6374 vs 63100 motors whats the diff?

whats the real difference between these motors and if their is a noticable difference where can you pickup some good 63100 motors.



Haha, I should have been more specific. Apart from physical appearance I mean actual power output torque etc?

More thermal mass, can push like 120A through a 63100 but if cooling isn’t there it will still get hot soon


56726 ?

6396 vs 6374. 6396 can do substantially more amps and torque (100+ motor amps like no tomorrow). They also heat up so much more. Did a 80 motor amp test with 6374 maytech vs 6396 maytech. 6396 just goes +20/30’C much faster and holds that temperature because cooling is much harder for that sized stator/can.

1 Like

My 80100 130kv motors (APS/Flipsky style) run much more cooler than 6374 Turnigy sk8 190kv. It’s a real advantage in summer.


But what’s the consumption on those?

1 Like

lets even go more extreme size difference, besides all the obvious information of torque produced, stator size, weight and such, 6355 @ 80A and 63100 @ 40A maybe even 30A both = same amount of power feel. (190KV and same deck/ riding style set up). what would be more efficient on battery life?

1 Like

You’re not going to get 6355’s at 80A. The stator saturates and they become space heaters. You will however run 80A just fine on 63100’s. If you need the power, bigger motors are more efficient. If you don’t need the power, smaller motors will be better overall

1 Like

I’m no expert, but isn’t this just flat out wrong…motor torque is a function of a few things (amps, kv) …and then torque at the wheel depends on gearing and wheel size as well…none of them being stator length…I could be wrong but unless larger motors in general had a higher flux density (which sounds implausible), they should have the same torque at the same current (up until the point of saturation / overheating)…anyway over to @MysticalDork for someone who knows what they’re talking about!


The only difference is that a lager stator keeps cooler at the same amount of A compared to a smaller one. There is no more power, torque, consumption or whatsoever.


I think there is higher consumption at higher RPMs, from iron losses. Again no expert but that was my impression


hmmm i am definitely no expert but just from riding there has to be a difference somewhere, 50A on my 6380’s are still way more powerful in everyway compared to my 6355 running 85A

I can definetly confirm this.
Flawed experiment but changing from 6374’s with bergs to 63100’s with 9 inch wheels, at low speed there is about 1-1.5wh/km difference at 17-19wh/km, but cruising at 40-50km/hr sees my session average shoot 28wh/km easily on the bigger motors while 6374’s only ever got up to 23wh/km (and even that only because bad bearings).

With that being said, bumping 6374’s from 80 to 90A got almost no benefit beyond some extra heat, while bumping just yesterday 63100’s from 100 to 110A got some extra torque i can actually feel

1 Like

That’s the reason of the difference. Even tire preasure makes more difference in consumption than stator size. Of course the limit of larger motor is higher than on a smaller one. If you stay within the specs of the smaller motor you won’t have significant consumption or power differences.

For me it’s almost the same.

- 6374 Turnigy sk8 192kv 12S 8/40 :

- 80100 APS 130kv 12S 10/35 :


We did a quick motor comparison today. 63100 vs. our 6376 motor.
Things to note: Motor sizes differ quite a lot. The Trampa 6376 has a rotor support bearing in the front of the stator and that space can’t be used for stator length. Also the rotor diameter is smaller (64 vs 59 mm).

  • The 6376 has a smaller stator (shorter and less diameter) and weighs 960g. No load current 1.2A
  • The 63100 has a bigger stator and weighs 1350g (+40% compared to the 6376). No load current: 4A

We were quite surprised to see that the smaller motor outperformed the bigger one.
Less amps for same torque, higher efficiency, much lower losses.
Just at the very edge (at around 5.5Nm torque) the bigger motor becomes slightly more efficient.


The difference in resistive losses is negligible.
How is it possible with so much more copper mass on the 63100?

Design of stator, maybe lamination thickness, steel used, copper used, shorter stator teeth (bigger bore), magnets, airgap… Could have many reasons. Vedder compared quite a few motors in the past and such results popped up a few times.
We also tested some inrunners of the same size and some were a lot better compared to others, although the physical design was not so much different on the first glimps.

1 Like