RC390 vs R3 - My Dyno Results

tecknojoe

Member
Country flag
At the moment I own both an RC390 and R3 (I won't get into it). I built and had them tuned the same way, at the same shop, by the same guy. Here's the official results after a proper tune.

KTM is up 5 horsepower and 6ft/lb torque


2015 RC390 (non cup bike):
Full Akra (with baffle in)
PCV + custom tuned map
Emissions removed
Aluminum rear sprocket, stock 520 pitch
Stock airbox, air filter, and air intake snorkel
Chad's gasket kit
91 Octane pump fuel

2016 R3:
Full Akra (with baffle in)
PCV + custom tuned map
Emissions removed
Stock sprockets and 520 pitch
Stock airbox, air filter, and air intake snorkel
91 Octane pump fuel

Red = KTM, Blue = R3


vmkPn3H.jpg
 
Last edited:

big_sur

New Member
koolaid.png
 
Last edited:

tt2013

New Member
Thank you for posting. I would like to know which bike do you prefer to ride on the track. Which bike handles better in your opinion?
 

tecknojoe

Member
Country flag
In stock form:
The R3 is better. The stock suspension is actually ridable. however it's extremely uncomfortable on the street due to the low seat and high rearsets, along with the clip ons being very high.
The RC390 needs a rear shock and forks + oil up front, otherwise it bucks around a lot. But the ergonomics are spot on and make it very enjoyable on both street and track.

After a few mods:
The KTM is hands down faster. The chasis for both bikes is good, but the riding position of the KTM and low end torque make it much faster. I do have problems with dragging hard parts on the KTM, but I've tried to fix that with an improved riding style.

I've spent a good amount of money on both bikes, and am actively racing throughout this summer. I'm slower on the R3, and trying to learn to ride better to make up for it. However, our local top rider is on an R3, so it's possible to win on either. I'll need a little more time to see if I can match my KTM speed on the Yamaha, but it's not easy when we're all on the absolute limit.
 

ratlab

New Member
i just did the same thing-R3-m4 full system,bmc filter,pcv,emission removal,block off plates, custom tune=40.44 and 20.88-RC390-stock pipe,pcv,k&n,airbox mod,custom tune=42.61 and 25.98.livemoto in livermore ca did the tuning.
 
Last edited:

Ausracer

New Member
Hi all , Haven't posted for ages busy doing other stuff not much racing. Techno, many thanks for the post and comparison. The peak values look good, but treachery referred to the uneven torque curve. A very interesting point.
Single V twin? No. The RC makes better numbers BUT, the R3 curve shape is what we look for in a fast bike. Your KTM will fly if you can get the dips out of that curve particularly between 6000 and 8000. Cheers all
 

tecknojoe

Member
Country flag
i just did the same thing-R3-m4 full system,bmc filter,pcv,emission removal,block off plates, custom tune=40.44 and 20.88-RC390-stock pipe,pcv,k&n,airbox mod,custom tune=42.61 and 25.98.livemoto in livermore ca did the tuning.

Interesting that you were able to get the R3 a lot closer. I'm not allowed to do any air intake modifications due to class restrictions. If the M4 makes that much more power, maybe it's worth looking into. The numbers will definitely be different for a different dyno, but yours are at least a lot closer. Perhaps adding the Akra to the KTM vs your stock pipe could add a couple horsepower.

Hi all , Haven't posted for ages busy doing other stuff not much racing. Techno, many thanks for the post and comparison. The peak values look good, but treachery referred to the uneven torque curve. A very interesting point.
Single V twin? No. The RC makes better numbers BUT, the R3 curve shape is what we look for in a fast bike. Your KTM will fly if you can get the dips out of that curve particularly between 6000 and 8000. Cheers all

Interesting, I had also assumed it's a single vs twin thing.
 
Top