Firefly
Active member
I got the numbers from BRP spec sheets.
I don't see where it says the redline is 7,250.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.
998cc VS 1330cc engines
- Thread starter south GA Farm Boy
- Start date
I got the numbers from BRP spec sheets.
I don't see where it says the redline is 7,250.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Warlock, That spec sheet only shows Peak Power & Max Torque, it doesn't show how high you can actually REV the motor, that's what the Red-line is for, & there IS a difference between Peak Power & Maximum Revs!! 
Just as an aside, there's an often used saying around here to the effect that Power is How Fast you can hit a tree; Torque is How Far you will move it when you hit it!! :shocked:
Revving your engine beyond whatever revs deliver Peak Power or Max Torque might not add a heap more acceleration or grunt to whatever you are doing because those are the points where the engine will be at its most capable in delivering power or torque, but at the cost of decreasing efficiency revving harder can add to your speed as you (slowly?) wind the revs out beyond the Peak Power Revs right out to the Red-line - hey, if there wasn't anything controlling that (like was often the case on old school non-electronic motors) you could probably keep on revving harder than the red-line & going even faster & faster, at least until the valves started bouncing or the engine blew up!!
Just as an aside, there's an often used saying around here to the effect that Power is How Fast you can hit a tree; Torque is How Far you will move it when you hit it!! :shocked:
Revving your engine beyond whatever revs deliver Peak Power or Max Torque might not add a heap more acceleration or grunt to whatever you are doing because those are the points where the engine will be at its most capable in delivering power or torque, but at the cost of decreasing efficiency revving harder can add to your speed as you (slowly?) wind the revs out beyond the Peak Power Revs right out to the Red-line - hey, if there wasn't anything controlling that (like was often the case on old school non-electronic motors) you could probably keep on revving harder than the red-line & going even faster & faster, at least until the valves started bouncing or the engine blew up!!
Warlock
New member
Warlock, That spec sheet only shows Peak Power & Max Torque, it doesn't show how high you can actually REV the motor, that's what the Red-line is for, & there IS a difference between Peak Power & Maximum Revs!!
Just as an aside, there's an often used saying around here to the effect that Power is How Fast you can hit a tree; Torque is How Far you will move it when you hit it!! :shocked:
Revving your engine beyond whatever revs deliver Peak Power or Max Torque might not add a heap more acceleration or grunt to whatever you are doing because those are the points where the engine will be at its most capable in delivering power or torque, but at the cost of decreasing efficiency revving harder can add to your speed as you (slowly?) wind the revs out beyond the Peak Power Revs right out to the Red-line - hey, if there wasn't anything controlling that (like was often the case on old school non-electronic motors) you could probably keep on revving harder than the red-line & going even faster & faster, at least until the valves started bouncing or the engine blew up!!
I knew it didn't show redline. He wanted to see where Firefly got his numbers. Peak engine rpm differs from red line rpms
David
Last edited:
Bob Denman
New member
That's true...
They dropped the 990 series engines after 2012, and started using the 991 across the entire line-up.
crazycanuck
New member
not so interesting info here 
Devious56
New member
Yes, that was one of my assumptions, when I re-read it, I realize it could e confusing.
David VonStein
widowmaker2011
Member
Interestingly enough , do the power to weight ratio on the rs vs the f3 and its going to come down to handling/rider. the f3 does not have a measurable advantage otherwise ....... But doing 25,000 miles on a 2012 RTS and now test riding a new 1330 RTS , these are 2 vastly different motors.
PistonBlown
Active member
If we're comparing stats
0-60 Times
GS/RS pre 2013, 990 series engine, 4.5 seconds (2009 model tested)
RS 2013 onwards, 991 series engine, 4.6 seconds (2013 model tested)
F3, exact model not specified, 4.8 seconds (2015 model tested)
So as we've noted before, as the years have gone by Spyders have got fatter and slower - I can relate to that
Buckeye Bleau
New member
. :roflblack:If we're comparing stats
0-60 Times
GS/RS pre 2013, 990 series engine, 4.5 seconds (2009 model tested)
RS 2013 onwards, 991 series engine, 4.6 seconds (2013 model tested)
F3, exact model not specified, 4.8 seconds (2015 model tested)
So as we've noted before, as the years have gone by Spyders have got fatter and slower - I can relate to that
Brilliant, I am not sure where the data is from or if it was controlled, but it does answer the original question. CONCLUSION:"We are splitting hairs here! "
But the closing comment may be may be the most accurate statement on this entire thread.
Joe
Firefly
Active member
If we're comparing stats
0-60 Times
GS/RS pre 2013, 990 series engine, 4.5 seconds (2009 model tested)
RS 2013 onwards, 991 series engine, 4.6 seconds (2013 model tested)
F3, exact model not specified, 4.8 seconds (2015 model tested)
So as we've noted before, as the years have gone by Spyders have got fatter and slower - I can relate to that
Was this on a track under a controlled environment? Multiple runs averaged? Same rider?
0-60 times will vary greatly..... especially from rider to rider. The takeoff is everything. I've run both my GS and RT on the strip at Spyderfest.. neither I would consider 'fast'. The GS was pretty quick though.. depending on the takeoff. With the F3 you're probably better off starting in 2nd gear.
Last time at the drags at Spyderfest there was a husband and wife.. both on F3's.. I believe semi-auto's who were beating everyone. But again.. the rider and the takeoff will make or break the whole race. The low center of gravity along with tamed-down nanny allows the F3 to take corners faster....if that's your thing.
crazycanuck
New member
Bob Denman
New member
If you buy a vehicle based upon it's 0 to 60 times: that about like buying it because you like how their cruise control operates... :shocked:
It's only one very small factor...
It's only one very small factor...
Firefly
Active member
I wasn't gonna go there... but yup......:shocked:
AY4B
New member
:firstplace: OR how you drive in relation to tire wear, MPG and Miles between fillups. I love my ST but sure would like to get more miles per tank of gas without trying to baby my beast.
DannyStaggers
New member
I just traded a 13 for a 19. The 13 had the twin, and the 19 has the Ace. Even though the new 19's are stripped versions of the Limited, and I don't recommend ANYONE buy one if you expect all the bells and whistles, I really like the Ace motor. The problem with the twins is they scream all the time. The triple barely makes a whimper. At 62 mph the twin turns 5,200 rpms. The triple turn 3,200 at the same speed. To me, that's more like it. I've never had it past 4,000 because of the speeds involved.
The Ace is the engine. To bad the bike itself isn't.
The Ace is the engine. To bad the bike itself isn't.
WisconsinDavid
Member
I'm new to spyders (1 season), so some day I may choose to get out the wallet and move up from my '10 RS. I've gotten used to being in tune with the unique powerband of the RS. It is so different than any other bike I've owned. The power is sufficient to keep me smiling... either 1 up or 2 up. I paid a touch under 8k for it and have put some nice upgrades on it. With the lower purchase cost, I can afford a lot of gasoline. I'm learning to do much of the maintenance on my own. So... time will tell as the miles go up what the experience with this new arachnid will be. This thread is interesting, to see the different perspectives on the different BRP products. Who knows what is ahead for BRP (or, perhaps, other newcomers to the 3 wheel marketplace)?
Wahrsuul
Active member
I test rode a 2010 RT SE5. If that was all that was available, I wouldn't be riding a Spyder now. The engine is unsitable for a touring ryde for me, I couldn't stand having to scream the engine all the time. I don't mind it on a performance bike, but I prefer my touring rig to be more sedate.
ARtraveler
R.I.P. Dwayne
2014 or higher will get you the 1330/3. That should be more to your liking. I have a 2011 RT SE5 and a 2014 RT-S. They are both great...but...I do like the 14 better. And for one of the same reasons as you mentioned.
wingit3611
Member
This thread is 998 vs 1330. I hear different referanc to Engine size at times for the 998. Some say 990 (size? or series?), some say 998cc, now the 991 for 2013's. What is a series 991 engine?
[ GS/RS pre 2013, 990 series engine, RS 2013 onwards, 991 series engine, ]
[ GS/RS pre 2013, 990 series engine, RS 2013 onwards, 991 series engine, ]
Similar threads
