V-twin vs inline 4?

[Nzpure]

I personally have only ridden singles and vtwins. But there seem to be camps for inline 4s and Vtwins.
Just wondering why do people have a preference is there any reason or is it just that vtwins sounds so sexy?

[ellipsis]

....some blokes like chicks with a big arse...yet others........

[Sable]

Inline 4s can sound nice too and they generally make more power?

[SMOKEU]

I prefer straight 4s as they tend to be smoother than twins and they usually rev harder. The fact that they don't sound similar to a Harley is another bonus.
Each to their own though, and twins do have some advantages over straight 4s.

Ride a few of each and then make a decision as to what YOU prefer.

[5150]

I fell in love with my Daytona Triple, on full song it sounds like a 500cc 2 smoke screamer engine :drool:

[Captain_Salty]

Inline 4s can sound nice too and they generally make more power?

I was wondering how V4's compare to IL4's of the same capacity, power wise.

[White trash]

I fell in love with my Daytona Triple, on full song it sounds like a 500cc 2 smoke screamer engine :drool:

Only if you've been smoking.

[slofox]

You only have to hear a Ducati to know why people like V-2's...

Having said that, there is also something about the hysterical banshee scream of an IL4 600 hitting 16,000rpm that beguiles the mind. Quite apart from the turbine-like power delivery that just seems to get bigger and bigger the further up the revs go...

Not that I'd ever do anything silly like that meself of course...:innocent:

[sil3nt]

I was wondering how V4's compare to IL4's of the same capacity, power wise.Pretty much the same.
CBR 400RR (NC29) - 59HP
VFR 400 (NC30) - 59HP

Both claimed from the Honda.

Apparently the VFR has better low end and mid range.

[unstuck]

I love the sound of my v4, part of the reason I bought the vf.:yes:

[Gremlin]

Had a parallel twin, couple of inline 4s, then a vtwin and now a horizontally opposed twin.

Engine configuration is a long way down the list for me, with a bunch of other factors more important to me.

[Maha]

Had a parallel twin, couple of inline 4s, then a vtwin and now a horizontally opposed twin.

Engine configuration is a long way down the list for me, with a bunch of other factors more important to me.

Exactly....like the all important colour!...:confused:

[Hitcher]

Surprisingly, when people talk about v-twins in this context, they're not talking about Harleys.

[unstuck]

Exactly....like the all important colour!...:confused:

Yeah, I only buy bikes with BLACK tires.:Punk:

[Jantar]

Yeah, I only buy bikes with BLACK tires.:Punk:
True. But must have a BLUE powerband. :yes:

[SMOKEU]

I thought a red power band is better than the blue one.

[FJRider]

True. But must have a BLUE powerband. :yes:

Suzuki riders ... :no:

Red ones ALWAYS go faster ... (not to be confused with the pink ones)

[Jantar]

I thought a red power band is better than the blue one.
No, no, no. The RED power band is for two strokes.

[5150]

Mine has the Gold Powerband. It came in a single packet and on the box it said 20 metres :confused:

[unstuck]

So, what does it mean if I have a GREEN powerband?:confused:

[sil3nt]

Not this powerband shit again :facepalm:

KB needs new jokes.

[ducatilover]

More cylinders per litre = more power.
More cylinders = better balancing (if you do it right, like IL5s)
More cylinders = more torque (yes, it's true)


Ride what ever floats your boat, I've had two twins, one single and four inline 4s. I have no idea why I keep buying IL4s. I love twins (that aren't 45 degrees) but the 4 cylinder engines tend to be uber smooth.
Not sure if it always works this way either, but my 600cc 4cyl is far, far better on petrol than my 647cc twin was and makes a fair bit more power.

[dangerous]

I personally have only ridden singles and vtwins. But there seem to be camps for inline 4s and Vtwins.
Just wondering why do people have a preference is there any reason or is it just that vtwins sounds so sexy?
four's belong in cars...


Inline 4s can sound nice too and they generally make more power?fuck off... like a cat being strangled you mean.



I prefer straight 4s as they tend to be smoother than twins and they usually rev harder. The fact that they don't sound similar to a Harley is another bonus.
Each to their own though, and twins do have some advantages over straight 4s.

Ride a few of each and then make a decision as to what YOU prefer.
fark man, your a green as a green rookie thing...


I was wondering how V4's compare to IL4's of the same capacity, power wise.good question, depends on the engine, take the Vmax 200hp, but as a general the V4 makes less only due to being tuned lower down as a V4's have a load mor snot down low, however most V4's are tourers rather than out right race bikes.
V4, best of both worlds.


Only if you've been smoking.hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa... some just dont get it J


Pretty much the same.
CBR 400RR (NC29) - 59HP
VFR 400 (NC30) - 59HP

Both claimed from the Honda.

Apparently the VFR has better low end and mid range.
and its torque that wins races... now post the torque of both engines...

[BMWST?]

More cylinders per litre = more power.
More cylinders = better balancing (if you do it right, like IL5s)
More cylinders = more torque (yes, it's true)


Ride what ever floats your boat, I've had two twins, one single and four inline 4s. I have no idea why I keep buying IL4s. I love twins (that aren't 45 degrees) but the 4 cylinder engines tend to be uber smooth.
Not sure if it always works this way either, but my 600cc 4cyl is far, far better on petrol than my 647cc twin was and makes a fair bit more power.

il6 has perfect primary balance.

[ducatilover]

and its torque that wins races... now post the torque of both engines...
Memory says:
NC29 CBR400RR is circa 39nm at 10k
NC30 Viffer is 35nm.

Doesn't sound right to me, 35nm is pathetic from a 4cyl 400.
I'd expect the Viffer to be 40nm, maybe 39.
It has a better spread of torque though, marginally.

[ducatilover]

il6 has perfect primary balance.
And was easy to make in the early days (easy to get the crank pins in line as the only need to be 60 degrees off each other, 60 degrees is easy to work with)

[misterO]

I, for one, prefer the no-prisoners howl of an inline four to the growl made by a V Twin, but neither song is as sweet as the sound made by a V Four with a good set of pipes. Pure ear candy!

[sil3nt]

now post the torque of both engines...Both around 40NM apparently. Although finding torque figures for the NC29 isn't easy.

[davebullet]

I love the laziness of the 1050 triumph triple. Good to go from about 3rpm (redline 10rpm). Like an IL4 it pulls hard to the redline, whereas my v-twin experience says v-twins get to about 80% then run out of puff.

The triple motor won't put out the HP like an IL4 - but you get 90%+ of maximum torque over about 70% of the rev range :yes:

[ellipsis]

....singles are much easier to fix...:yes:

[scumdog]

Surprisingly, when people talk about v-twins in this context, they're not talking about Harleys.

I suspect SMOKEU didn't realise that...

[SMOKEU]

Get a rotary.

[Ferkletastic]

I love the sound and feel of twins, but there's something about the intake growl and power delivery of the triple.

Don't really like 4s, I can see the appeal, but just not my cuppa.

[slofox]

Surprisingly, when people talk about v-twins in this context, they're not talking about Harleys.

Just a matter of degree...or degrees if you like...45 of 'em in fact.

[Voltaire]

Last 4 cylinder bike I had was a Z1000 back in 1985..... V ( not 45 degree ones) and parallel twins for me....you can't beat the sound of Contis and Peashooters....:woohoo:

[neels]

I had an IL4

When I wanted to replace it I test rode a bike and liked it, it happened to be an L twin

What engine configuration it had wasn't my biggest concern.

Different engines suit different bikes, and different riders, and different purposes.

[98tls]

I like em all,just not as much as i like V-twins.

[caspernz]

Having owned both, I prefer an inline 4 with decent bottom end torque, so that gives me the grunty feel of the v-twin with the smooth nature of an inline 4.

Have to admit some of the V4s' feel and sound pretty sweet though....

[tigertim20]

Just wondering why do people have a preference is there any reason or is it...


because race car.

Because we are all different.

because if we all rode the same bike with the same engine it would be boring as fuck

because different engines Do different things

because different engines deliver power differently

because this thread has been done a billion times before

because you need the torque of a V twin to drag a fat chick home, and the power of an IL4 to make your getaway in the morning before your mates see you in bed with a heifer.

[dangerous]

Last 4 cylinder bike I had was a Z1000 back in 1985..... V ( not 45 degree ones) and parallel twins for me....you can't beat the sound of Contis and Peashooters....:woohoo:
in my 28yrs of riding on the road I have had just 0n3 IL4, a 82 GSX750ez... ohh I lie recently had a 83 Kat for post classic racing, thing is the old IL4's have a different feel/sound to todays car engined bikes, other wise a couple a V4's (awesom low tug of a V2 and the top end haul of a muiltie. Other wise all twins mostely V's and the odd single, just like a bike should be :yes:

[onearmedbandit]

blah blah blah...... to todays car engined bikes, waffle waffle waffle

Yeah how many car engines rev out to 12k+ rpm again?

[vifferman]

I like bikes. Especially those ones with engines and stuff.

[slofox]

I'd be quite happy with one of each - maybe not the 45 degree V though...

Lessee - GSX-R600 as an IL4, Ducati 848 as a V2, Daytona 675 as a triple, Norton Manx 500 as a single, VFR as a V4...might have to go rob a bank though...

[5150]

I'd be quite happy with one of each - maybe not the 45 degree V though...

Lessee - GSX-R600 as an IL4, Ducati 848 as a V2, Daytona 675 as a triple, Norton Manx 500 as a single, VFR as a V4...might have to go rob a bank though...

Not being a greedy person I'd just settle for a RC211V (in Repsol colours) :love:

[raziel1983]

but as a general the V4 makes less only due to being tuned lower down as a V4's have a load mor snot down low, however most V4's are tourers rather than out right race bikes.
V4, best of both worlds.
I dunno, go check out some VFR (800 or 1200) dyno graphs and you'll see a bottom end that isn't actually that impressive vs other configurations of similar displacement.
Also wonder how much of this stuff is actual characteristics of the configurations and how much is just in the tuning? All gets real complex when you factor in the crap they do to these poor engines to meet noise or emission standards, Not to mention the neutering of power in lower gears or revs to stop us maiming ourselves..

PS: Still V4 for me :lol:

[dangerous]

I dunno, go check out some VFR (800 or 1200) dyno graphs and you'll see a bottom end that isn't actually that impressive vs other configurations of similar displacement.
Also wonder how much of this stuff is actual characteristics of the configurations and how much is just in the tuning? All gets real complex when you factor in the crap they do to these poor engines to meet noise or emission standards, Not to mention the neutering of power in lower gears or revs to stop us maiming ourselves..

PS: Still V4 for me :lol:
I agree, spose I was more meaning older V4's ie carberated, I ran my 97 Vffer up on a rolling road and it out powered a 800 down low and over all by 1hp, it was dyno jetted tho, againdt a mates 900 ninja it hauled away down low, died a bit at 4g then took off again, only due to the inital low down power did I stay out frount.

[ducatilover]

The biggest reason people thing the V's are torque monsters is the power delivery.
More cylinders = more toque and better breathing = more torque. V-twin = less of everything, but will feel torquey due to the pulsing it makes from the firing order in comparison to a smooth six or four.

[gatch]

I see your inline 4 cylinder fagcycle and raise you another 4 cylinders.

Ludicrously expensive to replicate, totally impractical for anything except reminiscing and totally slow by modern standards. The 500cc Guzzi v8 shall remain forever king of the aural pleasure department and at the top of my "what if" list of bikes.

Suck my balls.

[dangerous]

I see your inline 4 cylinder fagcycle and raise you another 4 cylinders.

Ludicrously expensive to replicate, totally impractical for anything except reminiscing and totally slow by modern standards. The 500cc Guzzi v8 shall remain forever king of the aural pleasure department and at the top of my "what if" list of bikes.

Suck my balls.
no thanks...
now tell us what ya know about this legendary Guzzi 8?
and perhaps you should google Drysdale :)

[5150]

The biggest reason people thing the V's are torque monsters is the power delivery.
More cylinders = more toque and better breathing = more torque. V-twin = less of everything, but will feel torquey due to the pulsing it makes from the firing order in comparison to a smooth six or four.

So that is why all/most of the MotoGP bikes have a V configuration motors? Mostly V5, and even in the 2 stroke era they were mostly V4's ;)

[98tls]

in my 28yrs of riding on the road I have had just 0n3 IL4, a 82 GSX750ez... ohh I lie recently had a 83 Kat for post classic racing, thing is the old IL4's have a different feel/sound to todays car engined bikes, other wise a couple a V4's (awesom low tug of a V2 and the top end haul of a muiltie. Other wise all twins mostely V's and the odd single, just like a bike should be :yes:

Nice D but one has to wonder what you would think of a Vtwin with the motor put in the right way.;)Imagine that,all the hard work was done,the bright buggers packed up and headed home confident they had a winning design as they went out the door they said to the 2 young fellas "its all done just put the motor in and shes good to go":brick:how could they fuck that up?;)

[dangerous]

Nice D but one has to wonder what you would think of a Vtwin with the motor put in the right way.;)Imagine that,all the hard work was done,the bright buggers packed up and headed home confident they had a winning design as they went out the door they said to the 2 young fellas "its all done just put the motor in and shes good to go":brick:how could they fuck that up?;)

LMFAO :finger: just cos you asked... I have had 6 V2's including a turbo and 2 parallel 2's the right way round, AND 1 V2 arse about face, it just wasnt right. :niceone:

[tigertim20]

So that is why all/most of the MotoGP bikes have a V configuration motors? Mostly V5, and even in the 2 stroke era they were mostly V4's ;)

none of the current brood are a V5, and havent been for quite some time, though, I will concede that that is due to regulation changes . .. Yamaha had a dominant streak on the IL4 untill recently too though.

bringing the strokes into it adds a whole different dimension too.

and moto gp bikes are a world apart from what we have in the real world

[lostinflyz]

So that is why all/most of the MotoGP bikes have a V configuration motors? Mostly V5, and even in the 2 stroke era they were mostly V4's ;)

nothing of the sort, most gp bikes (all bar Yamahaha, the kwak was too) v4's as it aids packaging of the entire motorcycle to acheive perfect weight distribution and an ideal CoG. A v4 has some advantages over IL4's in terms of making a whole bike (easier to place intakes/airbox, exhaust, tank, width and weight distribution is easier to move), but they are essentially identical in terms of power (they are 4 cylinders of the same size, usually firing in a similar order). The only x mark in production motorcycle world is the cost of making V4's vs IL4's (double heads, cams, timing ect ect).

[98tls]

LMFAO :finger: just cos you asked... I have had 6 V2's including a turbo and 2 parallel 2's the right way round, AND 1 V2 arse about face, it just wasnt right. :niceone:

:lol:All good,have a great Xmas you 2:pinch:3 :pinch:or is it 4,sorry guys cant remember.Am coming up Sunday to spend it with the old girl whose busy once again cleaning up.:crazy:

[ducatilover]

So that is why all/most of the MotoGP bikes have a V configuration motors? Mostly V5, and even in the 2 stroke era they were mostly V4's ;)
Skinnier in V form.
I cannot fathom why a V will give better torque.
The firing order, rod/stroke/bore ratios, V.E and BMEP don't seem to be effected at all.
The biggest plus for a Vee engine is packaging, may be worth having that over the added weight (probably negligible on a bike) compared to an inline engine.

I'm happy to learn though :yes:

[ducatilover]

nothing of the sort, most gp bikes (all bar Yamahaha, the kwak was too) v4's as it aids packaging of the entire motorcycle to acheive perfect weight distribution and an ideal CoG. A v4 has some advantages over IL4's in terms of making a whole bike (easier to place intakes/airbox, exhaust, tank, width and weight distribution is easier to move), but they are essentially identical in terms of power (they are 4 cylinders of the same size, usually firing in a similar order). The only x mark in production motorcycle world is the cost of making V4's vs IL4's (double heads, cams, timing ect ect).

You bet me to it :2thumbsup

[GrayWolf]

really it comes down to 2 things.. preference AND tuning.
A multi cylinder bike will be smoother in power delivery, it will also rev faster due to the simple fact that it has more cylinders 'firing' each revolution, when compared to a twin.
Torque, grunt?? That comes down to tuning.. I always pooh poohed 4's for bottom end power delivery untill I rode and owned an FJ yamaha,,V twins can produce amazing power, ask Ducati and the multi's that used to follow Carl Fogerty over the finish line. Comparing my last two 4's FJ and ZZR, the FJ will destroy the zed for low down power, but once 6000 rpm is reached the zed is a missile. I prefer the feel and lazy power delivery of a big twin, and my new one produces 110ft LBS of torque, that is MORE than the R1 produces at full power, however it only revs to 5500rpm.. so the power delivery is 'lazy'...I just rode it over the Nelson Hill and the Kaikoura's.... gear change?? whats that? :2guns: on the zed and maybe the FJ I would be cog swapping.
Top speed is only? 210-220kph.. and I dont care, the grin factor is immense, and yes as ducatilover pointed out... Oh man can you feel those massive tin can sized pistons at work... it's an old school bike feel, with modern handling and reliability.

[dangerous]

Nice D but one has to wonder what you would think of a Vtwin with the motor put in the right way.;)Imagine that,all the hard work was done,the bright buggers packed up and headed home confident they had a winning design as they went out the door they said to the 2 young fellas "its all done just put the motor in and shes good to go":brick:how could they fuck that up?;)
ok then chap... hows this, any better?

[GrayWolf]

ok then chap... hows this, any better?

Oh my, that's just 'wrong' on so many levels......:confused:

[cmoore]

I havn't read the thread but I do cuurently own an in-line 4(XJR1300), v-twin (XV1000) and a Parallel twin (XS650)....all I can say is they are different...I'm sure that comes as a huge surprise..:)

[Monty69]

Ive owned many 4cyl sportbikes, loved the way the power just builds and builds like a turbine. Great If you wana go trackday racing or really fast in a strait line, but i then bought an SV650s twin...Oh the glorious sound of 90degree DOHC vtwin with full, 2bros exhaust system:shit: Fair to say it was slower in outright speed than my cbr600 (Bout 45hp less) But in the real world, ie twistie new zealand roads, and traffic, the SV is much more responsive and willing to pull hard even from low rpm. My mate who has a dynod 140hp gsxr 750 always comments how exiting out of tight corners I (and my other mate on a buell xb12r) just pull away, untill he gets a strait to reel us in. I find it easier to get the power down sooner with the twins. And as someone else stated in the thread, the narrow engine configuration keeps the bike very slim. So you can tell ive swaped camps to vtwins, but i havent ridden a busa...:msn-wink:

[slofox]

Ive owned many 4cyl sportbikes, loved the way the power just builds and builds like a turbine. Great If you wana go trackday racing or really fast in a strait line, but i then bought an SV650s twin...Oh the glorious sound of 90degree DOHC vtwin with full, 2bros exhaust system:shit: Fair to say it was slower in outright speed than my cbr600 (Bout 45hp less) But in the real world, ie twistie new zealand roads, and traffic, the SV is much more responsive and willing to pull hard even from low rpm. My mate who has a dynod 140hp gsxr 750 always comments how exiting out of tight corners I (and my other mate on a buell xb12r) just pull away, untill he gets a strait to reel us in. I find it easier to get the power down sooner with the twins. And as someone else stated in the thread, the narrow engine configuration keeps the bike very slim. So you can tell ive swaped camps to vtwins, but i havent ridden a busa...:msn-wink:

Opposite experience for me. Had an SV650S then was seduced by a GSX-R600.

Not because of the engine config. but because of the superior handling of the gixxer. Still love the V2 engine note. But also love the hysterical banshee scream of the IL4 revving to 16k.

A Ducati 848 is on my bucket list.

[Monty69]

Opposite experience for me. Had an SV650S then was seduced by a GSX-R600.

Not because of the engine config. but because of the superior handling of the gixxer. Still love the V2 engine note. But also love the hysterical banshee scream of the IL4 revving to 16k.

A Ducati 848 is on my bucket list.

Yeah id love some USD forks and bigger brakes for sure!

[avgas]

the best engine configuration is.............................................


















































































































































assembled and running.

[steve_t]

A Ducati 848 is on my bucket list.

:niceone:


the best engine configuration is.............................................



V4:msn-wink:

[SMOKEU]

the best engine configuration is.............................................


Wank wank wank wank wankel.

[avgas]

V4:msn-wink:
V12 is 3 times better than that.

[avgas]

Wank wank wank wank wankel.
You might be right. If it didn't break down the wankel is a fantastic configuration.

[ducatilover]

You might be right. If it didn't break down the wankel is a fantastic configuration.
Or use so much petrol.

[GrayWolf]

The biggest reason people thing the V's are torque monsters is the power delivery.
More cylinders = more toque and better breathing = more torque. V-twin = less of everything, but will feel torquey due to the pulsing it makes from the firing order in comparison to a smooth six or four.

Sooo My MT-01 which produces MORE torque than an r1 (110ft lbs) and only 88bhp....... ???
Weight of reciprocating parts, level of tune and length of stroke will have a profound effect on the type of power delivery of any engine.

Usually the big difference today is the high state of tune (BHP for MPH) compared to older bikes. If comparing my old FJ1200 to the MT? It probably does outhaul it for low down grunt, but they built their reputation on being Torque monsters in their day. The MT is much nicer coming out of a bend than my ZZR, unless I have the Zed in a low gear. Really a twin generally has a more 'relaxed' or usable power delivery untill you get into Duck territory.
I said it in my 'review' of the MT, I dont miss the extra 50 bhp in the slightest and I dont miss the extra 70-80kph either!

[GrayWolf]

Wank wank wank wank wankel.

We already worked out your favourite hobby sonny :bleh:

[ducatilover]

Sooo My MT-01 which produces MORE torque than an r1 (110ft lbs) and only 88bhp....... ???
Weight of reciprocating parts, level of tune and length of stroke will have a profound effect on the type of power delivery of any engine. Your MT-01 has a huge engine...:msn-wink: (Giz us a go on it?)


Usually the big difference today is the high state of tune (BHP for MPH) compared to older bikes. If comparing my old FJ1200 to the MT? It probably does outhaul it for low down grunt, but they built their reputation on being Torque monsters in their day. The MT is much nicer coming out of a bend than my ZZR, unless I have the Zed in a low gear. Really a twin generally has a more 'relaxed' or usable power delivery untill you get into Duck territory.
I said it in my 'review' of the MT, I dont miss the extra 50 bhp in the slightest and I dont miss the extra 70-80kph either!
Higher state of tune gives more torque.
But, most think an engine with torquey feeling low end (like Twins tend to be) have more torque...they don't.
I'm all for something that feels like it has gobs of torque though.
MT-01 vs ZZR11 is a bit of a big change though, I can see why you did it.

[raziel1983]

Sooo My MT-01 which produces MORE torque than an r1 (110ft lbs) and only 88bhp....... ???

Queue the "No replacement for displacement" comment, Actually remarkably accurate in this instance. :Punk:

[steve_t]

Queue the "No replacement for displacement" comment, Actually remarkably accurate in this instance. :Punk:

Not sure if that saying is worth waiting in line for :drinknsin

[Subike]

Sooo My MT-01 which produces MORE torque than an r1 (110ft lbs) and only 88bhp....... ???




oh dear,that is good.
torque is more fun to play with when delivered down low.
Say 66ft lbs @ 6500rpm, delivering 95hp @ 8,000rpm and in std show room condition an eta of 11.73, in 1979.
Bloody Yamaha's keep setting the goal posts ahead of the opposition.
Dambed if I can name another bike that came close to that till 1981.....

Having taken an MT-01 for a test ride, I found it the be just plain fun..
I would own one if I could afford one.

“Motorcycles appeal to all the human senses, and one of those is sound. Of the three bikes in 1979— XS1100, CBX and KZ1300 — the XS1100 definitely has the best low-end growl. It’s not quite as good as an MV Agusta America or a Laverda Jota, but it’s darn close.”

Read more: http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/classic-japanese-motorcycles/yamaha-xs1100.aspx?page=4#ixzz1llxJl8wf

[GrayWolf]

oh dear,that is good.
torque is more fun to play with when delivered down low.
Say 66ft lbs @ 6500rpm, delivering 95hp @ 8,000rpm and in std show room condition an eta of 11.73, in 1979.
Bloody Yamaha's keep setting the goal posts ahead of the opposition.
Dambed if I can name another bike that came close to that till 1981.....

Having taken an MT-01 for a test ride, I found it the be just plain fun..
I would own one if I could afford one.

“Motorcycles appeal to all the human senses, and one of those is sound. Of the three bikes in 1979— XS1100, CBX and KZ1300 — the XS1100 definitely has the best low-end growl. It’s not quite as good as an MV Agusta America or a Laverda Jota, but it’s darn close.”

Read more: http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/classic-japanese-motorcycles/yamaha-xs1100.aspx?page=4#ixzz1llxJl8wf


it's interesting how people keep saying higher state of tune equals more torque? As you point out the XS1100, and its spawn the FJ11/1200 were both very high in torque factor for their time. reading the road tests and reviews bikes like the GSX1100 produced more horsepower and revved higher, there is also a road test done between the late GPZ1100 (de tuned ZZR motor) and an FJ1200 (in the FJ1200 group, I posted in KB a couple of years ago).. in both cases the FJ out torques the bikes that rev higher and produce more power (BHP) yes a highly tuned bike will always have a higher top end, but in just about every case the sport tourer version has a higher torque factor, but agreed it produces it lower down and doesn't have the high end power of the pure sprot bike...... therin lies the difference top speed against tractablility. it's only been in very recent times with variable valve technology and computerised fuel injection you can have the best of both worlds... hence the R1 having various settings for power delivery.

I think there's a good adage in operation
Horsepower is how fast you can hit the wall
torque is how far you take the wall with you

[Monty69]

Ive always had a soft spot for hondas v4 in the vfr/rvf 400s, gear driven cams whining away and a very unique exhaust note, the best of both worlds.:first: I bet the 750 version was even better. But any vtwin that can pull 5 figure RPM is a close 2nd

[SimJen]

Ive had v twins, parallel twins, singles and inline fours.
Currently got a Duke, love the sound and torque.
All are unique, and I did really love the sound of my GSX-R1000 K5 with a Racefit pipe!
Power/torque are now irrellavent as twins give just as much as anything else.
New 1199 Ducati Panigale is 195hp! with shite loads of torque!!

[Coolz]

Engine braking is another area in which the v-twin excells.

[SimJen]

Engine braking is another area in which the v-twin excells.

Or decells ;)

[Monty69]

Engine braking is another area in which the v-twin excells.

True that! And that new duke @ 195hp is as fast as the fours but to be fair its 200cc bigger and costs a shitload

[slofox]

Engine braking is another area in which the v-twin excells.

Yep. First time I rode an IL4, I shut the throttle expecting it to slow down like the V2 did...had to find the brakes lickity-split...:crazy:

[avgas]

Or use so much petrol.
If that is a concern in terms of configuration, I suggest Diesel Electric combination.

[ducatilover]

If that is a concern in terms of configuration, I suggest Diesel Electric combination.
Rockets are the way to go. Might strap some on me boots. :niceone:

[Zedder]

Rockets are the way to go. Might strap some on me boots. :niceone:

So how's the squidtastic project coming along then?

[ducatilover]

So how's the squidtastic project coming along then?

No progress, money's tight + moved house :nono: