I am enjoying re-reading old motorcycle magazines, I rediscover bikes as well as topics that are still relevant, and others that are not.
WARNING: This will not interest many, if any, of you.
In the February 1984 Cycle magazine issue, they ran a test on the RG250 Gamma. At 335 lbs / 152 kg wet, it was very light for its day. Especially considering it had triple disc brakes and a 3/4 fairing.
What caught my attention, was how different the power delivery was between the bike tested by Cycle and the one tested by MOTORRAD. Cycle tested a bike made for the Japanese market, while MOTORRAD one for Europe. I am not aware of any tuning differences, so the differences are either due to production tolerances, or physical changes. Both versions made a claimed 45 hp at the crank.
On the dyno, the Cycle bike made 30 hp at the rear wheel, the MRD bike made 41 at the crank, which should leave about 36 hp at the wheel. A significant difference. However, while Cycle's bike made more power as revs climbed, the MRD bike had a significant drop around 5500 rpm. For the comparison below, I am not directly comparing apples to apples, because the numbers from the Cycle edition is rwhp, those from MRD are crank horses. Still, the trend is obvious.
Listed Cycle - MOTORRAD numbers
5000 rpm: 9 - 12
5500 rpm: 10 - 10
6000 rpm: 12 - 18
6500 rpm: 15 - 23
7000 rpm: 20 - 28
7500 rpm: 24 - 33
8000 rpm: 26 - 36
8500 rpm: 28 - 41
9000 rpm: 30 - 38
9500 rpm: 24 - N/A (not measured above 9200 rpm, as it was all done by then)
Cycle never tested top speed, but MOTORRAD did. The gearing was too short for maximum top speed, as the bike managed 166 kph (103.15 mph) with the rider sitting normally, and 167 kph (103.77) with the rider prone at 9200 rpm. Two-up it managed 144 kph (89.5 mph). This is also the only test I have seen where MOTORRAD beat the 1/4-mile time set by an American magazine. Although by just a tenth, the 1/4-mile times set by American magazines were typically substantially quicker than those made by European rags.
Average fuel consumption for the test was listed as 35.7 mpg (6.6 l/100 km) by Cycle, and 32.6 (7.2 l/100 km) by MRD. This was typical of the time, mostly due to the 55 mph speed limit in USA compared to the no speed limit of Germany on their respective highways. Curiously, these days I find the tests made by US magazines tend to list consumption figures well above those seen in Europe, for whatever reason. While the consumption in Europe have gone from typically 30-35 mpg (CBX only gave 23 mpg!) to typically 45-50 mpg, figures from let's say Cycle World appears to have done exactly the opposite.
Cudos to the person(s) who managed to read it all
