I was looking through my owners manual the other day and noticed that the listed torque for a stock 96@ 3500 RPM is 92.60 ft-lbs. That seemed rather optimistic, so I thought I'd check around.
At my dealership they had pulled a few stockers on a dyno in 07 at were getting 77.87 ft-lbs @ 3500 with a maximum 0f 62.61 Hp.

That's a pretty big difference. So what is the values for a stock 96? I'd like to know what the ballpark is before I get my bike dyno'd in a couple weeks.

 

the 92.60 figure is what the motor puts out by itself, no tranny, no drive, no wheel, etc..
a dyno measures at the rear wheel, the numbers there are always lower because you lose some power pushing the drive train around.

 

yup the manual will show torque at the crank, dyno shows torque at rear wheel. you care about the dyno numbers.

 

A modern dyno has to take tranny into account.
You measure both power at the wheel and power at the crank.
You accelerate and get the torque and power curves (they are actually the same, power is derived from torque multiplied by rpm and a constant).
Then you pull the clutch and leave the bike decelerate by itself. Thedyno measures this deceleration and calculates the tranny internal friction and energy waste, then it sums it up to the measured wheel power to give the crank power.
There are some subtleties to the whole process, though.
Wheel must not skid on the drum.
The action of the wheel induces vibrations, which get measured and must be filtered. A good filtering program will smooth out the noise without smoothing out the measurements. A good dyno graphic will show fluctuations, because a real engine doesn't rev up and rise in power in a perfect way. We can't perceive it, but the dyno does.
If the curve is a perfectly smooth rising curve, chances are the dyno data has been over-filtered and is not as good as it should.
Cooling is also important. A good dyno should grant a good cooling action.

 

That was helpful information.

So what can you expect to see in a stock 96 engine at the rear wheel? Is it close to the numbers I quoted:
78 ft-lbs torque and 63 Hp @ 3500 RPM?

 

63 wheel HP vs. 95 theoretical cranck HP seem to me a LOT of dispersion.
It's over 33%, and that's more than a 4wd car typically has, with three differentials, two driveshafts and four wheels.
I'm not familiar with usual internal dispersion of a motorcycle drivetrain, but for a two-wheel-drive car it usually is between 18 and 22%, and there's the differential in the middle...
So, 63 seems a little low to me, but I could be wrong.

 

I only see the listed TQ not HP so the relation is 96 crank 77 wheel.

 

I have a 07 Springer softail classic(B engine 96) with Sert, SE Touring slipons, and SE a/c. It was Dyno tuned and was 64 Hp and 79 Tq, I thought I should get a little more than that but the "B engine won't make as much Hp as a rubber-mount with same equipment. Sure runs smooth though....
It was making 62 Hp and 78 tq with just the Sert maps before the Dyno tune, hate to think what the stock output is!!!!!

 

Also realize that every dyno is different in what they read, you take it to another dyno and it could read more or less.
The important thing is A/F and the before and after results of your bike on the same dyno, same conditions and perhaps compared to similar bikes on the same dyno.

I have seen huge differences on different dyno's same bike.

 

Sorry... You're obviously right. This is what happens writing from the office between an antivirus setup and a linux format...
That's obviously a far more reasonable value. 19-something % is entirely reasonable.