Blows raspberries at the mods....

Message

D-Rider · #16 Post by **D-Rider** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:13 am

My understanding was that the engines of the early Falcos and Milles were the same but when the Mille engine was revised (bigger valves is one of the things that is often quoted), the Falco stuck with the old engine. (BTW I'm not meaning the 2004 onward revision which was much more comprehensive).

Exhaust and air box ducts are different - giving the Falco a bit more mid-range and the Mille a tad more top end.

I think most of the "Falco is a detuned Mille" stuff that's written is media ignorance or comparison of the Falco engine with the newer Mille engine.

There again, I don't know for sure - this is just from info I've picked up and interpreted. I could be completely wrong.

Aladinsaneuk · #17 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:37 am

well, I just emailed aprilia to ask them - they probably will not respond but you never know

#18 Post by **Kwackerz** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:04 pm

Im sure Ive seen early Mille and Falcos back to back on Dynos in West Kingsdown and Im sure they were different powerwise.

Lemme go check a site or two see what I can come up with..

Aladinsaneuk · #19 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:18 pm

from what I have found - the original falco produced 118 BHP with a top speed of 156 - the 1999/2000 mille had 128 bhp with a top speed of 165.

problem is, when I get the dyno done, my bike is not in any way standard now....

I will try calling STR tomorrow morning and see if I can get the bike in over next few days

#20 Post by **Kwackerz** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:23 pm

Hmm.. I can find a standard X reg SL kicking out 106.4 @9413rpm at the wheel (DIN) and an early Mille kicking out 112.4 @ 9413rpm at the wheel (DIN)

Only one says that it's not in restricted form so can only assume theyre both fully breathing and have had the collar removed and the wires cut.

That does seem to replicate across the various dynos for the two models with the Mille coming out on top.

Naturally I am Mille biased... well someone on this Site has to be!!

http://www.renegade-products.com/renega ... 1069694911

http://www.renegade-products.com/renega ... 1076523205

Aladinsaneuk · #21 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:35 pm

that makes sense - roughly 10 bhp difference between the two - ok, ok, so i am shite at maths LOl but 6 bhp in real terms is probably 10 in manufacturers terms

Gio · #22 Post by **Gio** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:45 pm

Aladinsaneuk wrote:from what I have found - the original falco produced 118 BHP with a top speed of 156 - the 1999/2000 mille had 128 bhp with a top speed of 165.

problem is, when I get the dyno done, my bike is not in any way standard now....

I will try calling STR tomorrow morning and see if I can get the bike in over next few days

I think you'll find those power figures are at the crank, at the rear wheel they'll be 10-15% lower.

Kwack didn't Jorge have a Falco in that was getting around 140 at the rear wheel?

#23 Post by **Kwackerz** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:47 pm

Trev's I think. 140 at the crank.

It was f****** powerful and sounded like the four horses of the apocalypse when you started it up.

The charts should be somewhere on those links I put up.

HowardQ · #24 Post by **HowardQ** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:18 pm

Different bikes give different readings on different Dynos, the first comparison I read was off an American site just before I bought my Falco 3 years ago. This was at the time when the Falco was restricted down to 80 odd BHP for the Yank market.
They carried out the "standard" Yank de-restriction on both bikes and ran em up on a dyno. Think they got around 5 BHP difference and were amazed that they were so close considering they started so far apart. They then swapped to race cans on the Falco, carried out some airbox and filter mods (think it was a K&N but may have been a Rene), and ran it up again and the difference was something like 2.25 bhp. Then decided it was a bit unfair as they had used race cans on the Falco!

Either way there ain't much difference between an early standard Mille and Falco (as normally found on this site!).
Later ones and R and Factory versions are a different story.

Aladinsaneuk · #25 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:33 pm

tried to get in for a dyno run today but with no success - was getting frisky and all as well

with the mods I have, am hoping to get towards 140 at the crank - but we will see

(Power commander, fuel cans with no baffles, evo air kit)

I even did the oil and plug change last night just in case....

But i did find something else to spend my money on - Super Competition 4618 from wp suspension... oh my it is lovely!

HowardQ · #26 Post by **HowardQ** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:33 pm

Think you'll find it's nearer 125 or 130 max at crank, (probably 112 to 115 max at back wheel, may be lower), you'll need higher compression big valve heads and more to get 140.
I was thinking of trying mine on a Dyno recently, when future so-in-law ran his 2002 R6 up, got 105 at wheel, this is with Aka race can and K&N, was intrigued as to how near they would be, but not got around to it yet.

#27 Post by **Kwackerz** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:37 pm

I'd rather have a Torquey Twin that grunts low down than a highly strung four..

Well, as far as Motorcycles go anyway...

I do like the sound of (a) four screaming tho...

Stoppit....

Gio · #28 Post by **Gio** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:39 pm

Doesn't really matter what power you get, unless the bikes set up to use it and the riders willing

Samray · #29 Post by **Samray** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:42 pm

Kwackerz wrote:I'd rather have a Torquay Twin that grunts low down than a highly strung four..

Well, as far as Motorcycles go anyway...

I do like the sound of (a) four screaming tho...

Stoppit....

I've heard about those Devon women !

#30 Post by **Kwackerz** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:43 pm

You'll go straight to hell fer that one...