Ducati.ms - The Ultimate Ducati Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Howdy folks.

I am looking to buy a 90's Supersport. They are beautiful, classy, and fit my needs perfectly. However, I don't know the difference between the various model years. Is there a website somewhere that compares them?

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,802 Posts
900's

Here's a web page that explains alot of the differences. In general, newer is better, but most of the older ones have had the gremlins chased away by now.

http://www.geocities.com/edwyun/frames.html

Chris Kelly's web page has a great deal of info on 2V Ducati's: http://www.ducatitech.com/2v/index.html

His shop, California Cycleworks ( http://www.ca-cycleworks.com/) is an absolutely first rate operation, and Chris and his crew are very helpful.

Be patient, do your research, and buy one from an enthusiast. Use the search function in this forum. It's worth the money to buy the best one you can find, within reason, and the least miles isn't necessarily the best bike to buy.

Cheers

edit..varmit beat me to it :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
454 Posts
And of course the carb'd bike are better.
 

·
Senior Italophile
Joined
·
865 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
And of course the carb'd bike are better.
yeah, why would you want smoother, more reliable performance that doesnt cough at high elevation anyway?

My FI duc kicks the shit out of my buddies "carbed" bike at elevation and is better on gas as well.


I can see the interest in either, but to be honest, unless you are gonna track your bike and modify the hell out of it???...well there is a reason cars dont have carbs anymore, FI is just a better design.


Rotary phones are cool too...;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,802 Posts
There are two reasons virtually all new cars have FI, (1) it's cheaper, (now) and (2) emissions.

FI does not automatically create a better stoichiometric mixture that carbs, especially at WOT. The FI supersports have more top end hp. more due to cams and intake design than having FI vs. carbs. At WOT it is perfectly possible to jet carbs to mix as well. In between idle and WOT it is easier to optimize the mixture with FI without the range steps inherent with carbs also, leading to (2) above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,545 Posts
Chris Kelley at www.ca-cycleworks.com used to have a good write-up on the differences by year/model of the SS Ducs. What I do recall about my SS/SP's is that they had lighter swingarms, wider rear wheel, full fairing, an ammeter, and were generally considered to be preferrable to the CR. I also recall that the '96 CR had terrible Marzocchi forks that were not adjustable and/or rebuildable (?). There were also frame crack problems, valve seal and assorted other issues prior to '97. The best of the bunch was the '97 SS/SP. (I assume the '98 FE was as good) My '97 SP went 30K mi. without one single problem. I'd still have it if the idiot in the Civic hadn't knocked me down and totalled it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,254 Posts
..What I do recall about my SS/SP's is that they had lighter swingarms, wider rear wheel, full fairing, an ammeter, and were generally considered to be preferrable to the CR.
I think you meant temp gauge rather than ammeter?

SPs also had an adjustable suspension, full floating rotors, and a seat cowling to cover the passenger seat. I'd agree that the '97 or '98 is probably the "best" version, but my personal fave is the '92 Superlight.

And for what I've put into fixing my SP I could have bought an SL. Hmm... noticed yesterday the fork seals are blown on it too. Grr... but like the penguin said "Blew a seal? Nah, that's just ice cream"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
Wrong

What I do recall about my SS/SP's is that they had lighter swingarms
Sigh. Here we are mid 2009 and this myth keeps on giving the gift!:rolleyes: The STEEL swingarm on the 900sscr is much lighter than the heavy aluminum swingarm. Not that it really makes a hill of beans difference on these machines. My 1994sscr just clocked over 53,648 miles after todays spirited run through the plains of Colorado. That is 53,648 miles of trouble free, carbed miles of utter joy! Good times.:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
There are two reasons virtually all new cars have FI, (1) it's cheaper, (now) and (2) emissions.

FI does not automatically create a better stoichiometric mixture that carbs, especially at WOT. The FI supersports have more top end hp. more due to cams and intake design than having FI vs. carbs. At WOT it is perfectly possible to jet carbs to mix as well. In between idle and WOT it is easier to optimize the mixture with FI without the range steps inherent with carbs also, leading to (2) above.
you dont really believe carbs are actually superior to f.i., do you?

yes, they are charismatic, retro, easy to adjust for mods, and can be very satisfying to tune properly, but the metering precision of fi just cannot be matched.

the only reason the carb MAY be more expensive(and this is VERY arguable...) it that for a carb to meet modern requirements, it would need some major technologies to overcome its inherent shortcomings(but no one is trying).

emissions made the carb obsolete, but that does not imply the carb is superior if emissions was not a consideration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,802 Posts
you dont really believe carbs are actually superior to f.i., do you?

yes, they are charismatic, retro, easy to adjust for mods, and can be very satisfying to tune properly, but the metering precision of fi just cannot be matched.

the only reason the carb MAY be more expensive(and this is VERY arguable...) it that for a carb to meet modern requirements, it would need some major technologies to overcome its inherent shortcomings(but no one is trying).

emissions made the carb obsolete, but that does not imply the carb is superior if emissions was not a consideration.
It's very difficult to have discussions when people's minds are made up ahead of time....

I never said superior. I did say FI is less expensive, and that is due to fewer parts. Take apart a high quality carb sometime and compare it to an injector. Take inventory of the number of precision machined parts. The carb has quite a few more. Score one for FI simplicity here. The control is in the electronics where it needs to be this century. This is not better or worse, it simply is.

FI vs. carbs aside, this goes back to the discussion that newer = better. Many times it is, sometimes not. All things considered, FI is an improvement on carburation in many ways. My original statement was that it isn't the FI that makes the '99+ supersports have higher hp, it's the inlet tract and cams, among other things, and I would stand by this statement still. FI isn't magic, it is simply precision metering. It does not change the rules of internal combustion physics. This is engineering truth, you can accept it or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
carbs are a compromise. by that i mean any carb with a particular bore, jets etc, will only be optimized at a certain rate of flow. that means at any other rpm, the carb is not working very well.

you want high end power? well, you need a big carb. low end? well, that big carb wont do you much good.

as for simplicity meaning less cost? take apart a drum brake, then compare how many parts are in there compared to a disc brake set up. but discs are considerable more expensive. economies of scale can affect these things.

it is difficult to have discussions when people's minds were made up many, many years ago.

:rolleyes:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,916 Posts
My original statement was that it isn't the FI that makes the '99+ supersports have higher hp, it's the inlet tract and cams, among other things, and I would stand by this statement still.
you are correct with your statement, as most of
the times i like to point out, and there is no need
here to compare apples with bananas, carbs
with drum brakes in example.

put 41mm Keihin carbs on a tuned SS 1000 DS engine,
and it will have more hp than with the standard FI set-up,
as the atomization of the fuel causes the intake
charge to be cooled down which leeds to more hp.

Rossi has carbs in his Yamaha, but don't tell anyone.

:) ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,977 Posts
the 98 SSie onward bikes are much different to sit on - the rear is much higher, with your weight pushed onto your arms more. the earlier bikes have a lower seat height and you sit more in than on them. they're quite different, so you need to work out which one suits you better there. i find both quite comfortable, but a pre 98 carb bike is much more sport toury in comfort terms i'd say.

the ie models have shorter inlets and more cam duration and make more top end with less midrange as a general rule.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
you are correct with your statement, as most of
the times i like to point out, and there is no need
here to compare apples with bananas, carbs
with drum brakes in example.

put 41mm Keihin carbs on a tuned SS 1000 DS engine,
and it will have more hp than with the standard FI set-up,
as the atomization of the fuel causes the intake
charge to be cooled down which leeds to more hp.

Rossi has carbs in his Yamaha, but don't tell anyone.

:) ;)
one last hijack post here to clarify a few things...;)

the comparism wasn't carbs to drums per se. it was using it as an example of what manufacturing economies of scale can do when producing manufactured parts.

as for fuel atomization in a carb... well, modern injectors will atomize fuel better than a carb at all rpms. the carb will atomize best at the optimum air flow. at other rpms it is a compromise. although i will say that when an engine is running rich, the excess unburnt fuel helps to take excess heat out the tailpipe. but that can open up a whole new can of worms.

to keep this a little on track, i would love to add an SL to my garage, given the opportunity and right circumstances...:D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,916 Posts
that makes no sense with all the mountain riding
you hopefully do.
no mountains where i live, not even a hill.

:think:
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top