M696 Performance Information

[Raux]

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?

[Kev M]

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.

[Adamm0621]

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

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

[Kev M]

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.

[Johnny5]

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

[Kev M]

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. 

[Raux]

uh not 29

[Kev M]

Raux - stock?

[Raux]

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

[Kev M]

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:

[Travman]

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

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.

[Kev M]

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?

[Travman]

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.

[Kev M]

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?

[Travman]

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

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.