Fan 500 superior to a liquid 500?

norwegian

norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2004
Messages
2,904
Age
44
Location
norway
I saw dyno tests of the liquid and fan yamaha 500s.
Seems like the fan is superior in low and midrange while the liquid shines at top.
The liquid also sucks gas like there's no tomorrow. So why go for a liquid insted of a fan 500?
 
Well, 10 km/h faster, is it worth it? My 95 Phazer 2 st would do 120 (74,5 mph), while the 1997 venture 500 does 130 (80,8 mph). Not worth IMO unless you are lake racing.
 
Liquids seem to run a bit more consistant over a wider range of temps. I think the 500 l/c is around 83hp vs the 500 fan which is in the 60hp range?? So I guess its not really apples to apples. If clutched right, the difference in torque is a non-issue.
 
It's just not the torque, but the hp too. I don't think I ever changed jets on that phazer. lc is 87 hp and the old phazer is 53, the 1999 and newer is 61,7
 
Last edited:
Thats about the numbers I figured. I know on my old Phazer I would have to compensate a bit with the fuel screw in temperature extremes. I do on my liquid stuff as well, but its not as drastic. The L/c is obviously faster so I guess you answered your own question.
I would say neither one is superior to the other, its just a matter of what fills the need of the rider.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand how that would make a difference? The fan will pull more (down low) with less fuel from what I can understand.
 
norwegian said:
I saw dyno tests of the liquid and fan yamaha 500s.
Seems like the fan is superior in low and midrange while the liquid shines at top.
The liquid also sucks gas like there's no tomorrow. So why go for a liquid insted of a fan 500?
Click to expand...

Can you post the dyno sheets?
 
norwegian said:
http://www.m-performance.com/Sidor/dyno_yamaha.htm
Click to expand...
Phazer with a pipe will be about as quickly as a 500lc and get much better milage. The downside is that it was my experience that you could not hold the piped Phazer wide open in most conditions more than 1/4 to 1/2 an mile without burning a piston no matter how rich you jet. Making too much power for the cooling available I believe. I had a 90 piped, ported, 38mm carbed Phazer that use to beat my dad's 97 xtc 500 convincingly all the time.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
i was told by my brother when i bought my 500 lc that i should have bought the ac one as it does not require as much warm-up time and i was used to older ac sleds at the time.
 
Low end torque doesnt mean a whole lot since your clutching compensates for the hp and torque curve. the 500 l/c has about 10lbs of torque more than the fanner according to the link. The 500 would still come out of the hole harder than the fanner if both were clutched correctly. Pretty much anything thing under 5000 rpm is a moot point since most crusing speeds are around the 5000rpm mark anyway.
Im not saying that you couldnt build a fanner to spank a stock 500 lc tho
 
Last edited:
Dimes and penny's , it all matters what you put into it. The complaint was always that fan cooled sleds had over heAting problems . Like Throttle Junkie 35 said it comes down to the clutching and the torque you set it up for. I have ran a few Polaris faners they Where quite the sled . Great power out of the hole and good midrange . I was told that they set them up for that because of the low HP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well, I mean there should be a bigger difference all over the powerband between a liquid and a fan. I mean, the liquid has some 26 hp more on top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top