Hey guys, I had a 2004 R6 stock streetbike that had a pretty noticeable dip in the powerband around 8K. I'm now looking at another 2004 racebike that's been dyno tuned and I'm wondering if the dip is something that is correctable or just a characteristic of the engine. Thanks in advance!
there shouldn't be any dip in that 2nd gen motor. i had more than a few of em. INCREDIBLE motor.. Get a good tune, look for other obvious problems.
How about the handling? I know it's good but how easy is it to ride? Does the bike ask a lot of it's rider with well tuned suspension?
it's a great bike .. faster riders can make the 3rd gen R6 go faster, but the 2nd gen r6 (03-05/any S model) was really good. At most tracks, i think it's just as good as the all but the best tuned 3rd gen bikes (really well tuned ECU engine braking and acceleration tables). The forks are more flexy, but this translates to more feel for most riders.. more feel, more confidence. And the midrange is better than the 06-07 r6, and on par with the 08-current 3rd gens. For someone looking to spend under $5000, that would be the bike if it's in good shape. Steel valves too, so longer lasting valve system.
Maybe you can answer a question for me, I've had two track bikes, a 1999 CBR F4 and an '03 Honda 600RR. For some reason I like the F4 much better and here's why. The F4 felt like a toy and the RR felt like an instrument. Where does the 2004 R6 fall in that spectrum?
in 2003 I raced a 2000 cbrF4 600 my AM season. (not the f4i). Nice, predictable bike. With a good tune, pipe, u4 race gas, the bike made 105hp. Had 18,000 street and track miles, and the motor was never opened up. Not too bad considering a 2003 kawi 636 with pipe and mr9 was making 110hp on the same dyno, and the 2003 R6 with cam timing, little off the cyl and thin gasket bike i bought from Rob Jensen made about the same.. The 2003 and 2004 (that i bought from him the next year) and a pair of 05's (that i got from him year after that) were better bikes, but they had little better suspension, and i went faster, everywhere. not a ton faster, but faster. The r6 turned better, had more midrange power, it just did everything a little better. I would say the 2003-05 R6 is more like the 2000 F4 honda than the 3rd gen bike is though (06-current). In ALL seriousness though, the 2nd gen R6 is easier to go faster on (for most riders) than the 3rd gen R6. I really, REALLY like the 2nd gen r6. Experienced racers can go faster on the 3rd gen r6, but not everyone will. And in the rain, the honda and the 2nd gen r6 are better bikes, especially the 2003-04 r6 with it's non-upside down forks (more feel).
The 03-05 R6 should feel very similar to your old 03 RR. I've ridden F4i's, 03-05 R6's, and 03+ 600RR's a bunch so I can compare pretty good.
If I were after absolute speed I'd get an R6 but I just want to go fast enough and have fun. Seems like once they started building 4-stoke motogp bikes everything changed. They really don't make bikes like the F4i anymore which is why I think I'm going to go with one of those. Actually went from my 600RR to the F4 and instantly like the lower center of gravity (at least it sure felt that way) and more secure ergos tucked down in the bike. Those things give me tremendous confidence. Like I said, I'd rather have a toy than an instrument if I'm just doing trackdays.
