[4tune8]

just curious as to what various owners understand or think as to the expression ''detuned''. One owner expressed his opinion that Suzuki was wrong and had made a mistake in detuning the old K5 motor that the GSXS is based on , down to a paltry 140 hp. I am not a mechanic and don't have any particular knowledge of engines other than owning and riding many many different bikes over the last 47 yrs since my first one back in 1969.I take the detune idea to be that the motor is
1 not stressed to the max
2 does not need to rev to outer space to be in the sweet spot
3 delivers punch via torque down low in the rev range
4 is easy to ride in real world everyday riding due to points 1,2,3,
5 HP is not the be all all and end all of a good all round motorbike
I personally find 140 hp in the GSXS package is a really potent mix , this is not a naked RSV4 Aprilla or BMW 1000 RR, it is a bike built to a budget that delivers and punches way above it's weight, in my humble opinion,and as such and within the design and intended rider parameters, Suzuki has nailed it. I believe that de-tuned means a very long reliable engine life for this bike and i am happy about that because I have no plans to ever sell it.

 

[forgotenpast]

simply put you could place a bugatti veyron in some peoples driveway and they would complain about it not being able to rev to infinity

if someone wants a super bike they should go buy a super bike, if someone wants a comfortable upright that will hands down toast 99% of the vehicles on the road at a good price point they should buy the GSXS1000




personally i spend more time trying not to delve into the throttle on public highways rather then goosing it and complaining about the de-tuned motor

 

[obijack]

Right so here is the thing with "detuned" motors. The motor it self not vastly different. However, expensive components have to replaced with cheaper versions of the same thing (titanium vs. steel valves, heavier crank, heavy rods, etc.). So the motor they produce cannot rev as high, make as much power, and will be less efficient. That is one side. The other side is they use different strokes and cams to move the meat of the power lower in the RPM's and make more torque, sooner. So really when you think about it, you would not want the "exact" same motor from a gsxr-1000 in this bike. They are miserable to drive on the street unless you like breaking any speed limit you come across in 1st gear (most 1000 cc bikes reach the top of 1st gear over 100 mph). So in my opinion this bike's motor may share a lot with the K5 motor, but it really isn't the same exact motor, just "detuned".

PS- The tuono and S1000R don't make much more power than the gsx-s1000.

 

[rcannon409]

Guys, what you say makes sense. In fact, we might just as well trade these big 1000's for Kawasaki ninja 650's when you go down this road.

If you ever rode a 2005, or 06 gsxr 1000, you would realize there was no good reason to re-tune this machine. If Suzuki gained something , fine, but they did not. In fact, the 05 fuels much better, down low, and is far easier and more pleasant to ride. It was never highly stressed, or difficult to manage. A huge step up from what we have now.

Suzuki took an engine that will be remembered as one of the best, and turned it into something rather ordinary.

I understand emissions requirements being different, but many other bikes fuel correctly and meet requirements.

If soemoen bought this bike, set up like an 05/06, and found it too powerful, and too responsive, they could open the throttle less. except, they would not. The fueling on that bike was so brilliant, it just worked.

Its not like it completely ruins the machine, and I dont mean it in that way at all. Its more like going to a expensive steak dinner and having them cook the steak well done instead of how you ordered it.

Of course, you'll survive, but who wants to survive? Lets make it the best way we can.

 

[landy10]

I think the thing to remember here that the Gsx-s k5 is not a Gsx-r k5
Two entirely different bikes with different purposes. One is a balls out licence loser of a machine and the other is a sit up go fast when you want to machine.
Suzuki should never have mentioned it was spawned from the legendary k5. They should have just said its a new engine designed for a street bike.

 

[cicloloco]

+100
I totally agree!!!

Suzuki should never have mentioned it was spawned from the legendary k5. They should have just said its a new engine designed for a street bike.

 

[dqban]

They should have marketed the K5 heritage a little different....I agree. Its more like retuned than detuned. Its made to be a street bike and driveable on the street.....When I ride with GSXRs now I have no problem keeping up on the streets....they simply never have the room to really get to their bikes full potential....THAT is the real world driving truth....On the track it would be a different story completely.

If we want titanium blah blah blah on our bikes it would cost closer to what a superduke or BMW does....And there would go the value.....And that is the beauty of this bike.......YES there are faster nakeds and super nakeds, but not at this price....and not with this build qulity.

Look at the yahmaha MT-10. dangling cables, plasticy feel...very disapointing.

This thing is as clean as a honda cbr-1000 and moves close to an s1000r for HALF the price....(BMW runs like $16000 new)....even its it better, its not twice as good.

 

[JeffroGymnast]

Right so here is the thing with "detuned" motors. The motor it self not vastly different. However, expensive components have to replaced with cheaper versions of the same thing (titanium vs. steel valves, heavier crank, heavy rods, etc.). So the motor they produce cannot rev as high, make as much power, and will be less efficient. That is one side. The other side is they use different strokes and cams to move the meat of the power lower in the RPM's and make more torque, sooner. So really when you think about it, you would not want the "exact" same motor from a gsxr-1000 in this bike. They are miserable to drive on the street unless you like breaking any speed limit you come across in 1st gear (most 1000 cc bikes reach the top of 1st gear over 100 mph). So in my opinion this bike's motor may share a lot with the K5 motor, but it really isn't the same exact motor, just "detuned".

PS- The tuono and S1000R don't make much more power than the gsx-s1000.

Great first post! Agreed on all points.

 

[Doddy666]

How can this engine be 'retuned' if it makes less hp and torque all round? That's detuned where I come from....
Retuned to me means moving the power down lower so it revs less. Looking at all the dyno graphs I can find is not the case, just less power.

I agree comparing it to the k5 gsxr was a bad idea, they must have thought it was a good idea during marketing.

The bmw here in the uk is £2000 more, which is not that much more tbh



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[JeffroGymnast]

How can this engine be 'retuned' if it makes less hp and torque all round? That's detuned where I come from....
Retuned to me means moving the power down lower so it revs less. Looking at all the dyno graphs I can find is not the case, just less power.

I don't think that the K5 had a restrictive cat in the exhaust. Removing that gets you around 10% more torque on this bike. But I also think Suzuki purposely lowered the torque and power in order to not lose GSX-R1000 sales. This bike is a LOT cheaper than the R. De-tuned is the right word, as you said.

 

[Doddy666]

I don't think that the K5 had a restrictive cat in the exhaust. Removing that gets you around 10% more torque on this bike. But I also think Suzuki purposely lowered the torque and power in order to not lose GSX-R1000 sales. This bike is a LOT cheaper than the R. De-tuned is the right word, as you said.

I seriously doubt just removing the cat gets 14bhp, a new full system and a retune maybe but not just removing the cat. Plus it's ment to have more than the gsxr down low

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[nicka]

I don't think that the K5 had a restrictive cat in the exhaust. Removing that gets you around 10% more torque on this bike. But I also think Suzuki purposely lowered the torque and power in order to not lose GSX-R1000 sales. This bike is a LOT cheaper than the R. De-tuned is the right word, as you said.

The GSXS was only $1000 cheaper than the gsxr but only last week the gsxr was actually $1000 cheaper than the GSXS at Peter Stevens , I'm guessing they are trying to run them out for the 2017 model and no doubt still making a good profit

 

[mattnz]

Umm, the k5 didn't have to meet Euro 4 emission standards.

 

[MattyD]

I used to have a s1000r and the gsxs is much more fun. The engine on the Bmw was great but just a bit bland.
The gsxs is built on a budget as we know but for me it's those flaws that make it fun to ride.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nicka]

I used to have a s1000r and the gsxs is much more fun. The engine on the Bmw was great but just a bit bland.
The gsxs is built on a budget as we know but for me it's those flaws that make it fun to ride.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've never ridden the BMW but I understand where your comming from , when I test ride the GSXS I also test ride the mt-09 and although the GSXS felt like a much better quality bike which is the reason I brought it the mt-09 had a huge fun factor feeling to it but I'm glad with what I decided

 

[Kiwi Geoff]

Complaining about horsepower is a bit academic isn't it? More to do with ego or dick-waving perhaps . There was an interview with Kenny Roberts Snr a good few years ago when he was asked about his favourite road bike. He replied that the GSX-R 750 was so much better than the 1000 because he could use more of its power. If a riding god said that, it puts it in perspective for the rest of us mortals. I can see where he's coming from as I think I was faster through our local twisties on my old Street Triple than I am on the GSX-S.

It's all about value for money and "fitness for purpose". Suits me just fine for the type of riding I currently do. If I wanted more horsepower, I'd buy a Panigale or HP4 (apart from not being able to bend my ancient knees far enough :| ).

 

[rickster]

I like the fact the GSXS is based on the GIXER motor and I like the way it is "tuned" or "detuned" or whatever you call it. I've had "race motor" type bikes and they are unpleasant and unhappy unless on 3/4-full throttle. If someone is displeased with the GSXS state of tune, there are easy solutions available: its called a Super Duke 1290 or an 1100 Tuono Aprilia or S1000R BMW. Yes they make more power and yes they cost more. But for the difference in price, the KTM, for example, will go another 5-6 mph in the quarter mile, possibly go that much faster on top end...and it comes with stainless steel brake lines. To me that's it, excluding the cruise control on the '17 mode. So if you plan on putting your bike on the clock, and that's what matters go buy it. But for the $, the Suzuki rules and neither of these faster bikes will go 200 miles on a tank. And perhaps we should acknowledge, if you bow down to the God of Speed, go see the PTR Suzuki 1200 kit and do that. All I know is I am very pleased with the performance of my F-model GSXS.

 

[JeffroGymnast]

The GSXS was only $1000 cheaper than the gsxr but only last week the gsxr was actually $1000 cheaper than the GSXS at Peter Stevens , I'm guessing they are trying to run them out for the 2017 model and no doubt still making a good profit

Interesting, the MSRP difference is $3900...

 

[JeffroGymnast]

I seriously doubt just removing the cat gets 14bhp, a new full system and a retune maybe but not just removing the cat. Plus it's ment to have more than the gsxr down low

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I said 10% torque, not power. My bike picked up around 10% torque across most of the rev range just from headers.

As for the comment about moving more power to the usable rev range... It's a myth: Long term update: What the dyno saw | MCN

The GSX-R1000 made more power everywhere.

 

[nicka]

Interesting, the MSRP difference is $3900...

The Suzuki Australia site is showing gsxr1000 for $17290 while the gsxsf shows $16490 and Peter Stevens were advertising it in the $15000 something range.
I'm not sure what the MSRP is but them figures you would think would be a more realistic price difference due to the gsxr having better electronics/suspension/valves and what ever else.

I'm not complaining though as I think the GSXS is a great price in comparison and the perfect bike.