Ducati Monster Forum

OK, I have had my bike about a year now (see signature) and have scoured the web for some good acurate performance data.  (And yes I know a lot of this kind of information is really meaningless in the motorcycle world, but just for the sake of comparisons)

For instance a quartermile time?  Also, the specific effects of the Termi/race ecu kit in terms of horsepower, topspeed etc...

I just read a spec that puts the stock 696 at 67.5bhp and a top speed of 128mph

My bike has had the slipons ecu and filter kit since I've owned it and I distinctly remember seeing a peak speed of 141mph  on a closed track of course officer  [leo]   (I have heard that motorcycle speedometers decrease in accuracy the faster you are traveling)

Anyone had their 696 on a dyno or run it at the track?

Also according to MCN...that is a 4 valve motor...maybe I should look elsewhere.  Upon more digging, Ducati states 80hp (more what I remembered ...clearly MCN dropped the ball here)

I bet that 80 is not at the wheel.

kopfjäger=rain on my parade. 

It's your parade. put it on a Dyno.  ;)

hmm...touche.  Know of any in New England?

Bike Magazine in Sweden did a test against the KTM 690 Duke, Triumph Street Triple and Honda CB600 FA in 2009.
Here are their numbers:

Dyno: 74.3hp (KTM 65.7 / Triumph 99.4 / Honda 92.7)
0-100 km/h:  4.65s
0-150 km/h:  8.80s
0-200 km/h:  21.83s
0-400 meters: 12.88s @ 176.3km/h

Acceleration  6th gear:
60-100 km/h: 8.26s
60-140 km/h: 11.31s
Top speed: 211.5 km/h (231km/h @ the speedo)

Weight (stock, full tank etc) 186kg

Those are also optimistic figures.  My guess is they added +20% to make them look like crank numbers.  It is very unusual for a KTM 690 to break 60hp at the wheel.

I'm sure there's no shortage of dynos in new england - most all performance shops have them.  Many shops will have a dyno day where everyone comes and has their bikes dynoed, they cook burgers and generally make a big event of it.

I'm going to agree, my 900SS is rated 80HP at the wheel.  I'm betting the 67.5HP is at the wheel, my M750 is around 62 at the wheel IIRC. 

JM

somewhere Ducati changed from at the wheel to at the crank for HP rating
my old 99 M900 was rated at 74 IIRC and pretty certain that was at the wheel
the 696 is rated at 80 at the crank and pretty certain on that by just a seat of the pants comparison from memory
141 top speed - 8 to 9% = 129 to 128
your manual tells you the speedo is off but can't remember if it was 8 or 9 percent
I think the estimate for the termi system was about 7% increase so @86 at the crank.
189kg wet... that's seems high.
155 dry (some say 163)
3.8gallons of fuel is 10kg
3qts of oil is 2.55kg
battery 4.54kg
Total: 172-180 kg  a full  9kg less on the high estimate and 17kg on the low..
that's a huge discrepancy.
wonder how much air in the tires weighs?

I don't know about number for the 696 but the S2R1k is BARELY faster than my 696 with an equal weight rider. Then again I have dropped about 30 pounds off the bike.

They did that to make the HP number look bigger, like all the other bike manufacturers.  Put it on a Dyno.

so I finallly redlined it in 6th gear

DP ECU with stock gearing

218 kph (not sure if I reported higher/lower, gotta figure wind as wasn't not wearing full leathers and not full tuck)

218kph = 134.5mph

figure the 8% speedo correction

200.5kph = 123.8 mph

I dyno'd my 696 with CF termis, ecu, and 14t front sprocket... 66 hp at the rear wheel.

I thought you said youve redlined it before?  Maybe i am mistaken.... I know i cant get mine to redline in 6th...too much wind blast.  BUT ive had the speedo up to 227KM.  Of course that was on the no speed zone on the autobahn.  PLUS i had my fricken visor on my helmet, and my floppy reflective vest on..... Ill have to try it again with better condition. 

I searched my old posts and couldn't find anything. tgis is the first time i think for this exhaust setup.
i think if i redlined it then it would power independent?

Another Data point - Motorcycle Consumer New (MCN) lists the following specs in their performance guide:


~02 M620ie - 54.3 hp / 36.5 ft. lbs. 12.52 second 1/4 mile and 424 lbs wet weight

~06 M620D - 57.5 hp / 40.1 ft. lbs. 12.23 second 1/4 mile and 449 lbs wet weight

~06 M695 - 62.1 hp / 41.7 ft. lbs. 12.90 second 1/4 mile and 415 lbs wet weight

~08 M696 - 68.2 hp / 29.7 ft. lbs. 12.21 second 1/4 mile and 408 lbs wet weight

NOTE: ~ = year of test, so model year could be one earlier or later.

I wouldn't mind testing that quarter mile time...

FWIW, the seat of the pants review of the MCN data (based on comparing a number of models we own or have owned or demo'd that they've rated) is that it's probably pretty accurate, at least as comparative data.

29.7?  That torque number has to be wrong for the 696...

Nope, don't think so. I've seen other similar reports.

It's tuned more for peaky hp and less for peaky torque.

Doesn't really surprise me.

I stand corrected  - happily so in this case.  [thumbsup]

(http://image.motorcyclistonline.com/f/12670459/122_0812_20_z+2009_ducati_monster_696+dyno.jpg)

uh not 29

Raux - stock?

Not mine. not sure. but that similar to the dynos I've seen

Hmmm, looks like you're right and I (and MCN) stand happily corrected.

Here's another:

(http://images.motorcycle-usa.com/PhotoGallerys/xlarge/63369801618235457008_shiver_mon696.jpg)

I like to use MCN's performance and specs numbers. However, I've noticed small obvious mistakes in their numbers before. For instance the weight of the 06 620Dark is probably not correct.  There is no reason for it to be that much more than the 02 620 or the 695.

Did that 02 have a single front disc and a metal tank?

Good question, but all three of those bikes listed had two front disks. The plastic tank debuted in 2005 so if anything that 2006 should be a little lighter than the 2002 620.  The two piston front brakes also debuted in 2005 so that would drop a little weight compared to the earlier 4 piston brakes found on the earlier 620's.

I'm just pointing out there may be some parts differences that we're not taking into account here (maybe different battery, different wheel, different calipers/rotors, different forks).

I guess I'm saying I have no real need to doubt that spec until I see it from another source.

That said, it's hardly important right?

True.  [thumbsup]

Everything that ive read on the net seems to indicate that the termis and ecu will net +1 horsepower or LESS! I had the rare opportunity to ride a 2009 with termi ecu, back to back against mine 2009 stock ecu. ak slipons. By but dyno tells me there was 0 performance increase.  However, I will admit to this.. hands down, the race ecu with termis.. was MUCH smoother. no blip, blatt, burp pow zing.. etc. Just much smoother , in accel and decel.  just my 2 cents for fwiw.

not to thread jack, but this thread reminds me of a friend who went from a 696 to gsxr 750 and wrecked the bike within 2  weeks.

I tried to explain, that gsxr 750 was TWICE the bike the 696 ever was. The person was flabbergasted.. INSULTED even!  How dare I make that statment!  Its only 50cc's more, surely i dont know what im talking about!

Even more outrageous was when, i explained that the gsxr 750 .. made more horspepower than my .. egads!  1100.

You would have thought I insulted her mother. lol

These are not race bikes folks.. the 696 has about 60 horses.. the 1100 has high 80's thats it!  There gorgous funt to ride bikes.. but "where not setting any land speed records"!

Thing is I've ridden the supersport high HP bikes.

I spent a week on a bud's 180 hp ride. Had trouble not breaking 100 mph in second gear.

But when we got to a gorgeous, tight, twisty mountain road all I could think of was that I wished I was on a Guzzi or Triumph Bonnie or something like our 696.

I don't want or need more.

Probably my favorite bike I have ever had (besides my new Italian mistress of course) was my 1989 Honda Hawk.  Basically the Monster's smaller (and older) Japanese brother.  Thing had maybe 45 HP and 35 ft lbs of torque.  Never felt underpowered to me, and it was FUN making that bike go fast.

That said, my Monster 1100 EVO is far and away my most favorite bike I have ever owned.  It's not crazy powerful, but the power it has sure is fun.