11-21-2016, 03:35 AM
Egan said 72 HP in the article, Triumph says 80 HP, so Egan's number must be at the rear wheel. That's pretty decent with the torque the bike is making. I didn't see a dyno chart and don't recall the article stating anywhere this was a rwhp number.
OK, here's what he said:
"The magazine’s test T120 put out 72 bhp at 6,330 rpm and 72 pound-feet of torque at a mere 3,280 rpm, a torque increase of 54 percent from the last generation."
That's gotta be rwhp and torque, substantially less HP than the inline four of the CB1100, but a little more torque and at a lower RPM.
CB1100 is 84 at the rear wheel, the T120 is 72. The CB1100 is making at least 65 lbs-ft of torque from 3800 RPM to 6500 RPM. That being the case I'd think performance is going to be similar at lower revs, but that 12 HP difference is huge up top.
BTW, this is just too many for me:
MARK HOYER, Editor-in-Chief
I stop and sigh when I walk past the front window of my house and see the T120 parked in the yard, the sweet light of the waning day caressing the bike’s beautiful lines. It seems to induce some kind of moto-endorphin that soothes the stressed-out soul. It’s even better from the saddle, with so much easy torque and fine fueling from those “carburetors.” Despite its retro style, this is one of the sweetest all-around standards on the market.
Seriously, maybe he should take a Xanax or something. It's cheaper.
As far as power, Egan says:
So the basic functional architecture is there for a bike that handles, stops, and goes. My main complaint with the last Bonneville was that cramped seating position for my long legs, and I thought a modern 865cc bike should have more power—or at least be as quick as, say, a Ducati 620 Monster. Also, I didn’t like that bent exhaust system. If Triumph had fixed just those three things, I would have been happy to buy another one.
OK, here's what he said:
"The magazine’s test T120 put out 72 bhp at 6,330 rpm and 72 pound-feet of torque at a mere 3,280 rpm, a torque increase of 54 percent from the last generation."
That's gotta be rwhp and torque, substantially less HP than the inline four of the CB1100, but a little more torque and at a lower RPM.
CB1100 is 84 at the rear wheel, the T120 is 72. The CB1100 is making at least 65 lbs-ft of torque from 3800 RPM to 6500 RPM. That being the case I'd think performance is going to be similar at lower revs, but that 12 HP difference is huge up top.
BTW, this is just too many for me:
MARK HOYER, Editor-in-Chief
I stop and sigh when I walk past the front window of my house and see the T120 parked in the yard, the sweet light of the waning day caressing the bike’s beautiful lines. It seems to induce some kind of moto-endorphin that soothes the stressed-out soul. It’s even better from the saddle, with so much easy torque and fine fueling from those “carburetors.” Despite its retro style, this is one of the sweetest all-around standards on the market.
Seriously, maybe he should take a Xanax or something. It's cheaper.
As far as power, Egan says:
So the basic functional architecture is there for a bike that handles, stops, and goes. My main complaint with the last Bonneville was that cramped seating position for my long legs, and I thought a modern 865cc bike should have more power—or at least be as quick as, say, a Ducati 620 Monster. Also, I didn’t like that bent exhaust system. If Triumph had fixed just those three things, I would have been happy to buy another one.