2008 klr electrical wiring diagrams

[notanymoore]

I'm not in a position to argue the figures in that report; but if you're a glutton for punishment, the original EPA document is here: http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2004/January/Day-15/a006.htm I'd heard about these changes for awhile, but hadn't really paid attention to them. I've think the worst figures are for air-cooled, carburated, large displacement motorcycles (i.e. Harley Davidson). Having ridden behind them lots of times, I can believe it. My understanding is the direction is towards water-cooled, fuel injected engines to clean up most of the emissions. The HD V-Rod is a step in that direction. It's not clear they'll be requiring cataylic converters except possibly in California. 60 MPG on a Harley? Must be a Sportster 883. Every HD rider I've ever talked to typically speaks in terms of 30-40 MPG, on a 3-4 gallon gas tank. And with what they belch out, I can believe they're the worst offendors. KLR 650 emissions seem pretty moderate in comparison. And much better with 50-60 mpg on a 6 gallon gas tank. However, unlike most KLRista's in this forum, I believe the KLR would greatly benefit from fuel injection. Improves performance, mileage, emsissions and gets rid of the high-altitude asthma. THe only cogent argument against it might be from world wide travelers who ride theu countries with varying quality of gas which can muckup an FI engine. Bob Chicago - '06 (Red)

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, john henely wrote: > > Tilster, > > You are right, all the necessary information is on the CARB web site, broken down by vehicles, engines and just about every type of testing that can be done in 10+ year studies. Please go to CARB@..., after you dig through the pertinant information on different vehicles, use a macro, and make a spreadsheet on comparisons of the different values you consider important. Each person has ideas about what is Important. > I certainly saw nothing in the UMBRA article that was in any way "logical", or could convey in a proper format any information that would guide an informed person. > Motorcycles are in the same basic debate as are guns and many other issues, and fit into the category of (it is not the motorcycle, gun, whatever that is dangerous, polluting, etc.), but it is the people who do or don't ride responsibly, do or don't maintain their equipment and keep up with the latest information. > We are fortunate as motorcycle owners to have a variety of options, including now and in the future of utilizing all types of propulsion, polluting or not,being safe or not, and being responsible citizens. I have, just as test platforms, built 2 different types of electrical and other low polluting bikes and making them practical. > However, it disgusts a great many people that anyone would listen to the garbage spouted in the name of environtalism by someone who has not done their homework and learned the facts, they are very easy to check. > > Again, please keep riding and ignore the propaganda. Is UMBRA's real name Joe McCarthy? > > JRH > > > Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:19:31 -0800From: tilster187@...: RE: [DSN_KLR650] environmental concernsTo: johnhenely@... for the response. Care to share your 'facts'? The umbra piece seems logical. Saying its wrong without evidence means little; provide better information, if you choose. john henely wrote: > > > Read the answer by "Umbra"? on Grist. This is another example of people spouting off and making up so called "facts". I have been involved with CARB for over 25 years, and her data is not only wrong, but fully falsified. Keep Riding! JRH > > > To: DSN_KLR650@...: tilster187@...: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:19:55 +0000Subject: [DSN_KLR650] environmental concerns > > > Hello: Here is an article that I found regarding the 'green' aspect ofour two wheels, one of the main reasons I have my Jr. Well, if this istrue, then I am shot. For anyone else that has theirs for 'treehugger'reasons, this is depressing.http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2003/05/28/umbra-motorcycles/index.htmlGuess I'll be gettig rid of mine sometime, in case anyone is interested. > > > > > > > > > Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >

[Chris Norloff]

It's been a badly-kept secret for many years that motorcycles don't get the kind of mileage they could. My sidecar rig (25-30mpg) did only a little better than my V-6 Camry Wagon (19-24mpg). My ST1100 (40-50mpg) does only a little better than my daughter's 140,000 mile Toyota (30-35mpg). Only our DualSport motorcycles (50-60mpg) regularly get better mileage than my wife's Prius (45mpg year-round average). Sure, bikes have more wind resistance, but when there's more attention about whether or not a production bike can go 200mph, it's clear where the focus is on motorcycle 'performance'. Motorcycles are also exempt from most (or all?) US pollution regulations -- this due to the relatively small size of the motorcycle population and the economic impact it would have. Of course, just getting good mileage doesn't mean low emissions, though it helps. A 2-stroke can get good mileage, but the overall emissions aren't great. BMW put catalytic converters on their bikes some years ago. When that was proposed as a US requirement, a bunch of the 'loud pipes' crowd went apoplectic about the extreme dangers of a hot catalytic converter on a bike. When it was pointed out that BMW had done this for years with none of their feared problems, their arguments quieted. I welcome better performance (fuel efficiency) and pollution from motorcycles. It's sad that manufacturers want people to believe how inept their design teams are. There will be teething problems, for sure, but how else are we to advance? I like to breathe, Chris ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "notanymoore" Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:01:15 -0000

>I'm not in a position to argue the figures in that report; but if >you're a glutton for punishment, the original EPA document is here: >http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2004/January/Day-15/a006.htm > >I'd heard about these changes for awhile, but hadn't really paid >attention to them. I've think the worst figures are for air-cooled, >carburated, large displacement motorcycles (i.e. Harley Davidson). >Having ridden behind them lots of times, I can believe it. > >My understanding is the direction is towards water-cooled, fuel >injected engines to clean up most of the emissions. The HD V-Rod is >a step in that direction. It's not clear they'll be requiring cataylic >converters except possibly in California. > >60 MPG on a Harley? Must be a Sportster 883. Every HD rider I've >ever talked to typically speaks in terms of 30-40 MPG, on a 3-4 gallon >gas tank. And with what they belch out, I can believe they're the >worst offendors. KLR 650 emissions seem pretty moderate in >comparison. And much better with 50-60 mpg on a 6 gallon gas tank. > >However, unlike most KLRista's in this forum, I believe the KLR would >greatly benefit from fuel injection. Improves performance, mileage, >emsissions and gets rid of the high-altitude asthma. THe only cogent >argument against it might be from world wide travelers who ride theu >countries with varying quality of gas which can muckup an FI engine. > >Bob >Chicago - '06 (Red) > >--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, john henely wrote: >> >> Tilster, >> >> You are right, all the necessary information is on the CARB web >site, broken down by vehicles, engines and just about every type of >testing that can be done in 10+ year studies. Please go to CARB@..., >after you dig through the pertinant information on different vehicles, >use a macro, and make a spreadsheet on comparisons of the different >values you consider important. Each person has ideas about what is >Important. >> I certainly saw nothing in the UMBRA article that was in any way >"logical", or could convey in a proper format any information that >would guide an informed person. >> Motorcycles are in the same basic debate as are guns and many other >issues, and fit into the category of (it is not the motorcycle, gun, >whatever that is dangerous, polluting, etc.), but it is the people who >do or don't ride responsibly, do or don't maintain their equipment and >keep up with the latest information. >> We are fortunate as motorcycle owners to have a variety of options, >including now and in the future of utilizing all types of propulsion, >polluting or not,being safe or not, and being responsible citizens. I >have, just as test platforms, built 2 different types of electrical >and other low polluting bikes and making them practical. >> However, it disgusts a great many people that anyone would listen to >the garbage spouted in the name of environtalism by someone who has >not done their homework and learned the facts, they are very easy to >check. >> >> Again, please keep riding and ignore the propaganda. Is UMBRA's real >name Joe McCarthy? >> >> JRH >> >> >> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:19:31 -0800From: tilster187@...: RE: >[DSN_KLR650] environmental concernsTo: johnhenely@... for the >response. Care to share your 'facts'? The umbra piece seems logical. >Saying its wrong without evidence means little; provide better >information, if you choose. john henely wrote: >> >> >> Read the answer by "Umbra"? on Grist. This is another example of >people spouting off and making up so called "facts". I have been >involved with CARB for over 25 years, and her data is not only wrong, >but fully falsified. Keep Riding! JRH >> >> >> To: DSN_KLR650@...: tilster187@...: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:19:55 >+0000Subject: [DSN_KLR650] environmental concerns >> >> >> Hello: Here is an article that I found regarding the 'green' aspect >ofour two wheels, one of the main reasons I have my Jr. Well, if this >istrue, then I am shot. For anyone else that has theirs for >'treehugger'reasons, this is >depressing.http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2003/05/28/umbra-motorcycles/index.htmlGuess >I'll be gettig rid of mine sometime, in case anyone is interested. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. >Try it now. >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> > > > >List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com >List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html >Member Map at: http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650 >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >

[Tengai Mark Van Horn]

At 6:14 AM +0000 11/26/07, traderpro2003 wrote:

> Yeah, I >suppose it's time to sell all our cars, trucks and motos and go back to >living in caves and sharing more group hugs.

and singing Kum-ba-ya whilst weaving hemp and drinking herbal tea. Mark

[notanymoore]

One of several reasons I bought the KLR was the gas mileage and size of the tank. I always get a laugh at those guys riding large Harleys stopping every 100 - 150 miles or so to fill up. And those crotch rockets are even worse somtimes. I only get off every 100 miles or so to "un-numb" my butt until I get a gel seat. After going to the 16 tooth front sprocket, X-ring chain and Bridgestone TW's, I'm averaging 55-60 MPG by the odometer, probably 50-55 MPG based on the error % on the odo/speedo I've seen documented. And the ride is greatly improved. A buddy of mine has a new Suzuki C50 - an 850CC fuel injected V Twin with shaft drive. Very smooth, and from what I've seen, the shaft drive makes for much better highway driving for the size engine. And it's geared so high he usually gets around 50 MPG with a 5 gallon tank. Not bad. So you can get decent mileage out of a "cruiser" if you don't overbuy on engine size. It's the larger, carburated engines that get worse gas mileage. BTW. I just saw the new 2008 model. Everything is impressive except the new plastic. 2008 plastic looks too fragile and crotch rocket like for my tastes. I like the old plastic better, if only they could have redesigned the fairing but kept the old plastic. Love the new back rack and suspension though. Now if only I could get a test ride.....

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Norloff" wrote: > > It's been a badly-kept secret for many years that motorcycles don't get the kind of mileage they could. My sidecar rig (25-30mpg) did only a little better than my V-6 Camry Wagon (19-24mpg). My ST1100 (40-50mpg) does only a little better than my daughter's 140,000 mile Toyota (30-35mpg). Only our DualSport motorcycles (50-60mpg) regularly get better mileage than my wife's Prius (45mpg year-round average). Sure, bikes have more wind resistance, but when there's more attention about whether or not a production bike can go 200mph, it's clear where the focus is on motorcycle 'performance'. > > Motorcycles are also exempt from most (or all?) US pollution regulations -- this due to the relatively small size of the motorcycle population and the economic impact it would have. > > Of course, just getting good mileage doesn't mean low emissions, though it helps. A 2-stroke can get good mileage, but the overall emissions aren't great. > > BMW put catalytic converters on their bikes some years ago. When that was proposed as a US requirement, a bunch of the 'loud pipes' crowd went apoplectic about the extreme dangers of a hot catalytic converter on a bike. When it was pointed out that BMW had done this for years with none of their feared problems, their arguments quieted. > > I welcome better performance (fuel efficiency) and pollution from motorcycles. It's sad that manufacturers want people to believe how inept their design teams are. There will be teething problems, for sure, but how else are we to advance? > > I like to breathe, > Chris > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: "notanymoore" > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:01:15 -0000 > > >I'm not in a position to argue the figures in that report; but if > >you're a glutton for punishment, the original EPA document is here: > >http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2004/January/Day-15/a006.htm > > > >I'd heard about these changes for awhile, but hadn't really paid > >attention to them. I've think the worst figures are for air-cooled, > >carburated, large displacement motorcycles (i.e. Harley Davidson). > >Having ridden behind them lots of times, I can believe it. > > > >My understanding is the direction is towards water-cooled, fuel > >injected engines to clean up most of the emissions. The HD V-Rod is > >a step in that direction. It's not clear they'll be requiring cataylic > >converters except possibly in California. > > > >60 MPG on a Harley? Must be a Sportster 883. Every HD rider I've > >ever talked to typically speaks in terms of 30-40 MPG, on a 3-4 gallon > >gas tank. And with what they belch out, I can believe they're the > >worst offendors. KLR 650 emissions seem pretty moderate in > >comparison. And much better with 50-60 mpg on a 6 gallon gas tank. > > > >However, unlike most KLRista's in this forum, I believe the KLR would > >greatly benefit from fuel injection. Improves performance, mileage, > >emsissions and gets rid of the high-altitude asthma. THe only cogent > >argument against it might be from world wide travelers who ride theu > >countries with varying quality of gas which can muckup an FI engine. > > > >Bob > >Chicago - '06 (Red) > > > >--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, john henely wrote: > >> > >> Tilster, > >> > >> You are right, all the necessary information is on the CARB web > >site, broken down by vehicles, engines and just about every type of > >testing that can be done in 10+ year studies. Please go to CARB@, > >after you dig through the pertinant information on different vehicles, > >use a macro, and make a spreadsheet on comparisons of the different > >values you consider important. Each person has ideas about what is > >Important. > >> I certainly saw nothing in the UMBRA article that was in any way > >"logical", or could convey in a proper format any information that > >would guide an informed person. > >> Motorcycles are in the same basic debate as are guns and many other > >issues, and fit into the category of (it is not the motorcycle, gun, > >whatever that is dangerous, polluting, etc.), but it is the people who > >do or don't ride responsibly, do or don't maintain their equipment and > >keep up with the latest information. > >> We are fortunate as motorcycle owners to have a variety of options, > >including now and in the future of utilizing all types of propulsion, > >polluting or not,being safe or not, and being responsible citizens. I > >have, just as test platforms, built 2 different types of electrical > >and other low polluting bikes and making them practical. > >> However, it disgusts a great many people that anyone would listen to > >the garbage spouted in the name of environtalism by someone who has > >not done their homework and learned the facts, they are very easy to > >check. > >> > >> Again, please keep riding and ignore the propaganda. Is UMBRA's real > >name Joe McCarthy? > >> > >> JRH > >> > >> > >> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:19:31 -0800From: tilster187@: RE: > >[DSN_KLR650] environmental concernsTo: johnhenely@ for the > >response. Care to share your 'facts'? The umbra piece seems logical. > >Saying its wrong without evidence means little; provide better > >information, if you choose. john henely wrote: > >> > >> > >> Read the answer by "Umbra"? on Grist. This is another example of > >people spouting off and making up so called "facts". I have been > >involved with CARB for over 25 years, and her data is not only wrong, > >but fully falsified. Keep Riding! JRH > >> > >> > >> To: DSN_KLR650@: tilster187@: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:19:55 > >+0000Subject: [DSN_KLR650] environmental concerns > >> > >> > >> Hello: Here is an article that I found regarding the 'green' aspect > >ofour two wheels, one of the main reasons I have my Jr. Well, if this > >istrue, then I am shot. For anyone else that has theirs for > >'treehugger'reasons, this is > >depressing.http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2003/05/28/umbra-motorcycles/index.htmlGuess > >I'll be gettig rid of mine sometime, in case anyone is interested. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. > >Try it now. > >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > > > > > > > >List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com > >List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > >Member Map at: http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650 > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >

[Jon Neet]

<< 60 MPG on a Harley? Must be a Sportster 883. Every HD rider I've ever talked to typically speaks in terms of 30-40 MPG, on a 3-4 gallon gas tank. And with what they belch out, I can believe they're the worst offendors. KLR 650 emissions seem pretty moderate in comparison. And much better with 50-60 mpg on a 6 gallon gas tank.>> Bought a brand new 1984 HD Sportster XLX1000, and it averaged about 65 mpg with me riding it.Also, back in the 1980s Motorcyclist magazine hosted a gas mileage competition for 1.modifieds, and 2.stock motorcycles.It was run over a pre determined course with a pre measured amount of gasoline. In the stock class you could have alreadt tested your bike to find the optimum rpm for gas mileage.You could coast down hills etc. A Sportster 1000 got over 100 mpg in that competition. Jon in Puyallup, Wa. --------------------------------- Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[West Hovland]

I don't understand when some folks make hints at trying to be "a little" more environmentally friendly, that some other folks go completely off the deep end with their retort. West___ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[sylvain gilbert]

I just purchased my 3rd KLR... the 2008 model year and would like to know if someone has an electrical wiring diagram to share to help install a few acessories on my new toy over the winter months. It's different from the previous generation. Thanks and safe riding Sylvain 2008 KLR 650 2000 Suzuki GSX 1300R Hayabusa turbo 1982 CT 70 1978 CanAm 175 Qualifier 1976 Honda XL 100 1973 Honda SL 70 Still looking ...... !