Did they happen to give tourque ratings, and RPMs that they peak at? Nice that the Vulcan has the best HP, good for bragging rights.

 

I've had one of each of those mentioned, with the exception of the Yamaha 950, and my favorite was the Kaw, hands down..... Sold it for an older BMW, but still fondly look at the 900 when its setting at a dealership or curb......

 

Yes, they did, all the bikes peak torque was about 4000 rpm I believe.The kawasaki was about 50 and the yamaha and suzuki were almost the same.Those 3 bikes were close.

 

here are comparison of the 2010 versions. i googled this a few days ago because a the bike i am eyeing is a 2010
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/162/6...com/162/6064/Motorcycle-Article/2010-Kawasaki-Vulcan-900-Custom-Comparison.aspx
Kawaski does very well. there is a chart on each page with the respective bikes torque and hp ratings.

heres another link, pics and charts
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/1958/...58/Motorcycle-Photo-Gallery/2010-Harley-Davidson-Sportster-883L-Comparison.aspx

 

just depends what mag you read ....

http://www.cycleworld.com/2010/09/08/kawasaki-vulcan-900-classic-vs-star-v-star-950-comparison-test/

, in fact, the air-cooled V Star 950, thanks in part to its bigger displacement, makes more horsepower and torque than the Kawasaki

 

Can 50cc of displacement create enough difference that's it's going to be A) worth mentioning in a comparo article; or B) noticeable in real-world performance? I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but from a writer's standpoint I found that to be an odd, tacked-on line that stood out as feeling FORCED into the article, since it had no citations or relevant data to back the claim.

The OP's article actually claims the opposite, but maybe the Yammy soaks more power in the trans and primary, leading to lower RWHP? I'm a bit curious now.

 

If you're thinking of getting a 900ish cc bike for its horsepower, I think you might want to rethink your priorities.

The Vulcan 900 (and I'm guessing this to be true of the other bikes in the shootout) has a LOT of things going for it. Horsepower isn't one of them.

 

This guy didnt get slammed for a HP rip of the 900 lol. Its cause I got a 1600 and Mr big 1600 came in and pointed at lil 900 and said "you'll never make it up that hill, keep chugging" lol. Def not the case though.

Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App

 

The magazine is Rider Magazine.

 

Thanks Cole

 

Just finished reading this one off the Motorcycle USA page, it was comparing bikes that are women friendly. I like how on the side bar they had 0-60 times, braking, 1/4 mile, and weight. Kawa was the quickest 0-60, but about 3rd for the 1/4, braking was the worst along with weight. I always thought the Sportster was heavy, must just be badly balanced.
2012-Womens-Cruiser-Shootout

 

displacement has nothing to do with horsepower

very true. look at a R1 vs the V2K

If you're thinking of getting a 900ish cc bike for its horsepower, I think you might want to rethink your priorities.
The Vulcan 900 (and I'm guessing this to be true of the other bikes in the shootout) has a LOT of things going for it. Horsepower isn't one of them.

Also true, I take what is written in bike magazine with a grain of salt, besides the overall theme of the bike, I find generally, the rest of the article are subjective.

After being wined and dined by all the manufactures, are they really going to say anything really nasty about any bike.

There is nothing better than your own by the butt road test. One mans pleasure is another mans pain.

 

I didn't think I'd need to clarify, but I guess I will:

Would a difference of 50cc displacement between two V-twin cruiser motorcycle engines with similar design and application create a difference in power worth noting? The only major engineering difference in the two is the Kawi is liquid-cooled. A very similar comparison could be made between a Victory 106 and the VN1700. The 106 has 31 more CCs of displacement...and makes 1 more ft-lb. of advertised torque. By itself, that's sure not enough to make anyone stand up and go, "oh, well...that's worth pointing out." And I was more making a comment on the writer's choice of noting a difference in power without actually delivering any figures.

I was also hoping someone would find some official numbers to answer the question.

 

But as you know,displacement has nothing to do with horsepower..

well I think that statement is wrong... with all other things being equal displacement has EVERYTHING to do with horsepower......because if that previous statement were correct then an identically prepared chevy 267 sb and a 350 sb would make the same power....

 

Sometimes I think people lose sight of what is important; do you like your bike or not. HP is such a useless figure. So is torque. So is the weight of your bike. And gear ratios. And wind resistance. And displacement, etc. etc. etc.

That is, until you plug all of the numbers in to the equation. If HP was the defining factor in determine speed and acceleration, any drag race would be won by the vehicle with the most horsepower. Anyone that has ever watched a race knows this is simply not true. There are far too many factors in determining speed and power than looking at HP or torque or displacement alone.

I don't know my HP numbers. I don't know my torque numbers. I do know my displacement. All I care about is if my bike is comfortable, looks good (to me) and performs satisfactory to me. If you want to go super fast, get a ZX14. If you want to travel from Alaska to Key West, maybe look at a Gold Wing. If you enjoy breaking down, get a Harley. If you want to look cool, get a Vulcan.

I don't understand the hang up over a bike accelerating 0-60 .3 seconds faster or slower, or taking half a second longer in the quarter mile. Or taking 3 feet longer to stop form 60 mph. On any given day, an average rider would never EVER be able to notice a discernible difference between a bike and one that was .3 seconds slower 0-60. Riding is all about how the bike feels TO YOU, THE RIDER. All these shootouts are really valuable for is pointing out flaws such as "heat pouring off the engine while riding", or "Terrible clearance going around corners", Or "even our 5'3" rider felt cramped sitting on this bike". Etc.

I say go and test ride whatever bikes you like. Then decide, based on comfort, did it "fit you well", was it "fast enough"? HP and displacement be damned. (and any other figures people get fixated on.)

And don't forget, aftermarket parts can solve many issues (or perceived issues) anyways.

Didn't mean to ramble, just my $0.02. To sum it up, if you like it, buy it! If you don't, keep shopping.

 

It seems likeI started something here that has made some people get a little upset. 4 cylinder,6 cylinder, cylinder number wasnt the point i was making.The point was displacement has nothing to do with horsepower.if a 1500 makes more horsepower than a 900 it isnt because of displacement.My 1500 goldwing made a 100 hp.My ninja 750 made about 130 or so.That bike was impossible to ride by the way.My original point should have been in the comparison test the suzuki,yamaha, and vulcan were almost identical in hp and torque ratings in case you know someone or even yourself that is thinking about buying one or the other.The suzuki fit more riders with different inseams and the rear seat was more comfortable for a passenger.As one writer here so astutely pointed out none of us average riders would ever notice the difference in ground clearance,quarter mile times,0-60 etc.In short, the vulcan 900 makes 48.1 horsepower in case anyone wanted to know.Whether its 48 or 28, its enough to do what i want it to.I owned 2 goldwings.Yes with big seats, cruise control, reverse gears, torque and horsepower they would seem to be the ultimate touring machine.Not for me.I got tired of their extreme weight.Thats just me.My 900 would be better for a long trip for me.

 

I have a 2006 C50 and a 2012 Vulcan 900. Not much difference between the two actually.

The Vulcan is a little bigger and a little more powerful. The operative term is "little bit." Like in barely perceptible. The little bit bigger physically is the thing that tips it for me. The Vulcan is actually shorter by a 1/2 inch, I know this because one fits in my trailer and the other one doesn't by a half inch, but the overall bike feels bigger, beefier.

Another big difference is that it seems around 65,000 miles the C50 engine tends to need a rebuild. The Vulcan not so much.

So for me it's preference, I could own either one long term and be happy, (well at least until 65,000 miles!) The differences are small. Someone could like the C50 for it's strengths and be just as happy.

 

I agree qw.Each manufacturer makes sure,most likely has each of their competitors bikes in their r and d lab, to make sure their brand is no less bike than the other.

 

The honda's the smallest, great choice for smaller people. (My wife would love one of those, I'd look like an idiot on it.)

The Suzuki, Vulcan and Yamaha are all about the same with preferences for this and that for people who think one or another but all three would probably make most people happy who wanted one like that.

The Harley is what it is. Whatever that is.

 

sorry for the thread necro but I noticed the magazine finally got around to posting the reviews/comparisons on thier website; here are the links:

2013 Middleweight Metric Cruiser Comparo (main article)
http://www.ridermagazine.com/manufacturer/honda/2013-middleweight-metric-cruiser-comparo.htm/

Suzuki Boulevard C50 Special Edition
http://www.ridermagazine.com/manufacturer/suzuki/2013-suzuki-boulevard-c50-se-review.htm/

Star V Star 950
http://www.ridermagazine.com/style/cruiser/2013-star-v-star-950-review.htm/

Honda Shadow Aero
http://www.ridermagazine.com/manufacturer/honda/2013-honda-shadow-aero-review.htm/

Kawasaki Vulcan 900 Classic
http://www.ridermagazine.com/road-tests/2013-kawasaki-vulcan-900-classic-review.htm/