Why is it said that the 850s have a soft low to mid range compared to 750s or 1000s?

[Guest]

I just read something here the other day that said the 850s were soft on low to mid range power when compared to 750s or 1000s. Why would that be?
Top end, near redline, was as good as the other CC'd versions....but why a lessor low/mid range for these bikes...maybe due to the touring aspect for which is was intended?...maybe the added weight make them feel slower?....
Just curious....

[Joe Garfield]

I don't really know the answer, but the 750 and 1000 both weigh less than the 850. The 750 frame is lighter, and the 850 uses basically a modified 1000 frame so it's a little heavier. This is what helped me choose which bike I wanted (850 vs 1100).

[Steve]

You really only notice that "lack" if you are accustomed to anything that has "more".

I have ridden my 850, then hopped on my son's 1000. Both are fully-dressed and probably weigh within a few pounds of each other, but the 1000 definitely has more grunt at the bottom.
A longer stroke in the engine has a lot to do with that, but it also has slightly taller gearing to keep it a bit tamer.

My only complaint with my 850 is engine speed on the highway. If only it had a 6th gear.
I do keep my eye open for an '83/'84 1100 rear end with its slightly taller ratio.

.

[80GS850GBob]

Back when I first joined I checked out over bore possibilities.... and found the 850 was lacking of substantial upgrades when compared to the other CC'd versions.
650's could be rebuilt bigger, same with 750's and 1000's {and 1100's}...the 850's just didn't have those options....so I wound up checking bore/stroke comparisons between the engines, just to see what made them tick.
750's had 65x56.4
850's had 69x56.4
1000's had 70x64.8
The findings were interesting as they made a rather large stroke increase for the 1000's while doing nothing for the 850's but a bore increase. It kind of put the 1000's into the stroker category....something I'm familiar with on my old car engine {flathead 6}. I'd think that if they intended this bike to be a touring bike, they would've added more stoke to add more torque, given the fact that a lot of folks were likely to add side bags, trunks and fairings which means added weight, and that she was heavier to start with. I think a jump to 61mm of stroke would've been a good tweener for this motor...but that's not the path they chose. I lack the calculation in front of me to figure out the needed bore to retain the 850 statis....but it's sort of a mute point - she is what she is.
This all just "what about and what if" talk at this point.
I'd think it's just a "feeling" of not as fast due to the weight....someone would have to put an 850 motor in a 750 chassis {and adapt the drive} to see for sure...a project not to likely on any ones list of things to do.

[80GS850GBob]

I am curious as to why Suzi never made a 750G...they didn't, right?! They had a 650G...the present 850G, the 1000G and 1100G, but no 750G...somewhat odd since they liked the platform enough to support it in other CC'd variants.

[uk gs nut]

There was a GS750G for the Japanese only market. Also I have 850 barrels and pistons on my 750, I have noticed a difference in power from 750. I use a 750 inlet cam and 1000 exhaust cam.

[80GS850GBob]

... I have noticed a difference in power from 750. I use a 750 inlet cam and 1000 exhaust cam.

What prompted that combination....better lift...duration...?