VFR400K (1989) power / jetting

Forum rules
Please can you post items for sale or wanted in the correct For Sale section. Items / bikes for sale here will be removed without warning. Reasons for this are in the FAQ. Thanks
Post Reply
scorpion
Settled in member
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:20 pm
VFR400K (1989) power / jetting

Post by scorpion »

Hi there,

just looked on the acceptance papers of my bike and noticed that power is stated with 47kW whereas otherwise NC30´s are stated with 44kW. I`m just wondering if there are any differences in the engine or intake/exhaust system between the K and later (L, M, N) models as the carb jetting is also different (110 all around for K model and 115/118 respectively 120/122 for later models).

cheers
Matthias
User avatar
Cammo
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 4505
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 12:35 am
Bike owned: NC30
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: VFR400K (1989) power / jetting

Post by Cammo »

No engine differences, the main difference is carb main jets.

The 110 main jets of the K model are nearly too small on a stock bike, certainly too small if it even has just an aftermarket muffler.
"It's just a ride" Bill Hicks
Neosophist
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 8172
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:01 pm
Bike owned: CBR954
Re: VFR400K (1989) power / jetting

Post by Neosophist »

scorpion wrote:Hi there,

just looked on the acceptance papers of my bike and noticed that power is stated with 47kW whereas otherwise NC30´s are stated with 44kW. I`m just wondering if there are any differences in the engine or intake/exhaust system between the K and later (L, M, N) models as the carb jetting is also different (110 all around for K model and 115/118 respectively 120/122 for later models).

cheers
Matthias
There all 44kw (59hp)

Only the UK bike was 47kw (63hp)

Your papers are wrong, common thing with foreign ipmorts.

The K bike has a poorer suspension (rear shock and forks) than the later bikes which is the main difference.
xivlia wrote:i dont go fast on this bike so really do not need a rear brake.. /
vic-vtrvfr wrote:Ask xivlia for help, he's tackled just about every problem u could think of...
scorpion
Settled in member
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:20 pm
Re: VFR400K (1989) power / jetting

Post by scorpion »

@Cammo:
Rejetting is already on my todo-list for next winter. Maybe earlier if idle run doesn`t get better after the first rides.

@Neosophist:
Wrong papers, thats clearly the easiest explanation ;)
So what`s the difference for the UK models? Can`t find anything besides also different jetting.
User avatar
jim157
Admin NWAA
Admin NWAA
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 7:15 pm
Bike owned: A few small ones
Location: Norwich
Re: VFR400K (1989) power / jetting

Post by jim157 »

scorpion wrote: @Neosophist:
Wrong papers, thats clearly the easiest explanation ;)
So what`s the difference for the UK models? Can`t find anything besides also different jetting.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=844
AUTOEXEC.TWAT
Neosophist
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 8172
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:01 pm
Bike owned: CBR954
Re: VFR400K (1989) power / jetting

Post by Neosophist »

As above, if its too much to read the main points in a nutshell without being tenchical.

uk spec bulbs and additioanl wiring to cope
no speed limiter as its not uk law
changes to bodywork to accomodate uk indicator and numberplate specs
radiator type oil cooler (borrowed from the older nc24) (perhaps just a sellign point to compete with the kawasaki zxr400 which was also a uk model and had an oil cooler.. at least that is my theory)

quioted at 63hp as there is no 59hp limit like in Japan
xivlia wrote:i dont go fast on this bike so really do not need a rear brake.. /
vic-vtrvfr wrote:Ask xivlia for help, he's tackled just about every problem u could think of...

Post Reply