NT700VA Performance

Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
180
Location
Mechanicsburg, Pa. USA
Bike
2010 NT700V
Bought my NT last month and really enjoy the light weight, yes it is not near as quick as my Concours 1400 that is modified to over 165 hp. The Concours is so smooth on the highway and at any speed, and on secondary roads above 0 mph. The NT is my best friend in a parking lot. BB
 

JQL

Growing old disgracefully
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
833
Location
Val de Marne, France
Bike
2010 NT700 & 2019 FJR1300
Very few things in this universe are infinite and the NT700V alternator output isn't one of them...

According to my European NT700VA specifications, the alternator output is 452 watts @ 5,000 rpm. The US version is stated as being 438W which seems a little strange. If you're running at less than 5,000 rpm you're getting less output from the alternator.

So let's look at what is always using power (European Version):

Headlight, Tail light, Position Light, Licence Plate Light, Instruments, Fuel pump, Fuel Injection system, Ignition, (battery charging).

Now to the fuses:

The PGM-FI Fuse is 20A
The Headlight Fuse is 20A
The "Lights" fuse is 10A
The Brake Light Fuse is 10A
The Fan Motor Fuse is 20A

If you have ABS the ABS fuses total 70A (1x10, 2x30)

Usually the fuse rating is approximately double the normal draw. Your fan and brake lights aren't on all the time so, lets say a nominal draw of 25A or about 335W or about 103W @ 5,000 rpm available on the US version (less if you have the ABS version). Touch the brakes and you lose 42W and the same for indicators so, brake and indicate at the same time and you lose 42-84W. The power just isn't available.

The Accessory Fuse is 10A so ideally you shouldn't put more than 65W through the accessory system. If you want to power more than that, you're going to be borrowing power from the battery a lot of the time. Unless, of course, you're doing at least a steady 85mph, on the highway, in daylight. Then you might have 100-115W available depending on the model (European or US, ABS or non ABS).

Basically just put a 90W jacket on high with no other accessories and you're marginal at best at 85 mph!

In the city you're draining your battery.


These are estimated figures and assume that you're at 5,000 rpm.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
184
Location
Knoxville, TN
For all those NT owners out there........from latest issue of MCN. Fast enough to keep up with traffic for sure. Have to spend a lot more $$$$$ to buy a cage with 0 to 60 of 5.36 sec.

For the NT700VA
Rear wheel hp: 53.42 hp
Rear wheel torque: 40.28 ft/lbs
Zero to 60mph: 5.36 sec
Zero to 100mph: 18.19 sec
Measured top speed: 118.3mph
1/4 mile: 13.73 sec; 95.2mph


Yeah, I know the FJR does 0 To 60 in 3.18 sec. Let the comparisons begin.
Is this the same article that information is from? http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/model_eval/2010MarNT700V.pdf

If it is there are enough errors in that article for me to believe that the U.S. NT700V also has a 452 watt max stator.
 

Phil Tarman

Site Supporter
Moderator
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
9,369
Age
81
Location
Greeley, CO
Bike
2010 Silver NT700VA (ABS)
I just re-read the Rider magazine test of the NT700VA that Greg Drevenstredt did back in 2010 – It, like all of Rider’s tests, doesn’t have performance information other than high/average/low gas mileage, but it’s still the best test that anyone did in the US.

Does anyone remember which magazine made the NT a long-term test bike and at the end of their test gave some of the farkles they’d added to someone here on the Forum?
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
499
Location
Corinth, TX
Bike
2013 Yamaha FJR1300
tawilke46;138042 Yeah said:
Ok.

FJR: Twice the displacement, twice the horsepower, twice the torque, 80% 0f the performance. Half the cost. Value equivalent.
 

mikesim

Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
3,357
Age
74
Location
Union, MO
Bike
NT700, Red, #989,
Methinks he was first quoting FJR specs, and then began to compare it to the NT with 80% of the performance and half the cost... it wasn't clear to me either, but I think that's what John was implying.

Mike
 
Top Bottom