2016 KTM/Husky 350 - 58Hp

kiwifan
Profile picture for user kiwifan
Posts
9848
Joined
10/31/2009
Location
USA
kiwifan 9/8/2015 4:01am
9/8/2015 4:01am Edited Date/Time 9/8/2015 4:02am
kiwifan wrote:
My mate has a KTM 2015 350 i rode it and to use the 50+HP you have to the rev the guts out of it like...
My mate has a KTM 2015 350 i rode it and to use the 50+HP you have to the rev the guts out of it like a 250, so yeah if you dont like to rev it then fine but you will be way lower in the HP range but it will last....rev the tits out of it every ride and (with proper maintenance) it will last longer than a 250 but not as long as a 450.

So riding style makes a big difference to a) how long the bike will last vs a 450 and b) how fast you will go vs a 450

One of the posters above made a good point you do NOT need mega HP to go fast (unless you are at pro level, not many of us here at that level), which is why Honda 450 riders still win ....like it or not.
fullysicmate wrote:
Thats good because the 2015 350 did not have the same hp as the 16 so hopefully the 16 can be ridden lower rpm again. I...
Thats good because the 2015 350 did not have the same hp as the 16 so hopefully the 16 can be ridden lower rpm again. I think a lot are missing what my concern is here. Its the fact that its making that amount of hp out of a small capacity lightweight engine. I have read that ama pro 250 bikes have 50+ hp, but they rebuild their engines after every race where I want to get 50hrs minimum, more hp usually means less longevity. I just hope they would not release a production bike that requires that much maintenance. Time will tell I guess.

I am fully aware that you don't need big hp to go fast around a mx track, I have a 250 and 450 and I am not faster around a mx track on the 450, I do ride some state forests and race some enduro where there are speeds in excess of 120kph and can be for a few k's, I don't like doing that to the little 250f they just cant do high speed without being high geared, then they are no good in the tight trees and creeks. So that's why the 350 appeals, lightweight and can handle speed....hopefully.
then again the KTM/Honda/Kawasaki bikes are almost as light as the 350 (roughly 108kgs vs 101kgs) and will have higher speeds than the 350...to me it sounds like a torquey or lesser HP lightweight 450 would suit you better than the 350...
hillbilly
Profile picture for user hillbilly
Posts
9079
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Afton, TN, USA
hillbilly 9/8/2015 5:34am
9/8/2015 5:34am
HP numbers are just a function of rpm, has nothing to do with seat of the pants feel.

The torque is what you need to look at and how it lays with the HP curve.

The mavtv show dave despain has had mitch payton on last week,pretty interesting how he called up a older guy,forgot his name,to come help him when the went 4str.

That guy saved them yrs probably,you can get lost so easy on 4str with rod ratios and piston dwell then on valve timing and overlap.

The man was retired I think
JB 19
Profile picture for user JB 19
Posts
4349
Joined
3/8/2009
Location
Marion, OH, USA
JB 19 9/8/2015 6:13am
9/8/2015 6:13am
I have always wanted a full built big bore 250F. I've been waiting for this bike to hit the streets. I'll have to see if the smooth flat power of the 450 is too much to resist. My old man's 14.5 has an amazing power band.

The new 350 with Aer forks would be even 3 pounds lighter.....add a titanium slip on and maybe sub 220 pounds. Droooool........
overthebars39 9/8/2015 8:09am
9/8/2015 8:09am
BB67 wrote:
i could not get the link to work but search, MXA 2016 350 sxf tips. short but good. they claim 54.4 hp.
overthebars39 wrote:
Rear wheel or crank?
endurox wrote:
mxa probably rear wheel, 58 hp crank. Since chains and gears take away about 7.5% that works out to 54 at the rear wheel.
Yup, i expect that as well. They all advertise the crank HP and are very optimistic about it.

The Shop

See All »
jeffro503
Profile picture for user jeffro503
Posts
27646
Joined
7/22/2007
Location
St Helens, OR, USA
jeffro503 9/8/2015 8:51am
9/8/2015 8:51am Edited Date/Time 9/8/2015 8:52am
So the weight of a Kawi 450 ( without fuel , but oil is in the tranny ) comes in at 229lbs. What's the 350 come in at?

Edit : Whoops! Just saw JB's post above.
derestricted 9/8/2015 12:04pm
9/8/2015 12:04pm
Best bike I have ever ridden by a long way. SO easy to ride it fast with minimum effort. With a little effort you go really fast. I have 30 hours on mine and no issues yet except some loose spokes, just need to check them every few rides. Highly recommend it! Light years better than the old generation model, especially once you stick an FMF pipe on there.







derestricted 9/8/2015 12:07pm
9/8/2015 12:07pm
Video here of all the 2016 KTM's including the 350:

JB 19
Profile picture for user JB 19
Posts
4349
Joined
3/8/2009
Location
Marion, OH, USA
JB 19 9/8/2015 12:09pm
9/8/2015 12:09pm
^^^ Your bike has air forks right? What do you think of them?
derestricted 9/8/2015 12:13pm
9/8/2015 12:13pm
JB 19 wrote:
^^^ Your bike has air forks right? What do you think of them?
Horrible as stock, felt like they didnt move at all, but with lower air pressure and about 12 clicks less compression they now work better than any other WP forks I have tried.
machine
Profile picture for user machine
Posts
6404
Joined
1/5/2011
Location
Collettsville, NC, USA
machine 9/8/2015 3:19pm
9/8/2015 3:19pm
hillbilly wrote:
They are calculating that from rpm. About 2 HP per CI is the norm on naturally aspirated. Pro stock nhra are getting 3 but that is...
They are calculating that from rpm.

About 2 HP per CI is the norm on naturally aspirated. Pro stock nhra are getting 3 but that is highly stressed.

A 250 is about 15 CI so a 350 would be 21 CI .

If 2.5 HP per CI it would put out 52 hp.

So,if they can let it rev way past what the limiter will stop it at then 58 may be possible at the crank.
endurox wrote:
These are low stress compared to a 2014 2.4L f-1 engine putting out 750hp. The 2014 engine had to last 5 races which is about 8...
These are low stress compared to a 2014 2.4L f-1 engine putting out 750hp. The 2014 engine had to last 5 races which is about 8 hours. 8 hours is about the engine time of 3 national mx weekends.
hillbilly wrote:
You really gonna compare a f1 engine to this? Lol.
You know there's always gotta be a one upper in the group..lol
Underground 9/8/2015 5:13pm
9/8/2015 5:13pm
hillbilly wrote:
HP numbers are just a function of rpm, has nothing to do with seat of the pants feel. The torque is what you need to look...
HP numbers are just a function of rpm, has nothing to do with seat of the pants feel.

The torque is what you need to look at and how it lays with the HP curve.

The mavtv show dave despain has had mitch payton on last week,pretty interesting how he called up a older guy,forgot his name,to come help him when the went 4str.

That guy saved them yrs probably,you can get lost so easy on 4str with rod ratios and piston dwell then on valve timing and overlap.

The man was retired I think
This fella drinks the right shit.

Wasn't he a TRD guy? Smart move by Mitch. Years and dollars of trial and error, or spent a little to have it handed to you.
Crush
Profile picture for user Crush
Posts
21135
Joined
4/26/2009
Location
Sydney, AU
Crush 9/8/2015 6:33pm
9/8/2015 6:33pm
JB 19 wrote:
^^^ Your bike has air forks right? What do you think of them?
derestricted wrote:
Horrible as stock, felt like they didnt move at all, but with lower air pressure and about 12 clicks less compression they now work better than...
Horrible as stock, felt like they didnt move at all, but with lower air pressure and about 12 clicks less compression they now work better than any other WP forks I have tried.
That's a bit concerning...
avidchimp
Profile picture for user avidchimp
Posts
5841
Joined
7/9/2008
Location
EGL, MN, USA
avidchimp 9/8/2015 7:06pm
9/8/2015 7:06pm Edited Date/Time 9/8/2015 7:10pm
hillbilly wrote:
HP numbers are just a function of rpm, has nothing to do with seat of the pants feel. The torque is what you need to look...
HP numbers are just a function of rpm, has nothing to do with seat of the pants feel.

The torque is what you need to look at and how it lays with the HP curve.

The mavtv show dave despain has had mitch payton on last week,pretty interesting how he called up a older guy,forgot his name,to come help him when the went 4str.

That guy saved them yrs probably,you can get lost so easy on 4str with rod ratios and piston dwell then on valve timing and overlap.

The man was retired I think
Drino Miller.

R.I.P. That was one smart dude.
derestricted 9/8/2015 11:44pm
9/8/2015 11:44pm
JB 19 wrote:
^^^ Your bike has air forks right? What do you think of them?
derestricted wrote:
Horrible as stock, felt like they didnt move at all, but with lower air pressure and about 12 clicks less compression they now work better than...
Horrible as stock, felt like they didnt move at all, but with lower air pressure and about 12 clicks less compression they now work better than any other WP forks I have tried.
Crush wrote:
That's a bit concerning...
concerning that they are so good now? Smile
Crush
Profile picture for user Crush
Posts
21135
Joined
4/26/2009
Location
Sydney, AU
Crush 9/9/2015 12:02am
9/9/2015 12:02am
No–brand new fork and they were so far off the mark?! 12 clicks?!? How many clicks are available?
overthebars39 9/9/2015 2:05am
9/9/2015 2:05am
Crush wrote:
No–brand new fork and they were so far off the mark?! 12 clicks?!? How many clicks are available?
Who says they where in the right position when the bike was delivered?
Crush
Profile picture for user Crush
Posts
21135
Joined
4/26/2009
Location
Sydney, AU
Crush 9/9/2015 2:22am
9/9/2015 2:22am
Crush wrote:
No–brand new fork and they were so far off the mark?! 12 clicks?!? How many clicks are available?
overthebars39 wrote:
Who says they where in the right position when the bike was delivered?
Well in that incredibly unlikely scenario, unless there is 40 plus clicks for the range then there is no way they should be that far off.... 12 clicks LESS... not at 12 clicks.
overthebars39 9/9/2015 3:26am
9/9/2015 3:26am Edited Date/Time 9/9/2015 3:27am
Crush wrote:
Well in that incredibly unlikely scenario, unless there is 40 plus clicks for the range then there is no way they should be that far off...
Well in that incredibly unlikely scenario, unless there is 40 plus clicks for the range then there is no way they should be that far off.... 12 clicks LESS... not at 12 clicks.
Again, all depends on his starting mark. 15 clicks is the standard pos on a '15, if he went 12 less from that mark then i share your questioning. He could be close to the upper range and went 12 down from that, instead.

Pit Row

See All »
hillbilly
Profile picture for user hillbilly
Posts
9079
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Afton, TN, USA
hillbilly 9/9/2015 7:08am
9/9/2015 7:08am
hillbilly wrote:
HP numbers are just a function of rpm, has nothing to do with seat of the pants feel. The torque is what you need to look...
HP numbers are just a function of rpm, has nothing to do with seat of the pants feel.

The torque is what you need to look at and how it lays with the HP curve.

The mavtv show dave despain has had mitch payton on last week,pretty interesting how he called up a older guy,forgot his name,to come help him when the went 4str.

That guy saved them yrs probably,you can get lost so easy on 4str with rod ratios and piston dwell then on valve timing and overlap.

The man was retired I think
avidchimp wrote:
Drino Miller.

R.I.P. That was one smart dude.
Yeah,that is him.

I've seen so many quad guys here at local shop get a new one and instantly mill the head. Old hot rod mod.

Then it runs worse and they cant figure why.

That is when they figure out it moved the cam closer to the crank but the cam chain is the same length. So now the cam timing is late,.
Lawrence929 9/9/2015 9:35am
9/9/2015 9:35am Edited Date/Time 9/9/2015 9:35am
Crush wrote:
No–brand new fork and they were so far off the mark?! 12 clicks?!? How many clicks are available?
The forks aren't even in the US where the real racing is yet, so don't worry about it.




LOL
flomiester
Profile picture for user flomiester
Posts
187
Joined
2/10/2012
Location
Elwell, MI, USA
flomiester 8/17/2016 8:14am
8/17/2016 8:14am
The HP is not the Killer its the RPMs i had a 350 on the dyno it was the 2015 but it had the 368 kit that KTM supplys the engine made 54 hp on pump fuel and still carried it to the limiter .A 2016 KTM would still pull this bike both bikes have been reliable the 368 kit added that grunt where it was needed still not a heavy hit like say a kaw 450 but got it through the corners .Te part that gets the abuse from the RPMs is the lower rod bearing cage the rods go out of round @ high rpms and grab the cage they will take it for a while untill the protective coat wears and then they heat up and break and thats when the rollers and pin start to fail .KTM has tryed to elimanate that problem with a plain bearing insert which has helped no cage to fail they could take it a step futher if they machined the rod big end with a oval across the rod by a few thousandand then install the insert , this is how all the bearings are made now in 2 part rods we use to have to machine the rod caps and then put .002" shim between them and hone them round d this gave us more clearance across the parting line and keeps the inserts from spinning in the rod causing failure ..probaly more information than you needed.
Steely Dan
Profile picture for user Steely Dan
Posts
142
Joined
8/15/2016
Location
Fredericksburg, VA, USA
Steely Dan 8/17/2016 8:22am
8/17/2016 8:22am
jeffro503 wrote:
Damn , these bikes are getting faster and faster and lighter and lighter. We're all going to need pilot's licenses here in a few years. Literally...
Damn , these bikes are getting faster and faster and lighter and lighter. We're all going to need pilot's licenses here in a few years. Literally a rocket ship.
fullysicmate wrote:
Yeah it's crazy, these 350's have the same Hp as the most powerful 2015 450!
a peak number on paper is all they share in the power dept.
slipdog
Profile picture for user slipdog
Posts
10054
Joined
7/25/2009
Location
Nor Cal, CA, USA
slipdog 8/17/2016 8:26am
8/17/2016 8:26am
A lot of information, yes, but your technical input is always welcome, Ron!
Anonymous (not verified)
Profile picture for user Anonymous
Profile picture for user Anonymous
Anonymous (not verified) 8/17/2016 9:25am
8/17/2016 9:25am Edited Date/Time 9/1/2026 6:11pm
I have a 16 and love it. After riding it back to back with a 450 I love it even more. I had a 450 last year and regretted the 350 at first, but the cornering of the 16 chassis makes up for the loss in torque. Just need to let it rev, reliability isn't an issue.
Tim507
Profile picture for user Tim507
Posts
3489
Joined
6/8/2010
Location
Oregon City, OR, USA
Tim507 8/17/2016 9:52am
8/17/2016 9:52am
Anonymous wrote:
I have a 16 and love it. After riding it back to back with a 450 I love it even more. I had a 450 last...
I have a 16 and love it. After riding it back to back with a 450 I love it even more. I had a 450 last year and regretted the 350 at first, but the cornering of the 16 chassis makes up for the loss in torque. Just need to let it rev, reliability isn't an issue.
Love my 2016 350. It has DCR Cams and the Vortex ECU is programmed per/for DCR dyno runs. The power/torque was moved down a bit....this bike flats rips holey's!

To get max power one has to rev it to the limits - tough to do when you're 64...LOL....I wear earplugs and that helps for me to get it up in the RPM more - plus it protects my hearingWoohoo
stone881
Profile picture for user stone881
Posts
856
Joined
12/26/2014
Location
Fruita, CO, USA
stone881 8/17/2016 10:57am
8/17/2016 10:57am
I agree with pretty much what every one is saying here about the 16. I rode one a couple of months ago and to get to the power you have to twist and twist some more. I was on a track that didn't have any long straights, so didn't get to use all of it. Was really wanting to buy one, but after that ride I found that I really like the power my 13 250 SX makes and personally would lean towards the 450 over the 350.

But in all honesty, would need to ride the 350 again, because I can't say that it lacked anywhere, just SEEMED to be slow to get really get going.
aFACEdismembered 8/17/2016 2:44pm
8/17/2016 2:44pm
endurox wrote:
These are low stress compared to a 2014 2.4L f-1 engine putting out 750hp. The 2014 engine had to last 5 races which is about 8...
These are low stress compared to a 2014 2.4L f-1 engine putting out 750hp. The 2014 engine had to last 5 races which is about 8 hours. 8 hours is about the engine time of 3 national mx weekends.
That's just race time and the shortest GP is Monza at about 1h 20m. Singapore is right at 2 hours as well as some others. Plus Free Practice 1, 2, 3 and qualifying every weekend. That number could be doubled and I wouldn't argue.
MX558
Profile picture for user MX558
Posts
1993
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
USA
MX558 8/17/2016 10:04pm
8/17/2016 10:04pm
Been on 450s for 10 years , just picked up 17 350 and it's the best bike I've ever ridden

Post a reply to: 2016 KTM/Husky 350 - 58Hp