Re: If it weren't for the customers, this job would be the sh*t

["Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Bob La Londe" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:456fad79$0$9913$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bob La Londe" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:456fa7b6$0$9977$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >>> I hate to question you but there is no way a Turbo Seca could have
ever
> >>> gone
> >>> that fast or even close to 165. The fastest turbo bike made from the
big
> >>> 4
> >>> was the Kawasaki 750 and it topped out at 150. I had a Suzuki GS1150
> >>> that
> >>> would do 140. That trooper needed to get his gun fixed
> >
> > I've done 135-140 on a couple bikes and I know what it feels like.  This
> > was way faster than that.
> >
>
> Hmmm... upon doing some research I see what you are saying I see speeds
> listed for it on-line from 125-140.  I also noticed something else
> interesting.  They mention that the 82 developed about 7PSI of boost and
the
> 83 developed about 12.  (there was a mod for the 82 to make it produce 12
> also.  Mine didn't flatten out until just a hair under 16 PSI according to
> the boost gage.  Since I was not the original owner I suspect it had been
> modified slightly.  Probably the waste gate was pinned shut, and maybe a
> slight rejet to take advantage of that extra air.  That would make a
> significant difference in top end.

Could be, too bad they only made em a couple of years but they were
expensive when bought new

> I didn't have it long before it moved on to be replaced with a more
> comfortable ride, so I guess I can never grab my portable GPS and double
> check it now.  Actually I pretty much hated it.  It was the most
> uncomfortable bike I have ever ridden.  I had it for about 3 weeks before
I
> got rid of it.

I test rode the one I wanted to buy but not long enough to really tell
comfort. Ended up getting the GS1150 instead