RE: better mpg with 17T front sprocket??
Login  | |
|
RE: better mpg with 17T front sprocket?? - 6/21/2008 7:17:02 PM
|
|
|
RCR
Posts: 1415
Joined: 6/16/2007
Status: offline
|
Hell I get max 30 per gallon if I ride it nice. I do average about 25 most of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: better mpg with 17T front sprocket?? - 6/23/2008 6:28:38 AM
|
|
|
gearhead
Posts: 40
Joined: 7/24/2006
Status: offline
|
I''ve got no problem "paying to play". The question asked was "will it fit". I disagree with the statement that rpm''''''''s will be so low that the motor will be "lugging", it will be at 5200+rpms at freeway speeds (80 in AZ). And why would the clutch be harmed? This gearing is only 6% steeper than stock! You guys sound like I am trying to make a huge gearing change. Its not like I''''''''m trying to launch from a standstill in 3rd gear. It will not do the stock 60-80 or 80-100 top gear roll on times with this gearing obviously will make it a tad slower. What I am trying to do is to get the max mpg out of my bike for commuting, I am quite impressed that I am consistently getting better mpg''''''''s than my friends 600rr (38), I want to see what the 954 is capable of doing. Yet another thing the 954 kicks a$$ at. I can swap my sprocket and change my speedo healer setting in 20 minutes when I want to go play in the canyons. Also my 520 X chain and rear sprocket are almost new so why would they have to change? The change in length is almost negible.
< Message edited by gearhead -- 6/23/2008 6:39:10 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: better mpg with 17T front sprocket?? - 6/23/2008 11:47:18 AM
|
|
|
Hcstreetriding
Posts: 741
Joined: 3/16/2008
Status: offline
|
your right about the engine lugging, i would not happen at freeway speeds. You would be fine there and, bottom line, yes, in theory, you would get better gas mileage on the freeway. Theory is not alway right though so who knows.
It will be hard on the clutch. Thats like taking off in second gear every time, and that will stress your clutch more.
since its so easy to change out the sproket and healer just do it and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: better mpg with 17T front sprocket?? - 6/23/2008 12:18:46 PM
|
|
|
Nealio240z
Posts: 162
Joined: 5/12/2008
Status: offline
|
If they sell that size sprocket for the front- then it should fit right?. Stop talking bout it and just do it already, you can always change it back... I dont know if anyone has done it or not. Most 954 riders have the bike for sport riding and ripping the twistys- not so much for mpg... Do it and see what happens. Then tell us about it, so we can learn from your experience.
(id only be concerned with "lugging" if it was stop and go traffic.)
_____________________________
It takes many screws to build a crib, but only one to fill it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: better mpg with 17T front sprocket?? - 6/23/2008 1:51:07 PM
|
|
|
rsracer
Posts: 45
Joined: 3/19/2006
Status: offline
|
I can''t believe you''re getting a 17T front sprocket that''s retarded. Hopefully you realize that''s like going -3 in the back. You said you already have a 43 in the rear, holy shit, that''s gonna be like 16/40, jesus, why not buy a scooter!
Your clutch is gonna be goner and you''ll have absolutely nothing off the get go.....Maybe you can hit 170 now though? who knows, but this idea is the dumbest thing i''ve heard in a long time!
To each their own!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: better mpg with 17T front sprocket?? - 6/23/2008 2:13:59 PM
|
|
|
PlayfulGod
Posts: 3387
Joined: 6/9/2007
From: Dalton, GA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gearhead
I''''ve got no problem "paying to play". The question asked was "will it fit". I disagree with the statement that rpm''''''''''''''''s will be so low that the motor will be "lugging", it will be at 5200+rpms at freeway speeds (80 in AZ). And why would the clutch be harmed? This gearing is only 6% steeper than stock! You guys sound like I am trying to make a huge gearing change. Its not like I''''''''''''''''m trying to launch from a standstill in 3rd gear. It will not do the stock 60-80 or 80-100 top gear roll on times with this gearing obviously will make it a tad slower. What I am trying to do is to get the max mpg out of my bike for commuting, I am quite impressed that I am consistently getting better mpg''''''''''''''''s than my friends 600rr (38), I want to see what the 954 is capable of doing. Yet another thing the 954 kicks a$$ at. I can swap my sprocket and change my speedo healer setting in 20 minutes when I want to go play in the canyons. Also my 520 X chain and rear sprocket are almost new so why would they have to change? The change in length is almost negible.
they wont be if you go swaping diff sprockets in n out. They will get ate up n wear out prematurely. Then will those few extra mpg be worth it??
_____________________________
For All your Hosting Needs, TechyGeek.com,
SBG
|
|
|
|
|
RE: better mpg with 17T front sprocket?? - 6/24/2008 5:52:25 PM
|
|
|
Nealio240z
Posts: 162
Joined: 5/12/2008
Status: offline
|
ill second that...
_____________________________
It takes many screws to build a crib, but only one to fill it...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: better mpg with 17T front sprocket?? - 6/25/2008 9:06:32 PM
|
|
|
gearhead
Posts: 40
Joined: 7/24/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rsracer
I can''''''''t believe you''''''''re getting a 17T front sprocket that''''''''s retarded. Hopefully you realize that''''''''s like going -3 in the back. You said you already have a 43 in the rear, holy shit, that''''''''s gonna be like 16/40, jesus, why not buy a scooter!
Your clutch is gonna be goner and you''''''''ll have absolutely nothing off the get go.....Maybe you can hit 170 now though? who knows, but this idea is the dumbest thing i''''''''ve heard in a long time!
To each their own!
Whats "retarded" and "dumb" is bending over and doing nothing every time Exxon/Chevron/Texaco jacks the price up more. Yes i realize 1 tooth up front is approx equal to 3 in the rear. Thanks for pointing that out, I think I clearly indicated gear ratios in the beginning of the post. And I''''m sure that a 6% gear reduction over stock will still have get go up the ying yang AND the clutch will be just fine. Probably still capable of 10s ET''''s with this gearing. It is a 154hp 954. Scooter my ass.
< Message edited by gearhead -- 6/25/2008 9:16:39 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: better mpg with 17T front sprocket?? - 6/25/2008 9:09:10 PM
|
|
|
TK954RR
Posts: 3712
Joined: 12/3/2006
From: Green Bay WI
Status: offline
|
It will fit, chain should be fine, will be curious on the results. Post em up when you run a tank or 2 thru her if you dont mind.
_____________________________
 
milk, milk, lemonaide, around the corner is where fudge is made.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: better mpg with 17T front sprocket?? - 6/25/2008 9:10:58 PM
|
|
|
PlayfulGod
Posts: 3387
Joined: 6/9/2007
From: Dalton, GA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gearhead
quote:
ORIGINAL: rsracer
I can''''''''''''''''t believe you''''''''''''''''re getting a 17T front sprocket that''''''''''''''''s retarded. Hopefully you realize that''''''''''''''''s like going -3 in the back. You said you already have a 43 in the rear, holy shit, that''''''''''''''''s gonna be like 16/40, jesus, why not buy a scooter!
Your clutch is gonna be goner and you''''''''''''''''ll have absolutely nothing off the get go.....Maybe you can hit 170 now though? who knows, but this idea is the dumbest thing i''''''''''''''''ve heard in a long time!
To each their own!
Whats "retarded" and "dumb" is bending over and doing nothing every time Exxon/Chevron/Texaco jacks the price up more. Yes i realize 1 tooth up front is approx equal to 3 in the rear. Thanks for pointing that out, I think I clearly indicated gear ratios in the beginning of the post. And I''''''''m sure that a 6% gear reduction over stock will still have get go up the ying yang AND the clutch will be just fine. Probably still capable of 10s ET''''''''s with this gearing. It is a 154hp 954. Scooter my ass.
remember that when a ford focus leaves you at a redlight. I understand your reason why. I just think it will make it leave like its in second gear.  and over all not net the results you are after.
_____________________________
For All your Hosting Needs, TechyGeek.com,
SBG
|
|
|
|
|
RE: better mpg with 17T front sprocket?? - 6/25/2008 11:48:28 PM
|
|
|
Hcstreetriding
Posts: 741
Joined: 3/16/2008
Status: offline
|
ok ok you all are being way too hard on Gearhead!!! he is not as dumb as you all think. his idea will kill the idea of a sport bike, which most of us have downgeared for greater low end performance, but no focus, or any ford(fix or repair daily) for that matter(maybe a chevy would) is going to leave the 54 at a light downgeard or upgeared. It will be hard on the clutch, no doubt but its not going to **** it all to hell like you all are saying, im sure there are people with real mechanical back ground out here that know what im saying and that are not stupid enough to say that its going to take a 50,000 mile clutch and wear it down in 10,000 miles, not even close, ive done this shit for years on cars and trucks it may take a 50,000 mile clutch and reduce it to 40,000 miles but its not going to make that huge of a difference. and swapping out the sprockets is not going to make difference either if it is done properly and with the proper sizes. I didnt want to get into this earlier but thats just stupid. Im fairly tired of reading the nonsense in this thread from people that dont have a clue what their talking about. get smrt!! and yes that is S-M-R-T smart.
Gearhead do it and prove all these guys wrong, i support your idea, somewhat, i really think its pointless to worry that much about money, but if you are going to worry about money and want to get every penny out of your buck then do it. I back you!
|
|
|
|
 Today's Posts
Most Active Topics
Make A Donation
Forum Rules & FAQ
RSS Feeds
Advertising Info
|
Contact Us |
Advertising |
Automotive Directory |
About Us |
Archive |
Honda CBR Motorcycle Links |
Legal |
Privacy Policy |
© CBR Forum
CBR Forum .com is not affiliated with or endorsed by Honda Motor Company.
|
Printable Version
RE: better mpg with 17T front sprocket?? - 
