Trust me, a Turbo bike is much harder to controll than a N/A bike. A Turbo makes the bike very difficult to ride in twisty stuff. The power band isn't very linear or predictable. So not having the experience for a Liter bike, you should really stay away from anything turbo. Also your aftermarket exhaust will be removed with the turbo kit.scott_madison1 said:i dont feel i have the experience for a litre bike yet. and honestly a litre bike doesnt have the manuverability that a 600 does. see ive also got an aftermarket exhaust, and a powercommander on this bike. so ill be pushing more than 137.
btw, thanks for the dr. turbo info.
Cost I could understand, if you wern't about to blow 3k on a Turbo kit. Weight, Most current liter bikes weight as much as or less than your F4i. I know my 2000 929 is only 9lbs heavier than your f4i, and it's far from the lightest liter bike out there right now.scott_madison1 said:well what i meant by not having the experience, i do have the experience, i just dont want a bike that heavy, or that costs that much.
You know I never heard anybody else mention a triple until you just now.. My dad used to own one of those. :headbangboostnsrt said:if you raelly want to feel the difference go buy, or borrow an old h3 kawasaki 2 stroke triple. power comes on really hard and the powerband is narrow. for example the bike might be making 60 horses from 3000 to 6500 rpm then between 7000 and 8000 the bike makes 100. 3rd gear wheelies back in the 1970's
Eh, I think a 2004 1000rr/10r/R1/GSXR 1k would give a 137hp f4i a problem. Especially on the top end where the turbos advantage starts to run out. Most of the new liter bikes dyno at 150ish to the rear wheel, vs a 137hp f4i turbo. Not to mention most of the new liter bikes are sharper and lighter than the f4i.Jammin_Johnny said:Try and rethink that one.