1999 vs. 2000 ECM

O

OB_valklex

Registered
Bob, my bike runs like crap compared with yours. Johnnycheese swapped his bike ('99) with a '00 ECM, and it idled way worse; unfortunately he didn't have time to ride it and confirm the big time surging because of the leaner settings to meet '00 emissions. I was thinking on installing a '99 on mine, but I don't know it the timing change (3º inner, 11º outer vs. 4º all-four on yours) involved a hardware change as well, so I'm going to leave the idea alone. Don't do it, unless you want a slower bike (2 mph slower, at least). You didn't say why you want to change it.
Hey Bob, check out page 100 of the June issue of Cycle World: It's a bolt-on electric quick-shifter for your R1.
 
Speaking of CycleWorld - they hit 191 on their 2000 Busa and claim there are no restrictions. MotorCyclist ran slower than 99' CW on their 99' Busa last year too. They [Motorcyclist] also ran a 10.3 1/4 mile time during 99' testing. I'm beginning to see a trend here. In fact Motorcyclist went slower on their 99' Busa at 189 mph [May 99] than CycleWorld did on their 2000 Busa [June 2000] For those that haven't received their June 2000 issue of CycleWorld here are the scans of the entire writeup:


http://209.15.53.221/zx12r/tests/cycleworld062000/cw_cover.jpg

http://209.15.53.221/zx12r/tests/cycleworld062000/page01.jpg

http://209.15.53.221/zx12r/tests/cycleworld062000/page02a.jpg

http://209.15.53.221/zx12r/tests/cycleworld062000/page03a.jpg

http://209.15.53.221/zx12r/tests/cycleworld062000/page04a.jpg

http://209.15.53.221/zx12r/tests/cycleworld062000/page05a.jpg

http://209.15.53.221/zx12r/tests/cycleworld062000/page06a.jpg

http://209.15.53.221/zx12r/tests/cycleworld062000/page07a.jpg

http://209.15.53.221/zx12r/tests/cycleworld062000/page08a.jpg

http://209.15.53.221/zx12r/tests/cycleworld062000/page09a.jpg

http://209.15.53.221/zx12r/tests/cycleworld062000/page10a.jpg


Thank God for cut and paste! These are pretty large files so get ready. Page 1 or 2 has the reference about the 00' Busa running 191 and the rest is excuses and theories on the failing 12. Aren't magazines fun?!


[This message has been edited by Todd (edited 29 April 2000).]
 
I tried to order a 1999 ECM,#32920-24F20, and was told it is superceeded to the same number except ending with F21 (number for the 2000). No big deal right? probably a different vendor or small tweaks. Maybe, maybe not.
I called Suzuki's customer relations Monday to ask what the differences might be. I had to request the Customer service supervisor to get anyone to help, but received the answer on my answering machine yesterday afternoon.
The 2000 ECM is to make the bike run smoother and provide more efficient combustion. Suzuki does not recommend installing the 1999 ECM on a 2000, but the 2000 is OK on the 1999. Thanks Suzuki for being so specific! "more efficient combustion?"-- timing or other restriction bullshit??? who knows?
I can not order a 1999 ECM so its a dead issue anyway.
Has anyone swapped ECM's('99 vs.'00) and done DYNO or track runs? Anyone know where I can get a 1999 ECM (maybe a critical stock part of the legend.)
$667.22 for this puppy new.
Look at 1 below--same speed each way for both bikes and slower than last year even though more power? maybe more than simple restrictions
The scan of the Motorcyclist page saying the 2000 spec bikes are slower is at LABUSAS
http://www.labusas.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001657.html
 
Does anyone know if 2000 EPA bike regulations for emissions were more strict for 2000 than they were for 99'?
 
I Know there is a difference between the two because they have different timing in each bike.

Is there anyway to see this on the pw2?

How would you know where the settings were at if you wanted to make your own Map?
 
The 2000 had to comply with tougher regulations, so the timing change and fuel maps. I thought that was the "restriction" that slowed the bike down a little bit, but Motorhead results say otherwise. Motorhead, same day, same conditions? At any rate, that's insignificant to me. The only thing I hate is the rougher idle on the new ones.
 
Something I've been wondering about. It seems that the 00's are making, at least, the same power as the 99 but are a little slower on top end. This has been a trend ever since the 00 came out. No one has equaled the 99 in top speed and we do not think it is a restrictor. Suzuki said during the introduction of the Hayabusa that as much as 1 sq. mm of surface change was worth 2-3mph at top speed. I wonder if all the running surfaces on the 00 are EXACTALY the same as the 99. This would be a real subtle way of lowering the top speed and you would never be able to see a couple of mm change in faring or nose assy. What do you guys think? Have any merit---can we measure a couple of mm here or there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
2000 vs 1999
Replies
0
Views
1,085
OB_BUSA00021
O
B
00 ecm
Replies
9
Views
840
Guest
G
O
the Ecm?????
Replies
4
Views
571
OB_Horse
O
O
1999 vs. 2000
Replies
12
Views
1,105
OB_00 so Blue
O
O
1999 vs 2000 Hayabusa???
Replies
5
Views
1,801
OB_EZ2XLR8
O
Back
Top