'95 m900 vs....?

[erkishhorde]

This topic was covered on TOB a while back but I thought I'd bring it up again. What's the equivalent to the old m900 nowadays? If you based it solely on engine size I'd say either a S2R or an S2RS but how about performance-wise and size-wise. I've toyed with the idea of getting a new bike once I got a job and I'm still really only toying with the idea. There's nothing wrong with my m900 so I don't see any reason to change. I'm more curious than anything else.

[Slide Panda]

Well my theory is that it's the S4R.  The 900 was the biggest Monster of the era, and had s variants.  The S4R is the biggest right now and the only Monster with an s variant.

But it does get a little IZ_ if you talk 2v vs 4v... IF it's a 2v only then you're going to have to say the S2R 1k - but that doesn't come with s variants...

[Norm]

The original 904 has enough aftermarket stuff to kick the ass of any of the others. I love making water cooled guys cry.

[silentbob]

This topic was covered on TOB a while back but I thought I'd bring it up again. What's the equivalent to the old m900 nowadays? If you based it solely on engine size I'd say either a S2R or an S2RS but how about performance-wise and size-wise. I've toyed with the idea of getting a new bike once I got a job and I'm still really only toying with the idea. There's nothing wrong with my m900 so I don't see any reason to change. I'm more curious than anything else.

If you are looking to upgrade then it would be the S2R1K or the S4R/s.  All the bikes are the same physical size.  The seat height is lower on the 600 series bikes.  The brakes and suspension typically get worse as you go down in displacement.  The HP is starting to get up there on the smaller displacement bikes but it comes with less torque and a narrower powerband.

[erkishhorde]

IF it's a 2v only then you're going to have to say the S2R 1k - but that doesn't come with s variants...

Yeah I like to keep it 2V. I was thinking S2R 800. I don't know the new models so I wasn't sure if the 1000 has a different letter name than the 800.  I kinda expected the 1k to have a lot more kick than my old 900. Oh, looks like they don't make the 800 anymore. When'd I miss that?

The HP is starting to get up there on the smaller displacement bikes but it comes with less torque and a narrower powerband.

This is why I was wondering if the lower engine size might compete against an oldie like mine. So if the bikes are about the same physical size what is it about the 6xx that makes them smaller? The seat?

[silentbob]

This is why I was wondering if the lower engine size might compete against an oldie like mine. So if the bikes are about the same physical size what is it about the 6xx that makes them smaller? The seat?

Yes, just the seat.  The 696 of course is a different chassis altogether.

[erkishhorde]

Hmmm... So I got curious and took an hour to dig up the specs to compare. Of course these are pure tech specs and not actual ride tests so I don't know if one FEELS faster or ACTUALLY IS faster. Also specs for the older model m900s jump all over the place. I saw one site claiming 80hp for the '95 m900 and only 70hp for a '98. I think I remember it being closer to the 70 though. Maybe even as low as 65hp in actual tests.

Make	'95 m900	'98 m900S	'01 m900	'08 m695	'08 m696	'08 S2R 1k	'08 S4R
Power	65-80?	70 hp @ 8k rpm	78 hp @ 8.25k rpm	73 hp @ 8.5k rpm	80 hp @ 9k rpm	95 hp @ 8k rpm	130 hp @ 9.5k rpm
Torque	??	77 Nm @ 5k rpm	72 Nm @ 6.75k rpm	61 Nm @ 6.75 rpm	68.7 Nm @ 7.75k rpm	94.1 Nm @ 6k rpm	103.9 Nm @ 7.5k rpm
Dry Weight	185 kg	183 kg	185 kg	168 kg	161 kg	178 kg	177 kg
Power Ratio	??	.38 hp/kg	.39 hp/kg	.43 hp/kg	.50 hp/kg	.53 hp/kg	.73 hp/kg
Torque Ratio	??	.42 Nm/kg	.39 Nm/kg	.36 Nm/kg	.43 Nm/kg	.53 Nm/kg	.59 Nm/kg

But on paper the new 696 comes pretty close if you're just comparing straight power and torque. Ducati claims a bit more HP than the old monster but at a higher rpm and a little less torque. (70 hp vs 80 hp  &  75-ish Nm vs 69 Nm). But when you compare power/weight and torque/weight even the 695 matches the old 900. Also I don't understand compression and things like that and how they can affect performance.  I'm a structural engineer so I only understand if things aren't moving.  Cal Poly structural engineers are known for having a poor understanding of dynamics.   

Side note, I hate unit conversions... what the heck is the difference between hp international and hp metric...

Other random facts I dug up... The old m900s were almost a full inch shorter than the new 696 (56.3" vs 57.1"). The S2R is actually slightly heavier than the S4R. How'd that happen?

[silentbob]

But on paper the new 696 comes pretty close if you're just comparing straight power and torque. Ducati claims a bit more HP than the old monster but at a higher rpm and a little less torque. (70 hp vs 80 hp  &  75-ish Nm vs 69 Nm). But when you compare power/weight and torque/weight even the 695 matches the old 900. Also I don't understand compression and things like that and how they can affect performance.  I'm a structural engineer so I only understand if things aren't moving.  Cal Poly structural engineers are known for having a poor understanding of dynamics.   

Side note, I hate unit conversions... what the heck is the difference between hp international and hp metric...

Other random facts I dug up... The old m900s were almost a full inch shorter than the new 696 (56.3" vs 57.1"). The S2R is actually slightly heavier than the S4R. How'd that happen?

They changed the HP and weight calculations.  The HP for the M900 was at the wheel.  The 696 is rated at the crank.  The weight for the M900 is wet (fluids, battery, etc.).  The 696 is dry weight. 
The S4R and S2R changed the reporting of their specs during production so you may have the dry weight for the S4R and the wet weight for the S2R.

[erkishhorde]

Yeah, I noticed that the numbers were funny even on the Ducati site.They didn't even keep the same units for the 696 specs as the other bikes.  Maybe I'll do a bit more digging later when I feel like taking another break from my thesis. 

edit:
whadya know? I felt like taking a break sooner than I though.  from here I see an '01 m900 claiming 80hp @ 7k rpm at the crank and the weight I listed is claimed as a dry weight. Comes pretty close to the '01 specs I already listed. Found numbers for an '99 m900 right between the '98 and the '01. This leads me to trust the data for the '98 and '01 m900 HP listings as HP at the crank. It's interesting how the specs that I find on the older monsters tends to neglect torque. Is it difficult to calc or did it take a while for people to understand that it's not all about HP and torque matters too?

I can believe that the newer bikes are noticeably lighter than the older ones. There's much more plastic on them and even the non-plastic bits are made out of less dense metal. Proof of this is my shift lever. I've managed to bend and straighten my shift lever 3 times. I don't think you can do that with the new bits. They feel too light. I bet they'd snap instead.

[silentbob]

Yeah, I noticed that the numbers were funny even on the Ducati site.They didn't even keep the same units for the 696 specs as the other bikes.  Maybe I'll do a bit more digging later when I feel like taking another break from my thesis. 

You already have the M900.  Take a 695, 696, or 800 for a ride and see what you think.  If you want an upgrade I think you will want the S2R1K or better.

[erkishhorde]

Yeah, I guess a real ride is the only way to tell. I was just curious. (And didn't wanna work on my thesis.) 

[MadDuck]

You already have the M900.  Take a 695, 696, or 800 for a ride and see what you think.  If you want an upgrade I think you will want the S2R1K or better.

I agree with Bob. If you're going to upgrade you'll need more displacement. You'll miss the torque grunt. If you want a 2 valver that really pulls then try a Hypermotard. 

[Norm]

Why not just put a 1200cc 2v air cooled billit motor into your exsisting chasis & see how 100 ft/pds of torque feels campared to the others?

[univox]

The way I see it:

600 -> 620 -> 695

750 -> 800 -> S2R800

900 -> 1000 -> S2R1000

S4 -> S4R -> S4R T

If you want a updated equivalent of an older 900, get an S2R1000. It'll be faster for sure but that's typical progress. Some of the newer smaller models might keep up in an all out race and match the peak numbers but they won't have the same low end clout your old 900 does.