EBC Clutch Discs Suck!
11-28-2009, 12:00 PM
#1
Brooks' Cycle Centre'
Back Marker
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 166
EBC Clutch Discs Suck!
Just a quick warning...
I had 36K on my 03 when the clutch started to slip. I put in the EBC kit to save a few bucks. I broke them in the way that you are supposed to, but here we are at 39K and they are starting to slip and get VERY grabby at high rpm controlled slips. I took them out and found that they were already burnt. New Honda plates on the way.... Anybody else have this problem?
I had 36K on my 03 when the clutch started to slip. I put in the EBC kit to save a few bucks. I broke them in the way that you are supposed to, but here we are at 39K and they are starting to slip and get VERY grabby at high rpm controlled slips. I took them out and found that they were already burnt. New Honda plates on the way.... Anybody else have this problem?
11-28-2009, 12:18 PM
#2
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
When I decided to freshen up the clutch on my VTR (75K+ miles), I did a bit of research and opted for stock fibre plates (and aluminum Hyperplates for reduced rotating weight and improved engine response) based on negative feedback I found on non-OEM brands. Incidentally, my clutch was still in perfect shape; I was looking for a reason to put the Hypers in....
11-30-2009, 07:58 AM
#7
Brooks' Cycle Centre'
Back Marker
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 166
11-30-2009, 08:01 AM
#8
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
umm, NO!!!!!!! the Gixxer (any year) makes significantly more torque than the VTR. Given its more regular firing order (an I4), it produces it in a smoother fashion however (fewer big pulses).
11-30-2009, 12:33 PM
#9
Junior Member
Squid
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27
I have an EBC in mine, changed simply because I had to change the clutch cover. Mine had 60k miles on it and the plates were still fine!
Put the EBC's in anyway. It drags when cold. Need to let it warm up before putting it in gear the first time.
Wouldn't recomend them.
Put the EBC's in anyway. It drags when cold. Need to let it warm up before putting it in gear the first time.
Wouldn't recomend them.
11-30-2009, 01:19 PM
#10
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 133
more then mine? hahaha mmm no
i make 112ft/lbs
im sure its more then a superhawk
12-01-2009, 07:12 AM
#12
Brooks' Cycle Centre'
Back Marker
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 166
12-01-2009, 07:14 AM
#13
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
You need to do some SERIOUS mods to a VTR for it to get anywhere near the output of a stock GSX-R (and even then, you may get close on the torque but the higher revving Zook will still blow it away in hp, regardless of the year you choose).... I love my VTR but to say it comes close to a GSX-R power-wise is delusional....
12-01-2009, 07:23 AM
#14
Brooks' Cycle Centre'
Back Marker
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 166
Turns out that the last time that the SuperHawk beat the Gixxer 1000 was in 1997 and they were pretty much even. So, I apologize for the misleading information. So, in short.... I don't know why your clutch discs worked for the Gixxer and not for the SuperHawk. Maybe it has something to do with the weight ratio. Does the Gixxer have a hydrolic clutch or a Cable Clutch?
12-01-2009, 07:26 AM
#15
Brooks' Cycle Centre'
Back Marker
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 166
You need to do some SERIOUS mods to a VTR for it to get anywhere near the output of a stock GSX-R (and even then, you may get close on the torque but the higher revving Zook will still blow it away in hp, regardless of the year you choose).... I love my VTR but to say it comes close to a GSX-R power-wise is delusional....
12-01-2009, 08:06 AM
#17
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 133
Actually, it seems that I need to be corrected on this....
Turns out that the last time that the SuperHawk beat the Gixxer 1000 was in 1997 and they were pretty much even. So, I apologize for the misleading information. So, in short.... I don't know why your clutch discs worked for the Gixxer and not for the SuperHawk. Maybe it has something to do with the weight ratio. Does the Gixxer have a hydrolic clutch or a Cable Clutch?
Turns out that the last time that the SuperHawk beat the Gixxer 1000 was in 1997 and they were pretty much even. So, I apologize for the misleading information. So, in short.... I don't know why your clutch discs worked for the Gixxer and not for the SuperHawk. Maybe it has something to do with the weight ratio. Does the Gixxer have a hydrolic clutch or a Cable Clutch?
there was no gsxr 1000 in 97
12-01-2009, 09:35 AM
#19
Brooks' Cycle Centre'
Back Marker
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 166
Alright, now I'm just feeling dumb. Again, you are right. It was the 1100, not the 1,000.
GSX-R 1100 1997 (U) Overall Length: 2 130 mm (83.9 in) Overall Width: 755 mm (29.7 in) Overall Height: 1 190 mm (46.9 in) Seat Height: 815 mm (32.1 in) Wheelbase: 1 485 mm (58.5 in) Ground Clearance: 130 mm (5.1 in) Dry Weight: 221 kg (487 lb) Engine type: 1 074 cc Water-cooled inline-four, DOHC, TSCC, 16 valves. 156 hp (117 kW). Measured (USA): 122.6 bhp (91 kW)/ 9.250 rpm, 75.0 ft·lbf/ 7,000 rpm
GSX-R 1100 1997 (U) Overall Length: 2 130 mm (83.9 in) Overall Width: 755 mm (29.7 in) Overall Height: 1 190 mm (46.9 in) Seat Height: 815 mm (32.1 in) Wheelbase: 1 485 mm (58.5 in) Ground Clearance: 130 mm (5.1 in) Dry Weight: 221 kg (487 lb) Engine type: 1 074 cc Water-cooled inline-four, DOHC, TSCC, 16 valves. 156 hp (117 kW). Measured (USA): 122.6 bhp (91 kW)/ 9.250 rpm, 75.0 ft·lbf/ 7,000 rpm
12-01-2009, 09:36 AM
#20
Brooks' Cycle Centre'
Back Marker
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 166
12-01-2009, 10:15 AM
#22
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
the type of disengagement mechanism has absolutely nothing to do with the clutch`s ability to handle power. For example, while many Victory cruisers use a cable-actuated clutch, others use hydraulic, and owners can "upgrade" a cable unit to a hyd system (kit sold in accessory catalogue), the only difference being the means of transmitting the motion to the clutch, the plates, springs,... are exactly the same.
12-01-2009, 10:21 AM
#23
Brooks' Cycle Centre'
Back Marker
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 166
the type of disengagement mechanism has absolutely nothing to do with the clutch`s ability to handle power. For example, while many Victory cruisers use a cable-actuated clutch, others use hydraulic, and owners can "upgrade" a cable unit to a hyd system (kit sold in accessory catalogue), the only difference being the means of transmitting the motion to the clutch, the plates, springs,... are exactly the same.
Yes, I understand that. But, I was uner the impression that the reason you put a hydro clutch on a bike is because of the high strength of the springs. The reason that the srpings might be so strong is, of course cuz' they need to be able to hold the discs together more tightly due to more power. Thoughts?
12-01-2009, 10:28 AM
#25
Brooks' Cycle Centre'
Back Marker
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 166
Yeah, It took me the whole winter, but it was well worth it. I took pictures of the whole process and wrote a little mini-story about it. When I took it to the dyno, I was very happy. I've always wanted an RC-51, but the ergos were just not good for me, so i wanted the next best thing, and now with the powe that I have, it feels alot closer.
12-01-2009, 10:39 AM
#26
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
as the curiosity is killing me, could you post just a quick overview of what you did? I am in search of similar numbers (my last dyno run had me making 113 hp and 71 lb-ft although airbox box mods carried out since then should have me slightly over 115 hp and 73 lb-ft, based on the dyno results I had obtained previously with the same mods). This, of course, is on a bike with over 75,000 miles on teh odometer. I will be freshening up the engine with OS JE pistons in the foreseeable future and hope to get up to @ 122hp and 80 lb-ft. I am intrigued at your 83 lb-ft, however......
12-01-2009, 10:52 AM
#29
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Delmar NY
Posts: 805
