast for short shifting. A dune pilot would need something different. Cam.
-
thats funny. on a stock 500 bike,who do you think has a heavyer crank. you'll be surpised.
you hit it on the nail. usable power. :-D
-
on a stock 500 bike,who do you think has a heavyer crank. you'll be surpised.
Unless I missed your point, you're asking which 500 has a heavier crank. There really isn't a surprise there.
My '89 KX crank for example is an anvil. And Kawasaki increased the mass more still in the years to follow mine. As a matter of fact the flywheel is also much heavier. Again, Kawasaki increased the weight of it as well in the early '90s. There is no secret to be told here. Kawasaki chose to increase reciprocating mass everywhere to produce a tractable motor. And they did.
-
Mick witch
reciprocating mass
you mean a crank with more mass at the outer side??
Same weight but more momenten at high rpm.
Flywheel weight sounds good, but i want a motor that stops reving when you shut the throttle. The down side of 500 2stroke over a 4stroke is braking on hardpack. You Outpower them by lightyears, braking :|.
Still some good idea's to start with :-)
Dutchie
-
who has a heavyer crank ?
kx 500 or cr 500.
-
i want a motor that stops reving when you shut the throttle.
Well that's a little like having your cake and eating it too. I ride a CR and KX500, and I'll tell you neither bike does that. But the CR by design does so a hell of a lot more than the KX. But it's a double edged sword. I'm sure I don't have to describe how the Honda feels in comparison. It's not as tractable as the KX. The heavy crank and flywheel prevent the motor from spooling up as fast. Producing the majority of the KX's legendary tractor prowess. Consequently it prevents the motor from slowing down as well. The best way to avoid this is to keep the motor out of the upper rpm, where it takes the longest to calm down. I can't answer for sure how they increased the weight, if I remember right they just made the two components heavier. But between the years '90-'92 Kawasaki increased the weight of those parts to tame the bike down. Much like Honda added the buick silencer, decompression scallops and wider gears.
Again I ride both red and green machines. So I don't have a problem with either one. I just choose not to ride the KX when I have to change direction very often. The KX500 would be a great platform engine for one of those 2moto snowbikes.
-
the cr 500 has a heavyer crank. i hate to end your party. there is a reason why both motors don't have the same power delivery.
-
You think that the cr steers better kx mick?
There both not bad, a hell lot better than a ktm 525!
I ride the kx more on the pipe so it hits les when the rpm climbs. Works greet in heavy sand tracks, for hardpack its a bit more scarry.
You're never going to get your KX to run anything like Goebers non power valved, steel sleeved Honda
I have seen honda's with power valve's, George Jobe had one. And Stefan Everts rode it 10 years later or so at Namur in his 250 frame.
Dutchie
-
I have seen honda's with power valve's, George Jobe had one. And Stefan Everts rode it 10 years later or so at Namur in his 250 frame.
Really...well I wasn't aware of that. I'd sure like to have a look at one of them.
Kaw rider, this isn't an argument, or even up for debate. A person doesn't need scales to feel the difference. An '01 CR crank is a 1/3 the weight of an '89 KX (and lesser still than late model KX's). I don't know where you miss read that at, or who tricked you into thinking otherwise. My postal scales don't lie or leave anything up for interpretation.
there is a reason why both motors don't have the same power delivery.
Yes the KX's power valve has much to do with it's broad torquey delivery of power.
Like I said this isn't an argument. You can post why you think the CR crank is heavier and that's fine. I probably won't say otherwise. I provided legit information as to the comparison of an '01 CR and '89 KX. If I put both cranks on the scales and posted a picture somebody is still bound to disbelieve.
-
mick
it's cool. it doesn't matter, because these motors are set up complete different from the head to the ignition.
i don't know what year cr 500 crank that i have, maybe they did some changes at one time.
-
Yes they are. And Kawasaki certainly knew how to build one wicked fast usable one at that. I don't think they've won as many championships on any other bike as the KX500.
-
Really...well I wasn't aware of that. I'd sure like to have a look at one of them.
That would be great Mick, Maybe its a kx replica :-D :-D
It looked like normal bore and stroke but with HPP. Everts run the 10 year old exhaust on his HRC 250/500, becase nothing new would fit. A former 500GP rider told me about it. So we take a good look at the beast.
Dutchie