I wouldn't trust accelerationtimes.com's figures for many vehicles - for those of which I've direct experience (ie owned and run), I know that the figures are way out, and can be either way.
Ok you don't like accelerationtimes.com. How about this: https://fastestlaps.com/models/ducati-multistrada-v4-s Same 0-60mph 3.2s
Do you really want a four year old bike out of warranty that’s been spanked it’s whole life? Just get the fucking thing, stop doing man maths, you’re only here once.
I disagree. The fuelling on the V4 I took out was pretty pants at lower speeds. Was very jerky. My 1260 with the full system is perfection. I’ve ordered a full system with my V4 PP, as hopefully that’ll iron the snatchiness out.
Not a question if not liking, just appears to be full of bad and inconsistent data - for instance the exact model of one of my cars is listed twice under different names, and with significantly different figures
I agree , not riding one will cloud your views and look to the internet for inspiration and back up from perhaps inconsistant sources . You have matching figures , different figures , clashing figures , all I have is ownership of both models. But both are great bike and full of fantastic points , neither are better just different at certain things . The V4 motor is fantastic thou coupled to the chassis , imppectable .
I know you can't use all the power on the road, but if the PP is the track going evolution of the Multi it's being pitched as then I don't really see why it couldn't have the a tune more like the Streetfighter hmm? I'm sure the is some middle ground between 170 and 208bhp to be found, I'd swap it for a shorter maintenance interval. On Euro 5 there also appears some wiggle room as the SF puts out more CO than the PP so a bit more fueling in the right places could compensate.
Different engines, different valve trains, different capacities. The Multi engine is making 100nm of torque at less than 4500rpm, the SF doesn't make that til over 6000rpm.
That's a good point relating to this Pikes Peak model. I would have been willing to trade-off some maintenance interval for more power. Not that a claimed 170hp is low, it's just not that much more peak power than the outgoing 1260.
The PP is track/performance focused according to the marketing blurb, so then the shifting of the max torque into a higher rev range doesn't matter because even a crap track day rider like me wouldn't be bimbling around < 4500rpm. The claimed power isn't low but it's not a dramatic improvement over previous gens. I can't believe there isn't some middle ground between the two drive trains, there was between the 1198 and MTS1200.
Judging by the back lash over the poor tank range of the V4 I think you’d be on your own on that one?
I've look at many of the specs but range and fuel consumption was not one of them. How bad can it be?
No worries with the range as I make sure my route includes stops , plus the fact that at around 120 miles it’s time to rest anyway , I won’t be riding in a back water . At the moment running 34 to 36 per gallon . Fine by me as this suits . I had the 1250 Gs , same stops okay a bit less fuel but no issues on the routes .
From what I can gather the gearing of the motor makes the changes . More forward thrust , torque is a figure , add gearing , creates thrust , thrust is fast forward motion . I posted a copy of the maths from ride mag on the differences . Compared to my old 1200 s (146 atrw) the V4 is better , lots .
I just looked it up. Sure the V4 is thirstier but it's not a deal breaker by any stretch. Here's what Bennett had to say: Ducati claim 43mpg for the V4 Multi, against the 1260 V-twin’s 54mpg. That’s a 20% difference. The V4’s tank is only 10% bigger – so where the 1260 has a theoretical range of some 240 miles, the V4 works out at just over 200. And, of course, claimed fuel consumption is usually nowhere near the real world figure; over the course of a tankful’s fairly gentle blatting around the hills above Bologna, plus a very short but slightly enthusiastic stint on a motorway, my V4 S was recording 38mpg – which would give it a tank range of 180 miles. Still not too bad – but then take 30 miles off that for reserve and the reality is you’ll be looking for fuel somewhere between 150 and 180 miles, depending how you ride. And with its capacity for going very, very fast, chances are that will be nearer 150 than 180...
DarR, you really are a tease aren't you! You're almost bound to get 'nuked' by one if not more others who can't seem to stop themselves getting all fired-up, when someone, anyone, takes issue with their opinions on the V4 beastie.......
