[DBSWANS]

these are not single pin cranks

i'm aware of that my comment was in to the sound over HP post above mine.

 

[spudbuzz]

Those 90s 1100 single pin (Harley sound) Shadows are down about 10 hp from the 2000s dual pins in stock form. The other factor for hp was if they came with 2 pipes or a 2 into 1 (more hp).

 

[skullcap]

Yeah, I considered a V&H 2-1 Pro Pipe just for that reason...

 

[vito]

From a manufacturing standpoint, they would not have nonidentical engines in different styles of the same bike in the same model year.

Someone here even thought one style had a single pin crankshaft, while another had dual pin. :roll: That is quite the nutty idea!

Some research shows this:
95-99 Ace (regular) had single pin crank. Tourers were dual pin.
98-02 Aero had a single pin.
The rest were dual pin.

The 95-99 Ace sure looks like "nonidentical engines in different styles of the same bike in the same model year".

 

[spudbuzz]

The thing is, my CB450 had only 8-9 HP less. :x



Your bike also needs around 3500-4000 more rpms to make that peak horsepower.

 

[spudbuzz]

The 1985 Shadow 1100 is not the same as the 2000s. It has a less restricted exhaust, fewer emission requirements, and a higher revving higher compression motor . It makes peak horsepower around 1000-1300 rpm higher. I don't think the 2000s will even rev to 6500 rpm.

Pretty much any 80s cruiser had more power than the 2000s versions. They had less power robbing emissions and noise requirements.

 

[Bobolto]

Some research shows this:
95-99 Ace (regular) had single pin crank. Tourers were dual pin.
98-02 Aero had a single pin.
The rest were dual pin.

The 95-99 Ace sure looks like "nonidentical engines in different styles of the same bike in the same model year".

Vito,

Thats what i love about this website, just when you think you know something someone tosses a wrench in there :neutral:

The 2011 Aero looks like a Single Pin Crankshaft to me, what am i not seeing here Vito?

Crankshaft for 2011 Honda shadow Aero VT750
2011 Honda VT750C A CRANKSHAFT | Cheap Cycle Parts

1999 Ace 750 Crankshaft
1999 Honda VT750C A CRANKSHAFT | Cheap Cycle Parts

 

[jpr1968]

The 750's are single pin cranks.

 

[Aufgeblassen]

Those 90s 1100 single pin (Harley sound) Shadows are down about 10 hp from the 2000s dual pins in stock form.

Huh??? So they are a mere 40 HP out of 1100cc??? That is INCREDIBLY low output, and hard to believe. So my CB450 had more HP than an 1100. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[skullcap]

Huh??? So they are a mere 40 HP out of 1100cc??? That is INCREDIBLY low output, and hard to believe. So my CB450 had more HP than an 1100. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Yes, but lots more torque on the 1100. Empty horsepower? No substitute for cubic inches? Anyway, they can all break the speed limits and out accelerate many cars.

 

[pastordave1]

Yes, but lots more torque on the 1100. Empty horsepower? No substitute for cubic inches? Anyway, they can all break the speed limits and out accelerate many cars.

I was going to say something similar to this. high HP+ High RPM usually = lower torque. so there are many smaller displacement engines with high HP but very low torque in comparison. Many large displacement engine have a tone of torque at the expense of HP. Torque is what gets you going and gives you good passing power without having to drop a few gears, High HP and high rpm's usually means get ready to drop at least a couple gears to take off fast and pass.
This shows up great in sports cars like the Honda SI compared to the next model down, the Si is a high revving engine and wants stay there to go fast, take the lower HP and there is a lot less shifting that needs to be done to maintain speed in passing and corners etc.
so each engine is made for a purpose. Yes my old Honda Hawk 400 would blow the seat off my 750 shadow, but my 750 Shadow is much easier to cruse comfortably without constantly changing gears.
Nothing scientifically done here just some common observations over the years. And Yes EPA rules have a big thing to do with it too.

 

[skullcap]

It's obvious some people do not understand how the engineers play with power/torque curves and gearing.

The high HP super bikes often have a steep HP curve that peaks out over a small RPM range, then the gearbox has tight gear ratios so you can keep the engine RPM's in that narrow range. Change the timing and cam profile a bit to flatten out the HP curve, bump up the torque, and loosen the gearing so you'll have more power over a broader RPM range - which makes an easier riding bike - but your peak HP will be less.

Still, I could never get the Sabre under a 14 second run. I was looking to break 13 on my old XS650, but couldn't do it...My V30 Magna (VF500) was just a little bit closer.

 

[Leathel]

Huh??? So they are a mere 40 HP out of 1100cc??? That is INCREDIBLY low output, and hard to believe. So my CB450 had more HP than an 1100. :roll: :roll: :roll:

No I think you will find the 50 is the lower one....mind you its hard to tell as every site has different specs

Power:61.65 HP (45.0 kW)) @ 5500 RPM 2002 C2

78 hp @ 6500 rpm 85 1100C


53 bhp @ 5500 rpm 94 ACE (single pin)


67 hp 49 kW @ 5500 rpm 98 Aero also single pin..... same site as the 2 above so ??

68 hp @ 5000 rpm 09 Spirit

now your CB 450 may get close to those lower HP figures but at 9K RPM and when it came to torque it has a mere 33 NM at 7500 Rpm

Pretty much most of the 1100s have over 100nm of torque at around the 3K rpm..... Its a cruiser you want lower Rpm usable power :roll:

 

[gypsy]

This is wildly speculative, theoretical, subjective and confusing thread. Thank you honda for slipping n slidin around the corners behind the cases to do something that no one really understands. Heaven forbid you keep a well tuned machine on your line up. They messed with the very appealing 1100 from its debut in 85 to its final demise in 07. Yet it remains a very well loved machine. Between kissing butt with the EPA and trying to co-opt Harley they took us all for a wild ride. Personally I liked the design and lines of the 97+ spirits and the performance of the 85-86 1100's. Yet I owned a 96!? So I swapped the 96 engine out for 98. It ran great. Put over 100k hard miles on her and now I'm nearing the end of my honda revenge re- build... It was smoking, burning oil and sucking up gas so into the shop and down she went. So far i have her back together up to the pistons. 85 higher compression pistons ($45). I will soon be homing out the 02($40) jugs and fitting the top with 07 heads and valves with 85 springs and cams ($150). Carbs will be with the same dynojets set a notch higher and the ignition will be with a new dyna 3000 I picked on eBay ($60). Roadburner straight exhaust. Why? Why?? Why??? You may ( or may not) ask... Because I really like the shadow. I think it sux that Honda jacked around with such great bike till it just undid it. So I'm putting all the good stuff back into mine. Will I get back the 78hp or more? Maybe, maybe not. But it's a lot of fun trying.

 

[Aufgeblassen]

No I think you will find the 50 is the lower one....mind you its hard to tell as every site has different specs

Power:61.65 HP (45.0 kW)) @ 5500 RPM 2002 C2

78 hp @ 6500 rpm 85 1100C


53 bhp @ 5500 rpm 94 ACE (single pin)


67 hp 49 kW @ 5500 rpm 98 Aero also single pin..... same site as the 2 above so ??

68 hp @ 5000 rpm 09 Spirit

now your CB 450 may get close to those lower HP figures but at 9K RPM and when it came to torque it has a mere 33 NM at 7500 Rpm

Pretty much most of the 1100s have over 100nm of torque at around the 3K rpm..... Its a cruiser you want lower Rpm usable power :roll:

Never mind!!! According to this my '05 has 68 HP. That is not at all too bad.

Honda Shadow Spirit 1100

I guess wikipedia is in error???

 

[spudbuzz]

A lot of these web sites are inconsistent in their horsepower ratings. Manufactures typically do not provide horsepower ratings for their cruisers. Also when checking ratings it has to be apples to apples. Are they rating horsepower at the crank or the rear wheel?

For example I have seen ratings at the crank up to 67 hp and as low as 54 at the rear wheel for the 1100 Sabre. Torque ratings vary from 65 ft/lbs to 71 ft/lbs.

To compare that a 2000s 750 Shadow is typically rated 45 hp at the crank and 39 hp at the rear wheel.

 

[Aufgeblassen]

The '85 has 78 HP @ 5,000 RPM & 101 n-m torque @ 8,000 RPM.
The '05 has 68 HP @ 6,500 RPM & 102 n-m torque @ 4,500 RPM.

According to the same source:

Honda Shadow Spirit 1100

Honda VT1100C Shadow

How could it flip flop from HP peaking 1st to torque peaking 1st??? And such huge differences in RPM from '85 to '05???

 

[CrazyDave]

The only thing that matters is color..you want more HP go black because black shadows are the fastest no matter what their cubic centimeters are. Further riding gear, helmets and heavy assed car tires only slow bikes down, along with those dang stupid windshields and stereo systems.. you want to go fast on a Shadow? Then ride black and naked!

 

[Bobolto]

Vito,

Thats what i love about this website, just when you think you know something someone tosses a wrench in there :neutral:

The 2011 Aero looks like a Single Pin Crankshaft to me, what am i not seeing here Vito?

Crankshaft for 2011 Honda shadow Aero VT750
2011 Honda VT750C A CRANKSHAFT | Cheap Cycle Parts

1999 Ace 750 Crankshaft
1999 Honda VT750C A CRANKSHAFT | Cheap Cycle Parts

The 750's are single pin cranks.

Thanks jpr1968,

i had 750's on the brain, thought thats what Vito was taking about...

 

[skullcap]

you want to go fast on a Shadow? Then ride black and naked!

Now Dave, you are out of form here. You know a picture is worth a thousand words... :mrgreen:

BTW, you are only partially right. Color does, of course, matter, but you've forgotten that it is the color of Sabre that really counts...