Which KZ came stock with the most HP.

Since I own a few of these I must say that my 79 1300 with one cylinder out has about the same power as my built 1103 78 Z1R, until you hit top end than the sixth cylinder on the 1300 comes in handy. :laugh: I used to ride my 1300 from Carbondale S.I.U. To Champaign U of I to see my Girlfriend on my 79 1300 wide open for long stretches on I-57 on good days I would cruise in the lower 130s. On a perfect day I could just touch about 140. Tucked of course. :woohoo: Ahhh the early 80s, those were the days.

the kz that had the most horsepower was hands down the z1r-tc it made over 130 rearwheel horsepower the next strongest was the pretty much pick-em years the kz1300. after that then came the gpz 1100.

hey there okatar...79 I.T. SIU-C graduate here...used to live by crab orchard lake and run around on my 75 ZIB...wish i could go back to those days.....

timebomb33 wrote:

the kz that had the most horsepower was hands down the z1r-tc it made over 130 rearwheel horsepower the next strongest was the pretty much pick-em years the kz1300. after that then came the gpz 1100.

yeah but how many times could it do it without cranshaftshaft problems when a good tire was on there? :laugh:

I had an ATP Z1R before I swallowed a valve on it in 1980. I junked it for parts after I bought my 1300 and i still have the crankshaft IT WAS WELDED. But talking about that bike is CHEATING :woohoo: If you want to do that, than I used to live with in 5 miles of Mr.Turbo, when they used to be in Burr Ridge IL. (where I just happen to live now) He had a Mr.Turbo KZ1300 (1377) that would stand up on its rear wheel with just a throttle on rolling start. If you want to cheat :woohoo:

whats is with the turbo sounding whine on the 1300 above a hundred?
dad had an old z1r that he had lowered and lengthend that he sold for enough money to buy two 1300's and then after i took a two hour round trip ride above a hundred for long periods of time(on each unknown to him).he took em out the next day and did not get 20 miles before #2 rod came off the crank and tried to cut the stator side off.soaking his side with hot anti freeze both times.the second one he came back in the gate riding sidesaddle and aimed it at the trash burn barrel and stepped off and let it slam the barrel.
then we went and he bought a 1983 gpz1100 (still with the leftover money from the z1r).my brother still has the 1100 and it collected him multiple(13/14)felonys outrunning cops and hi-po's.
the 1300 just seemed week in the rod area,aren't they an inserted(plain) rod bearing?

leon holmes

Yes they are just a plain bearing. If the oil supply passages to the rod ends are not obstructed (like they were on one of my 1300s) there is no problem and they are very strong and reliable. Most people do not realize that plain bearings can be and in most situations are better than roller bearings. The reason for this is because there is actually MUCH greater contact area between the rod and crank on the plain bearing. On the roller bearing the most that is ever under full load are two rollers which just have a linear contact area, spanning the with of the journal. Also, if there is any violence projected to this area, these rollers can an frequently do shatter. This is due to the extreme hardness of the steel in the rollers and almost equal hardness in the crank journal. on the other hand the soft material in the plain bearing can as does absorb much more punishment and survives to play another day. The only situation which turns this statement on its head is when there is a gross lack of lubrication to the bearing area.

otakar wrote:

Yes they are just a plain bearing. If the oil supply passages to the rod ends are not obstructed (like they were on one of my 1300s) there is no problem and they are very strong and reliable. Most people do not realize that plain bearings can be and in most situations are better than roller bearings. The reason for this is because there is actually MUCH greater contact area between the rod and crank on the plain bearing. On the roller bearing the most that is ever under full load are two rollers which just have a linear contact area, spanning the with of the journal. Also, if there is any violence projected to this area, these rollers can an frequently do shatter. This is due to the extreme hardness of the steel in the rollers and almost equal hardness in the crank journal. on the other hand the soft material in the plain bearing can as does absorb much more punishment and survives to play another day. The only situation which turns this statement on its head is when there is a gross lack of lubrication to the bearing area.

And that is exactly why I question the wisdom of using roller bearings in the swingarm. Seems to me, the swingarm takes a lot of shock loads. Plus, with the swingarm only moving a few degrees around the axis of the swingarm shaft, each impact will occur in about the same spot each time, on the same exact rollers that took all of the previous impacts.

riverroad wrote:

otakar wrote:

Yes they are just a plain bearing. If the oil supply passages to the rod ends are not obstructed (like they were on one of my 1300s) there is no problem and they are very strong and reliable. Most people do not realize that plain bearings can be and in most situations are better than roller bearings. The reason for this is because there is actually MUCH greater contact area between the rod and crank on the plain bearing. On the roller bearing the most that is ever under full load are two rollers which just have a linear contact area, spanning the with of the journal. Also, if there is any violence projected to this area, these rollers can an frequently do shatter. This is due to the extreme hardness of the steel in the rollers and almost equal hardness in the crank journal. on the other hand the soft material in the plain bearing can as does absorb much more punishment and survives to play another day. The only situation which turns this statement on its head is when there is a gross lack of lubrication to the bearing area.

And that is exactly why I question the wisdom of using roller bearings in the swingarm. Seems to me, the swingarm takes a lot of shock loads. Plus, with the swingarm only moving a few degrees around the axis of the swingarm shaft, each impact will occur in about the same spot each time, on the same exact rollers that took all of the previous impacts.

Thats why needle bearings are used, and why you should keep them greased. The bearing needles transmit the load to the race. The race then distributes the load to the pivot bolt and so forth. The bearings are very hard to prevent dimpling. The bearings also need close tolerances to prevent impacts due to movement under load or shock.

Anyways, needle bearings have a larger contact surface than ball bearings. Their downfall is that they only support radial loading. Just keep them greased and tight and you'll be fine. Oh yeah, don't forget to replace them as needed.

Oh, I definately keep mine greased.
But it's interesting to note that fighter jets that land on carriers in rough seas, all use brass/bronze alloy type plain bushings and bearings in the high shock load areas. Even Otakars old F4 in his avatar has plain bearings. Everything in the landing gear uses plain bearings, except of the course the wheel bearings which are tapered rollers.

No argument there. The only factor again is lubrication. The other factor is that solid one piece bushings have a tendency to be looser than roller bearings. this is not the fact in split bearings, they usually have a tendency to be speced. tight and than be broken in.

Impacts are one thing, but rotation and lubrication are the factors in swingarm bearings IMO. We would need to tear down and lube the bushings more than most riders would be willing to do. Also, for aircraft, I'm willing to bet that in addition to good impact absorbing properties, that bushings are cheaper and easier to replace than ball bearings. Just press them out, press them in, and ream to size.

Either way, I like the setup my CR swingarm uses for bearings. Ends up using the bearings for both lateral and radial rigidity. Its a fairly efficient design.