Mine used to always start within 3 to 5 rotations, practically every time. In the last year or two it takes a little more cranking and I now use the cold start lever, but a couple blips of the throttle and it comes to life. Once it's warm it's back to just a couple revs to fire. ETA: I'm around the 16k mile mark. I need to do the clutch spring cups before spring, but it's going to be 66F here tomorrow...
No one will know if they fuel the same as a Husky 630 until someone gets their hands on one and does some testing. I'd assume that the ecu is a straight carry over and the characteristics are the same. Plenty rich at low rpm - borderline dangerously lean at high rpm/high load. .
Hi What means "ETA"? On the other hand I’m a bit curious. Are you going to make it because it is needed or “just in case”. My bike has 14.000km and I’ll wait till the next oil change to check it (let’s say, at 20.000 km). Thank you
Hi, Dynobob. Finally my account was approved, as you can see One question. I show a pic of a piece of the “bike's technical card”. May be I’m a bit naïve, but as far as I know, these cards should show the right figures about the bike. For example, it says “158kg” dry weight (what I think is correct) and it says 42kw (56HP) what it is (I think) what we expect from this bike. Nevertheless (I’m not sure if I’m confused) you made the Dyno test and the results were not so good. Is Husqvarna lying to the legal authorities? Is it the government's obligation to ensure that these data are correct? I think the data sheet of the bike has to tell the truth ... and so my TE630 should have 56Hp What do you think? (BTW, 3,71 is related to tax, not power horses)
My g/f TE 630 she bought new has half your miles. We took her clutch basket out to install the Indy washers. Some basket fingers are beat and her cup washers are worn with groves in them, and she is pretty easy on her bike. Don't put the Indy washers off any longer! Your cup washers and basket are sheading metal, but maybe not chucks... yet.
Their hp number is accurate but manufacturers quote crank hp not rear wheel hp. You have about 15% loss thru the tranny and drivetrain. 56-15%=47rwhp. .
Unless you plan on racing (the TE630 is not a race bike!) you have plenty of horsepower. Except for CJ Brown; he would probably like more!
Of course I’m not planning racing with the TE630. In fact I have her small sister, the TE310 which is more suitable for racing. I´m only curious about the real HP. As far as I know, Husqvarna claimed 56HP… what I’m not sure is if this figure is about crank or wheel. I suppose, as Dinobob say, on the crank. Good for me. KTM 690 claimed 67hp for a 690cc single. Make sense (56hp 600cc and 67hp 690cc) being TE630’s engine more powerful at the bottom rpm
I dont understand quoting crank Hp. Theres no way of measuring it directly from the crank. The only point available on these bikes to measure power from is the gearbox output shaft.There are frictional and parasitic losses after the crank, generating electricity, pumping coolant and oil. So how is the crank hp isolated? How much Hp can the final drive chain sap? The only true measure is whats being put on the ground, they could be plucking the crank numbers out their a$$es for all i know.
If the engine was driven from the output shaft by an electric motor and the load on the motor measured, then a measure of the losses could me made. The engine would have to have all the fluids at the correct levels and be connected to a battery so the charging system was under load.
Crank hp has always been the accepted practice in the automotive/motorcycle world. They are doing all engine development on an engine dyno because it eliminates a lot of variables (health of a clutch/tranny/chain, tire condition/pressure). A google shows that stock 2012 KTM 690 make low 50s on a rear wheel dyno. It really just a matter of OEM measuring where they do their development and it being easier for us to measure at the wheel. (also ford isn't going to switch to rwhp numbers if chevy is still using crank) .
On a built chevy motor or any other motor where the gearbox is a seperate unit, then Hp measured from the crank is acceptable, because it IS measured from the crank and it may be up to the customer to fit the gearbox that best suits their application. Our engine isnt pre unit, so theres no way to measure direct from the crank. That was the point i was trying to make.
I wonder how they could measure it at the crank, too. If you want to utilize the gear on the crank on the right hand side, you should remove the cover, which includes the oil pump. Therefore, lubricating the engine would become quite complicated and probably a different lubrication would affect the performance. Maybe -I'm just imaginating- at the factory they have a specific cover with a shaft which passes through it. At the end of this imaginary shaft there should be a cog which would engage with the crank gear, in an engine where the cluth and its shaft have been removed. So, maybe the factory has a way to do that, but what about all the magazines and the online websites where they claim power values at the crankshaft? How have they measured the power?
There is a code or standard for that. Results from wheel dynos are so variable that comparing the results from two different bikes that were not tested on the same dyno on the same day is pointless. The manufactures generally follow SAE (hp) or DIN (ps) standardized testing methods so that numbers are comparable not only between manufactures but also corrects test data to standard atm conditions. For example, here's the SAE standard for small non-road going engines less than 1000cc. http://standards.sae.org/j1940_201210/
Is it going to be crippled from the factory and require a PU unit, or will it be full power from the start My dealer put a small piece of metal in my hand that looks suspiciously like a throttle stop and registered it full power. It does not have the airbox labyrinth. I don't have a te630 to compare it to or a dyno. With 600k on it it seems to make massively more power that my old klr less than my dl650 and is hugely more responsive than either. Lighter I guess. I'm impressed with chassis spec and performance at the price point. I can forgive a lot of character to get that. Ultimate power shoot outs are for the Hayabusa crowd...
I've kept an eye on it, and filed the fingers smooth once and replaced the basket bushing, but the spring cups were still in one piece and not worn thin at 12k miles, I must have had some with a good heat treat, and I'm not gentle with my SMS....
If they haven't changed anything in the ecu your bike is probably very lean at high rpm/high load conditions. I would not run the bike hard at high speed until you know more. Detonation is beating the piston, head gasket, and rod bearings hard. I could not hear the detonation even sitting still on the dyno pulls and the bike felt strong enough when riding. It was very lean though. Someone will put one of these on a dyno before long and we'll know. If they've changed the ecu it might be better now but I wouldn't bet this happened. .
In my opinion, if your dealer has only removed a "throttle stop" and your bike runs good, something has been done at the ECU. As far as I know, most of the TE630, before installing the PU had a horrible performance, specially at low rpm. I mean, the engine hesitates where you are at the throttle at low rpm. If you don't complaint about it, my mind is that something has been done. By the way, could you make a pic of the subframe to see if something has been changed? Or if you have no time to take pics, may be you can check by looking at this thread if something has changed... http://www.cafehusky.com/threads/te-630-sub-frame-mod.22225/ Thank you
Euro spec ecu may have been slightly different than US, but I doubt it - they seem to be at least as stringent as EPA/CARB on emissions if not more. Which is why the motor design was scrapped by BMW because there was no way to make it meet the new tighter emissions requirements. It is the last of a long line of racing 4T motors from the Italian design, originating out of the original Swedish design. It's a good one, it puts out a lot of power, but evidently it cannot be made to the new specs as designed. All modern racing 4-strokes have emulated this design, they were the pioneers. And why KTM aquired Husaberg which was a spin-off from Husqvarna. The boys from Sweden didn't want to work for the Italians at Cagiva. KTM also got the suspension tech with that aquisition as well. Also why the re-joining of Husqvarna and Husaberg under KTM is so remarkable. It's gone full circle. For 2011 the ecu was set to allow it to meet the emission regs but it severely hobbled its performance. In that era most engines were thought to be re-tuned for best performance after it was delivered to market. The 630 was no exception. Super lean fueling with an intake restriction and catalyzed exhaust to get it to meet emissions. Other road-going bikes in earlier years had CV carbs and stuffed up mufflers that were changed for standard carbs and straight-thru exhaust. IIRC the DR and XR's are still being made that way, and hence why they are so down on power. My assumption is that you would get much better running and performance by modifying the ECU settings with the i-Beat program and DynoBob's numbers based on your mods. Short of putting it on a dyno and running tunes this is the best you can do. And yes, it definitely bumps the power. Mine starts easier, runs smoother, and pulls all the way up now. Power used to taper off after about 5K rpm, now it keeps pulling to redline. And I used moderate settings so as to try to maintain my fuel economy. I can still get pretty close to 50mpg. Likely a precise measurement would show a bit less, but it's still very good. Very happy with the setup.
