PX vs PR carbon pro power and torque levels

[Art Negus]

What are the PX and PR carbon pro sustained and boost power and torque specs?

 

[Greg Watts]

What are the PX and PR carbon pro sustained and boost power and torque specs?

Both the PX Carbon and PR Carbon Pro run the M2S motor, so the torque and power figures are identical between them.

The M2S delivers 130Nm continuous torque with 150Nm peak (available in 60-second Boost bursts), and 1,300W continuous power with 1,500W peak. Those are the sustained and boost figures you're after.

The distinction between the two bikes is frame material, battery, and weight rather than motor output. The PX gets the integrated FP700 700Wh pack in a lighter carbon frame. The PR Carbon Pro gets a removable battery setup (600Wh or 800Wh options) in a heavier frame, but with 100Wh more capacity on the 800Wh spec than the PX, and it prices out cheaper despite the larger battery.

So if you're choosing between them on power grounds alone, you're not choosing. Same motor, same numbers. The decision comes down to whether you want a lighter, non-removable setup (PX) or a heavier, modular one with more range headroom (PR Carbon Pro).

 

[Wojtek]

hows the frame material different?

 

[Greg Watts]

hows the frame material different?

@Wojtek - both the PX and PR Carbon are full-carbon frames, so there's no carbon-vs-alloy difference to worry about. The distinction is in how the battery is integrated.

The PX Carbon has a permanently integrated 700Wh downtube battery - it doesn't come out. The PR Carbon (and PR Carbon Pro) use a removable 800Wh battery via a side-access door in the downtube. That's the headline structural difference: the PR is designed around that removable pack, which adds a small amount of weight - the PR sits around 24kg vs your PX Large at 21.8kg.

Both run the same four-bar linkage, same 160/150mm travel, and the same 40-configuration geometry adjust (5 head angle settings × 2 BB heights × 4 chainstay lengths). The PX frame itself is quoted at 2.4kg - genuinely light for a full-power eMTB chassis.

So in short: same material, different battery architecture - and that drives most of the weight and price gap between them.

 

[Wojtek]

same material, different battery architecture - and that drives most of the weight and price gap between them. -> how does those aspects justify price gap?

 

[Greg Watts]

same material, different battery architecture - and that drives most of the weight and price gap between them. -> how does those aspects justify price gap?

@Wojtek - fair question, because on paper it does look a bit odd. The honest answer is the price gap between the PR and PX isn't really about frame material (both carbon) or even motor (both M2S). It's primarily driven by three things:

1. Battery architecture engineering A removable battery system sounds simple but adds genuine complexity - the side-access door, the locking mechanism, the sealed interface, the structural reinforcement around the aperture. That costs money to design and manufacture properly. The PR carries an 800Wh removable pack; the PX has a 700Wh permanently integrated unit.

2. Weight - and what it costs to shed it The PX comes in at 21.4kg (your Large has been weighed at 21.8kg shop-side, which is very close). The PR sits around 24kg. That ~2.5kg saved on the PX isn't free - the 2.4kg frame claim, lighter battery integration, and the overall package optimisation all add cost. Light carbon is expensive carbon.

3. Component specification The PX Pro runs Magura Gustav Pro brakes and Schwalbe Gravity Pro radial rubber - noticeably pricier components than the PR's Tektro setup. That alone accounts for a meaningful chunk.

So you're essentially paying for lightness and premium components on the PX, versus modular battery flexibility on the PR. Different priorities, not one being obviously better value than the other - which is probably why you and @billium on the forum are both scratching your heads at the sticker.