97 Valk performance compared to later models

[Beau57]

In a nutshell can the group enlighten me on the difference between the 97 model Valks and later models. I constantly hear the 97 was the fastest/most powerful etc. What are the model differences that make this true? .....and can the newer models be retrofitted with 97 parts to bring them up to snuff? I understand if the the differences are things like pistons/compression ratio, cams, and other internal items it may not be a cost effective pursuit. Just curious what changed.

[Thunderbolt]

near the front where it shows the different models.  One thing is the carbs were different.

[X Ring]

And the cams.

Marty

[Patrick]

The only difference[engine] I'm aware of are the carburetor needles.. I don't see a different part number for any other engine parts..

[MP]

The cam numbers have been superceded.  ie, if you want a new cam to replace one on a 97, you will get the later cam.  The only way to get a 97 cam is in a 97 engine.  And, I heard the late 97's changed to the late model cam, but have no way to prove one way or the other.  I have a late 97.

MP

[98valk]

there are no differences, this has been posted about many times. Search is King, don't be afraid

honda changed parts #s, the parts are the same.
HP is measured at WOT, this is the main jets, tech manual states same main jets ALL YEARS. IF the needles are different, they would not affect max HP.

There are only cam differences btwn Califorinia bikes and 49 state bikes.  CA cams will make less HP but more MPG based on the specs. All of the mags tested '97 CA bikes yet they always rated 100HP,
other yr testing below for all CA bikes, thats were the mags are located. All number differences are within dyno operator/temp variances. Most manufacturers first available bike to the mags is usually warmed over. All I did was open up the airbox a little larger mainjet, dial-a-jet, and glasspack exhaust and dyno'd 100HP @60F degrees and 98HP at Inzane II @ 90F degrees. there is nothing magic here just basic performance tunning. I have talked to others over the yrs and just doing valve springs changeout and shaving the heads to up the compression, netted them close to 105HP.
Some of this might still be in the archives. Search them don't be afraid, search is your friend.

Per motorcycle consumer news testing

’97 valkyrie

100 HP 102.3 lb.ft
0-60 3.86 sec
¼ 12.02 sec
wet weight 721 lbs

’99 Tourer

93.2 HP 92.5 lb.ft
0-60 4.12 sec
¼ 12.52 sec
wet weight 776 lbs

’99 Interstate

94.9 HP 92.8 lb.ft
0-60 4.37 sec
¼ 12.76 sec
wet weight 833 lbs

’99 Goldwing

79.7 HP 91.2 lb.ft
0-60 5.26 sec
¼ 13.28 sec
wet weight 912 lbs

[MP]

’97 valkyrie

100 HP 102.3 lb.ft
0-60 3.86 sec
¼ 12.02 sec
wet weight 721 lbs

’99 Tourer

93.2 HP 92.5 lb.ft
0-60 4.12 sec
¼ 12.52 sec
wet weight 776 lbs

’99 Interstate

94.9 HP 92.8 lb.ft
0-60 4.37 sec
¼ 12.76 sec
wet weight 833 lbs

By YOUR OWN POSTING, testing done by the same company.

The 97 has 100 HP, and 102.3 torque.
The 99 has  93.2 HP and 92.5 torque
The 99 IS has 94.9 HP and 92.8 torque.

It looks like you have PROVED the 97 has more power, yet you somehow use these figures to " prove" the motors are the same?

How many more hp would it take to prove the 97 has more power?  30, 40?

5-7 HP sounds about right for a little better cam.

Also, members here who have both 97's and later bikes, say their 97 has more power, and uses more fuel.

Thank you for proving the 97 is more powerful.

MP

[Patrick]

The posts regarding the '97 camshafts have been going on since '98.. I'd like to see some degree wheel and dial indicator figures.. To me, thats the only way to put this subject to bed.. I've always heard the rumor[?] that the few early bikes used for the testing did have different camshafts and carburetor 'innerds' used specifically and only for those tests.. I'd like to really know just how true or not that is..

[Farther]

It is obvious that the 2003 fast black Standard model has the most power and the best looking riders.

[98valk]

’97 valkyrie

100 HP 102.3 lb.ft
0-60 3.86 sec
¼ 12.02 sec
wet weight 721 lbs

’99 Tourer

93.2 HP 92.5 lb.ft
0-60 4.12 sec
¼ 12.52 sec
wet weight 776 lbs

’99 Interstate

94.9 HP 92.8 lb.ft
0-60 4.37 sec
¼ 12.76 sec
wet weight 833 lbs

By YOUR OWN POSTING, testing done by the same company.

The 97 has 100 HP, and 102.3 torque.
The 99 has  93.2 HP and 92.5 torque
The 99 IS has 94.9 HP and 92.8 torque.

It looks like you have PROVED the 97 has more power, yet you somehow use these figures to " prove" the motors are the same?

How many more hp would it take to prove the 97 has more power?  30, 40?

5-7 HP sounds about right for a little better cam.

Also, members here who have both 97's and later bikes, say their 97 has more power, and uses more fuel.

Thank you for proving the 97 is more powerful.

MP

No, what I posted is the PRE-PRODUCTION '97 test results or the "it was a special warmed over manufactures bike" given to the mags, not a production model. Did U completely read my post? Lamonsters '97 only dyno'd 93-95HP before he SC'd. A dyno operator that knows the tricks can cause a larger # of at least 10HP. difference in temps for example can change the #s and different dyno's will give different #s, that why one shouldn't start racing dynos.
there is nothing special about your '97 except the color and U.

[X Ring]

No, what I posted is the PRE-PRODUCTION '97 test results or the "it was a special warmed over manufactures bike" given to the mags, not a production model. Did U completely read my post? Lamonsters '97 only dyno'd 93-95HP before he SC'd. A dyno operator that knows the tricks can cause a larger # of at least 10HP. difference in temps for example can change the #s and different dyno's will give different #s, that why one shouldn't start racing dynos.
there is nothing special about your '97 except the color and U.

Wasn't LaMonster's '97 a CA bike, which by your earlier post had less HP?

Marty

[98valk]

No, what I posted is the PRE-PRODUCTION '97 test results or the "it was a special warmed over manufactures bike" given to the mags, not a production model. Did U completely read my post? Lamonsters '97 only dyno'd 93-95HP before he SC'd. A dyno operator that knows the tricks can cause a larger # of at least 10HP. difference in temps for example can change the #s and different dyno's will give different #s, that why one shouldn't start racing dynos.
there is nothing special about your '97 except the color and U.

Wasn't LaMonster's '97 a CA bike, which by your earlier post had less HP?

Marty

I believe so, He lived in CA.  He posted stock, with glass pack exhaust and then SC dyno #s

[98valk]

Mark T keeps some dyno runs posted pre his pipe mods.

Stock '97s,  85-90HP other bikes about the same, mark states due to the type of dyno to add 10% so most bikes are at 95-100HP.

http://www.horseapple.com/placeholder/dynoday/dynoday.htm

[Chrisj CMA]

well......dyno smyno........my 97 usually draws comments about her power, speed and sound (sound is the pipes) everyone that has ridden her says it feels like more power than the valk they just got off (granted I dont let too many folks ride my bike) theres only a few but, by my personal experience I contend the 97's are faster........YMMV

Plus....even a black cant touch a red and white......fastest no doubt

[X Ring]

Plus....even a black cant touch a red and white......fastest no doubt

In my unbiased opinion, I have to agree.




Marty

[Red Diamond]

Just from a seat perspective, my 99 I/S doesn't feel as powerful as my 2K Tourer. I don't think it is from one being heavier than the other either.

[98valk]

here are some more test results

cycle world 5/97
'97 valkyrie tourer

90.8 HP
92.8 lbsft

rider 10/97
'97 valkyrie

95.8 HP
94.3 lbsft

rider 6/99

'99 valkyrie I/S

94.2 HP
94.2 lbsft

cycle world 6/99

'99 valkyrie I/S

96.1 HP
94.9 lbsft

And from Cycle World's 1997 Buyers guide
'97 Valkyrie Touer
"our Tourer's flat-six churned out less 92 HP and 93 lbsft than out 1996 TESTBIKE-THOUGH IT ADMITTEDLY WAS A PILOT-PRODUCTION MODEL, which cranked out 101 hp and 101 lbsft."

It can't be any clearer than that. There is nothing special about a '97 except the owner/rider.

[Steve K (IA)]

Having a '97 Std and a '00 I/S I can tell you that if I get off the I/S and immediately take off on the '97,  there is quite a noticeable difference.   The '97 will just plain out accelerate my I/S.  But then again, they both "run like tall dogs through short grass". 

[98valk]

Having a '97 Std and a '00 I/S I can tell you that if I get off the I/S and immediately take off on the '97,  there is quite a noticeable difference.   The '97 will just plain out accelerate my I/S.  But then again, they both "run like tall dogs through short grass". 

almost 100 lbs less weight btwn the bikes will do that.

[Beau57]

The search engine may be my friend , however, posting to the board certainly makes it more interestingly current.

[wdvalk]

97 and black,I have the fastest one produced

[Tropic traveler]

I think it has been researched before & found that the ORIGINAL 1997 Valk camshafts & carbset WERE a different part number. Later supercessions & part # consolidations make this no longer true. Being in the automotive parts biz all my life this is no surprise to me.
What I think is the case....
Honda introduced the Valk in 1996 & it was so far and away more powerful than any of it's peers {mostly those from that, ahem, "American motorcycle Co."} that the powers that be at Honda decided to reign the HP in a bit, as so much was not really needed to set it apart from "lesser" big cruisers of the time. Liability issues and such I'm sure.
My own personal observation is the '97 models ARE more powerful. I do own several & have ridden many others.
All this is IMHO only, no hard data {I prefer timeslips to dyno charts} to back it up.   

[Mr Bojangles]

   And all this time I thought my CA Tourer got a consistant 41 to 43 mpg because of my super tuning abilities !  Thanks a-lot, you just ruined my day (LoL)
                                                                          BoJangles