Here it is:
VFR vs F800:
The VFR made only 89.2 ponies, I mean I know different dynos give different numbers but F800 made 79.3 which seems to be in line with what I know. Shouldn't VFR give something around 96 horses?
Overall I liked the article.
[image: View Post]arrow, on Aug 18 2008, 11:23 PM, said:
Here it is:
VFR vs F800:
The VFR made only 89.2 ponies, I mean I know different dynos give different numbers but F800 made 79.3 which seems to be in line with what I know. Shouldn't VFR give something around 96 horses?
Overall I liked the article.
sorry, link didn't work for me.
P.PM
I read that same article earlier this evening and thought the same thing. Maybe this VFR was a little "weak"? The author seemed to prefer the BMW which surprised me until I figured out she only weighed about a hundred lbs. And the Beemer had been lowered.
[image: View Post]PolarBear, on Aug 19 2008, 01:24 AM, said:
[image: View Post]arrow, on Aug 18 2008, 11:23 PM, said:
Here it is:
VFR vs F800:
The VFR made only 89.2 ponies, I mean I know different dynos give different numbers but F800 made 79.3 which seems to be in line with what I know. Shouldn't VFR give something around 96 horses?
Overall I liked the article.
sorry, link didn't work for me.
P.PM
:+1:
[image: View Post]tyrroneous, on Aug 19 2008, 05:03 PM, said:
Try this:
Motorcycle.com F800 vs VFR comparo
Thanks. Sorry for the broken link guys...
Didn't Cycleworld do the same test last year? I think they rated the VFR better...But I'll have to go look
Like everything else its all about what you like :biggrin:
[image: View Post]dweese, on Aug 19 2008, 11:07 AM, said:
Didn't Cycleworld do the same test last year? I think they rated the VFR better...But I'll have to go look
Like everything else its all about what you like :biggrin:
Motorcyclist did the same comparo. I wonder if these guys got the bikes next. :rolleyes:
interesting read, and the bikes do at least have a few similarities. the belt drive thing has always been of interest to me... that was one of the nice (ok, the bestest) things about my Sportster was just... looking at the belt. no adjustment, no stretching, no lubing, no grease, it just sits there and works.
When I bought my 2003 i sewar the MSO said 105 or 109 Hp on it. I was quite impressed with that when I saw that. That 89. what ever horses make no sense to me. But that was on the MSO.....
Pretty fair and good comparo IMO. The only issues I'd raise are:
-VFR Dyno # seems low compared to everything I've read both here and in mag reviews. Should be in the upper 90s.
-Considering how many people here say they want more power out of the VFR, it seems odd that a BMW with even less hp would win a comparo. Different riding styles, rider weights, purposes, solo vs. 2-up, lighter BMW...all factors here, but most people want more power, not less.
-One thing most review and comparos leave out is cost to service the bikes. And that's unfortunate considering what I've heard about BMW dealer service costs being high compared to most Big 4 dealers' costs. That should have been a factor here.
-Should have pointed out that the VFR takes 87 unleaded after she mentioned the BMW takes premium. Figuring premium to cost $0.30 more on average, and using $3.70/gallon and $4.00/gallon as the prices, by my calculations with the fuel economy quoted in the article (and I think 38 mpg on the VFR is a little low, but whatever) the BMW will cost about one penny less per mile in fuel. Not much of a difference, but she did correctly point out the VFR's advantage in fuel range.