Guys, I'm contemplating updating my bike to something more comfortable for the longer trips I'm making these days. The XL200 has been a good bike and has plenty of power for the riding I usually do. It's miles ahead of the little GN125 in power. Where it is lacking is in riding comfort. The longer hauls leave my gimpy leg in less than stellar condition due to the cramped riding position. So I'm considering picking up what passes for a 'cruiser' down here. My question has to do with power and torque. There are three models I'm looking at, plus a long shot possibility at the end. The numbers are as follow:

Maximum Power 19.8 bhp @ 5250 rpm
Maximum Torque 28Nm @ 4000 rpm

Maximum Power 18.8 bhp @ 8400 rpm
Maximum Torque 17.5 Nm @ 7000 rpm

Maximum Power 18 hp @ 8000 rpm
Maximum Torque 15.5 nm @ 5500 rpm

Maximum Power 27.2 bhp @ 5250 rpm
Maximum Torque 41.3 Nm @ 4000 rpm

The first and last ones in the list above are larger displacement then the two middle ones. What I find interesting is that the torque is so much higher in relation to the rated horse power. What does one gain by higher torque? For comparison, a GS500 is rated at 39.2 Nm @ 7600 rpm and 45.5 hp @ 9200 rpm. But I digress. The last one is a long shot, as it's considerably higher priced than the other three which are comparably priced.

Any help in figuring out the figures above is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

"Horsepower will determine how fast you get through the swamp. Torque will determine IF you get through the swamp."

If the first three are comparable in price, the first has better numbers.

Thanks, Hoot.

In other words, the higher torque will tend to pull better over the Andean roads I'm riding. Correct? I'm not worried about quick or fast (0-80 kph or 120 kph cruising speeds), looking more for pulling power on the upward stretch of my rides.

Tractors, semi-trucks and the like depend on torque to do their jobs.

It is the choice of transmission ratios that put the "pull" to the drive wheels...

Byron

In the case of a vehicle's (motorcycle included) engine, torque is the engine's ability to get up to speed. Horsepower is it's ability to keep it there.
Byron gets it. Low torque can be masked by a low (numerically high ratio) gear ratio. However, the user feels and hears the engine rev higher where the engine with higher torque continues to accelerate with lower engine rpm.
Watch IMSA sports car racing. The V8 Corvette is a torque monster. It grunts out of a turn. The Porsche screems out of turn. Both are competitive.
Drive as many models as you can before deciding.
mark

Torque is the 'grunt' that get you moving. I've never seen your neck of the woods, but I picture it as hilly and in town driving. More torque will help out in both instances! My first bike, about seven or eight years ago, was a '76 KZ400. I'm 225 and it pulled me around town just fine, full of clothes and my lunchbox. Now, it was about 100 rpm per mph, so it was pulling 4500 rpm at 45 mph. Fine for in city stuff but not much on highway! But, even for a little bike, it had no trouble stop light to stoplight and would take off in second gear with very little throttle. I've had a few four cylinders, Kz650, CB750K, etc, and they were quicker and revved higher, they didn't have the same torque as the various twins I've owned. My current bike is a big step up, a 1700cc RoadStar. It's not quick by any means but it has tons of torque!! I can come to a pretty steep hill in top gear and just roll the throttle, no thoughts of downshifting at all! I had a 650 V-Star before and for its size, it had plenty of torque too, it was a V-Twin also.

Another thing o look at as Byron brought up is gearing. Now, we can't easily change tranny gears, but sprockets are fairly easy to swap out. If it's a chain drive you are looking at an hour or two to change the two sprockets. You may lose some top end speed and mileage, but you will be better able to climb hills and take off easier, especially if you are loaded down with 'stuff'. I'm not sure on a belt drive, but in going to bet there will be options available to you.

--
https://facebook.com/M2bKydex/

All else being fairly equal! Of the first 3 the first has by far the best looking numbers . On anything that drives I love low end torque. The torque is what gets you going. the more your can produce at a lower RPM the better.

I am not a fan of high revving engines that have all of their power at the top end. It makes the ride much more uncomfortable, plus a engine that is working harder will normally wear out quicker. I like a car that can run around all day while keeping the RPMs low, our car starts making over 300 Lb ft of torque at about 1200 RPM so you can drive around at under 2000 RPM and still accelerate faster than most vehicles. At 75 MPH in 6th gear it is only turning around 1700 RPM. For me that is way more fun to drive than a 4 cylinder car that you have to rev up to 4000+ RPM to climb a steep grade. I remember crossing the continental devide a few years ago in my Ram with the Hemi. We were going 60-65 (the speed limits) up a steep grade with no trouble, and I was passing multiple vehicles that were only able to pull the grade at 30-45 MPH. Sure I burn a little more gas but it is nice to be able to maintain speed going up hill.

The feedback is GREATLY appreciated. Right now I'm down to the top two - which were my first choices in the price category anyway. Walking back from running errands I stopped by the dealer for number 3 and a client just pulled in on his month old bike. Got to sit on it (no one seems to do test rides around here) and it is oriented towards folks with a much shorter inseam than yours truly. Sitting with a comfortable angle on my knee left me sitting halfway up the front of the rear seat. Not good for short hauls, it'd be horrible on long hauls. Even worse than the XL 200.

They are all single cylinders. Top one is a 350, second one a 220 and the long shot choice is a 500. All made in India. Time will tell how it works out. No plans to buy anything 'til we get back this fall as there's no good in letting warranty run on a parked vehicle. But I want to have my homework done on it long before then. The two manufacturers are Royal Enfield (blame it on Slowhand) and Bajaj. The RE has a long history of building bikes. Bajaj has taken over the 180-220 CC "crotch rocket" market (which displacement are considered "big bikes" down here) in these parts. Reliable, economical, relatively powerful. The Avenger should follow suit as it's built on the same basic engine. But the classic look of the Royal Enfield Rumbler combined with the torque potential are singing a siren song. If it's good enough for the Himalayas, the Andes should be a piece of cake. Maybe in March I'll get a chance to stop by a dealer and have a hands on look at one. They reportedly do test rides, too, so that may be in the cards as well.

As stated, time will tell. In the meantime, thanks for the edumication on the subject.

.........just like firearms, I've owned a LOT of motorpickles, mostly Hondas but a fair share of Harleys, BMWs, Kawasakis, Yamahas, BSA, and some I don't recall.

I'm not the best rider in the world, though I've known a few outstanding riders. Be that as it may, I always have preferred a bike that achieved its goal with torque rather than high revs. For lack of a better description, the ride is calmer to me, less busy, and does what I want in a more forgiving manner.

All that being said, there is a point many fail to consider about motorcycles, one that has a tremendous amount of impact on handling and comfort. That is riding position, extreme in its effect on your ride.

Lets categorize position as one of three. Hunched over, crotch rocket style. Very effective at speed, when the wind on your chest can assist in holding you up, it can become quite tiresome at lower speeds...or with age and "bad backs".

Next would be the neutral stance of traditional British bikes, or UJMs (think Honda CB350 or CB750). A great all around riding position, as the flat saddles allow you to shift your carcass around with relative ease. Additionally, the typical mid-mount foot controls mean that one can stand on the pegs with alacrity, something I've needed to do more than once in my riding career. Even something as simple as standing up to stretch whilst riding is very, very important when cruising more than an hour.

Finally, cruisers, or the sit up and beg position. Comfortable, usually cushy, really great on long runs if you can manage a back rest of sorts. A good trick is to put a loaded duffle bag across the passenger seat. My only real gripe with cruisers is that they often sport forward controls. Try standing on pegs or floorboards that are at the front of the frame! It can be squirrelly or even downright dangerous. If at all possible, see if your cruiser choice has mid controls. You can always mount a highway bar if you feel the need to ventilate your boots.

Whatever you choose, I strongly feel that a torque-y bike is to be preferred. And as Byron pointed out, the trans and final drive are overwhelmingly important in how that torque is delivered.

Otony

Yep, the little GN125 would go up and over La Linea, but in first and second gear at 9,500 to 10,000 RPM (redline). Any less and it simply wouldn't pull. Moving up to the XL200 and I can go up and over in second, third and even up to fourth - no idea on RPM as there is no tach on it, but it's definitely revving much less than the little bike did. One thing that I like about the Royal Enfield is that it's a lower revving engine. The Bajaj Avenger would be of the higher revving style, which is to me less desirable, especially with a thumper. The old Honda CB500Four I started riding on years back was smooth as silk at any RPM, not so most single cylinder engines. And those vibrations add up over time, making the ride less and less pleasant.

Good point on the riding position. That's one reason I nixed number three on my list. Lousy ergonomics for someone with over a 28 inch inseam. The Bajaj has a more cruiser style seating arrangement - and highway pegs to boot. Still waiting on a chance to get over to a RE dealer to see how they feel. There's only two in the country, and both are a ways off. They ARE tied in with another bike company so maintenance wouldn't be too much of an issue since the other guys are all over the place. I do most of my own wrenching on basic maintenance, but during warranty periods I prefer to take it to them and let them do their thing.

Gets up to speed quicker, changes speed in traffic quicker, and not as demanding of being in the exact right gear in any given situation.
As far as riding comfort, highway pegs and a backrest help A LOT. If you were coming through Iowa you could check out how I have my Victory set up, but a 100" v-twin would ruin you for the stuff you're looking at.

We just might be heading through Iowa about the middle of September as we wend our way back south. :) Does Heather still have the Shadow?

The other night in Bogotá a couple of Harleys pulled into the parking lot as we were leaving. A VERY different critter from what most of the folk down here ride. The Yamaha Bolt catches my eye, as did the Suzuki Boulevard - which is apparently cancelled now. The Bolt is the only non-Harley V-Twin cruiser type bike that's available down here. The downside is - it's twice or more than what the Royal Enfield Rumbler 500 runs, price wise. They do import Harleys here, but their website doesn't cooperate with my browser. Probably programmed for IE - and I'm not curious enough to try it.

I like the looks of the Bolt myself. I'd really like to take a test ride in a Triumph Thruxton, but if I did, I'd probably be seeing how much they'd give me in trade for my Road Star! The invitation is open here in Indiana, too. Mine a 102ci, but I bet the Victory would outpace it!

I will say I got a 'talking to' when I showed this one to Jenny...

https://indianapolis.craigslist.org/mcy/4835566773.html

Something about having a Jeep project and a '71 BSA Project in the garage at the moment...

--
https://facebook.com/M2bKydex/

If I say "That girl's got pretty eyes." my wife's OK with it. She knows I ain't looking to kick over the traces or anything like that. BUT, let me check out an old jalopy or basket case bike and it's the "LOOK" for sure. Not that we have anywhere to park one even if time and $$$ allowed for such pastimes.

Down to just the Vic these days :-/

please let us know. We might be able to carve a bit out of the schedule. I'd enjoy seeing you again. And, Heaven knows, mcassill's ain't all that far from us....

It'd be good to see you again and to meet Miss Melody. If we hit Iowa it'll be because we took the "short cut" across Minnesota on a weird loop back to MO. I'll try and let folks know where we are in general as we make our way back and forth across the country. This promises to be "one of those years" - one in which we'll be putting more miles on than originally planned as speaking dates didn't line up in sequential order this time. :) So be it.

Hell, I been there 'most my life.

All engines have torque, all engines have horsepower. Horsepower is horsepower and that's what determines maximum power, and usually occurs at a relatively high rpm. If an engine has torque numbers worth bragging on that generally means there is good power lower in the rpm band, and this makes the engine more flexible. It allows the engine to pull better at lower speeds, you don't have to downshift as much to get the vehicle going.