Suffers from peterpan syndrome
To put this thread back on track, may I present for your viewing pleasure....One of the best bikes and engines EVER made by Honda
....pure friggin sex! (and all the characteristics of an IL4 & Vtwin)
Just to rub it in...a collection of the best from Honda
...your welcome!
When Life thows me a curve
...I lean into it!
Coal Burning XV Rider!
Dreaming again mate?
Nice vids.
Every day above ground is a good day!:
Forum whore
Torque is great! Can never have too much torque! In NZ with its roads and traffic, being able to whack the throttle and go instantly is the best way around!Originally Posted by FJRider
With a high-HP, high revving motor you need to be in the right gear or you miss the opportunity. I found the C50T and the Suzuki FA1250to be very good in that regard. The 1250 was like an electric motor!
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
Forum whore
The Horny is still floating my boat.
The cruiser concept apeals to a degree as a custom base - they just all presently look the same ................ serioulsy they do not need to be V twins.
RE torque - a long stroke IL4 or triple will spin the earth if set up correctly - heck Suzukis own GSX1400 is a grunter of a engine and that is in a seriousluy mild state to what they could do.
Triumph are showing a willinness to have a crack at going their own way - maybe a 1600cc IL3 'sport' cruiser is on their drawing boards.
Forum whore
V-Max...
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
Senior Grumpy Old Bastard
The Japs DID the IL4 custom thing, and the V4 custom thing... I had the ZL1000 in the 80's,, Suzuki did the Madura, Yam the V max and Honda used the V4 sabre motor (cant remember the bikes name, sorry) I can agree the kwack had amazing grunt, it out accelerated a Max to 50mph, then V boost kicks in. In top gear it would pull from 1500rpm to the red line in an almost linear fashion. The Torque produced by all these bikes was outstanding in the day.. at 2-3,000 rpm they all out torqued ANY sport bike, and literally doubled it every 3000rpm after. They were all 'retuned' for grunt (drag strip acceleration) However.. they all still rev high and produced high BHP.. short stroke motors. There is why even the GSX1400, which is phenomenal still revs to double what a big V twin does, for just about the same Torque and only 10-15 bhp more. The power delivery is simply completely different for feel.
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions; and a man is judged by his deeds and his actions, why say it's the thought that counts? -GrayWolf
Jam and tarts....
Take a late model thou out for a tootle and try say that again
Alloy, stainless and Ti polishing.
Bling your bike out!
PM me
Senior Grumpy Old Bastard
more revs = more HP or higher top speed, most of your high power 4 cyl,s have a higher BHP (considerably higher) in relation to the torque figures.Take a late model thou out for a tootle and try say that again
example Z1000 (2012) BHP 125 @ 10k rpm, torque 73ft lbs of torque @8k rpm. This is an engine 'tuned' for mid range power.
2012 ZX10r On the dyno the Kawasaki has lost its rating as the second most powerful bike on the block now that the Panigale has been introduced. Even so, the ZX-10R wasn’t far behind producing 162.96 horsepower and 74.78 lb-ft of torque. <<< BHP at 11k rpm...
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/156/13...omparison.aspx
No thanks I'll stick to my long stroke 3.8 inch V twin that has a higher torque output by around 30% over the BHP figures Thats what your short stroke high revving 4 cyl's cannot reproduce.
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions; and a man is judged by his deeds and his actions, why say it's the thought that counts? -GrayWolf
Forum whore
Power to weight ratio has a major influence. The thousand's are so overpowered it makes little difference as they are rockets from any speed in any gear!Take a late model thou out for a tootle and try say that again
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
Jam and tarts....
Make a short stroke 1670cc IL4 and then try that argument.
Look at the torque curve on an '08 onwards CBR1000. Flatter than an MT curve with a lot more torque per cc.
Your engine makes whopping torque purely because it's large capacity, and for a 1670cc motor has a very low torque/cc ratio (149nm or so)
The real secret to power torque is an engine's BMEP (brake mean effective pressure).
Higher BMEP is a more efficient motor
Higher BMEP is something we see in Porsche's late model motors, Hondas higher performance B/K/F series motors etc etc all have a high BMEP and high torque/cc with flat torque curves.
Engine tech has come a long way and basically, the more cylinders you have for a given cc these days, the more power and torque you'll have.
I'm not knocking the MT, it is a torque monster, but only because it has a massive displacement advantage.
Power to weight is king, in every way.
Alloy, stainless and Ti polishing.
Bling your bike out!
PM me
Senior Grumpy Old Bastard
Agreed power to weight is king for performance. However the arguement of theMT's massive displacement advantage, is 'balanced out' by the stroke length, (low rev limit) AND ITS VERY MILD STATE OF TUNE. The BMEP cannot be argued with for outright performance, the arguement is... even if the CBR etc have a 'flat' torque curve, the bike is about outright top end performance and is tuned for such, hence massive BHP to Torque ratio.. the low tuned motors, HD, Jap Cruisers, Guzzi, etc have a much closer BHP/torque ratio to the point like the MT/HD, of higher torque output to BHP..... A 4 cyl is of course going to accelerate harder it fires every revolution of the crank, not every other rev'. Short stroke allows for higher rev ceilings and thereby faster pick up as each piston has less distance to travel per stroke.Make a short stroke 1670cc IL4 and then try that argument.
Look at the torque curve on an '08 onwards CBR1000. Flatter than an MT curve with a lot more torque per cc.
Your engine makes whopping torque purely because it's large capacity, and for a 1670cc motor has a very low torque/cc ratio (149nm or so)
The real secret to power torque is an engine's BMEP (brake mean effective pressure).
Higher BMEP is a more efficient motor
Higher BMEP is something we see in Porsche's late model motors, Hondas higher performance B/K/F series motors etc etc all have a high BMEP and high torque/cc with flat torque curves.
Engine tech has come a long way and basically, the more cylinders you have for a given cc these days, the more power and torque you'll have.
I'm not knocking the MT, it is a torque monster, but only because it has a massive displacement advantage.
Power to weight is king, in every way.
Simple test,, try putting a double adult watsonian sidecar on your CBR1000, and see how poorly it can handle the loading,,, yet an old BSA A10 with around >50 BHP (650 twin) was the frequent bike of choice for JUST such aperatus...... It'll put your 'BMEP' is king calculation straight out the window.
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions; and a man is judged by his deeds and his actions, why say it's the thought that counts? -GrayWolf
Forum whore
Ha sitting here reading I must correct my own post - Troumph DO make a IL3 cruiser - the engine is just spun around 90 degrees! That ride is huge though! I suspect it will last forever as every aspet of the engine appears to be over done. Apply the same care to light weight and slimless as they do sports bikes and you'll have a more compact machine.
Jam and tarts....
The CBR makes more torque per liter. You saying, the MT will out gun a current gen 'Busa taken out to 1670cc with a passenger on the back?
Back, way back when, it was an issue and yes, was true. But, now we have the ability to make massive torque per liter over the whole rev range, VVT etc etc is all the key here and very clever cam profiles.
Take the BMW E46 M3 for example, it has a 3.2 il6 (S54B32 if you really want to look it up). Note the torque per liter on that, it's a high revving engine.
Then observe how much torque on of them makes off idle, one version of the S54B32 makes 372nm, 1nm less than a supercharged Commonwhore 3.8 v6 and at lower revs than the Commonwhore. Why? Because it's a well designed engine.
A well designed engine out performs the old trick of big stroke everywhere, every time.
We could also make a 4cyl with the same rev limit and CC as the MT and I'll put a fair few $$ on it out performing the MT.
Got a cool few million for me to make a new motor?
Alloy, stainless and Ti polishing.
Bling your bike out!
PM me
Jam and tarts....
To my knowledge they had a fair few gearbox issues? Most things will when trying to push 200 ish nm through a tiny gearbox though
Alloy, stainless and Ti polishing.
Bling your bike out!
PM me
Senior Grumpy Old Bastard
The CBR makes more torque per liter. You saying, the MT will out gun a current gen 'Busa taken out to 1670cc with a passenger on the back?
Back, way back when, it was an issue and yes, was true. But, now we have the ability to make massive torque per liter over the whole rev range, VVT etc etc is all the key here and very clever cam profiles.
Take the BMW E46 M3 for example, it has a 3.2 il6 (S54B32 if you really want to look it up). Note the torque per liter on that, it's a high revving engine.
Then observe how much torque on of them makes off idle, one version of the S54B32 makes 372nm, 1nm less than a supercharged Commonwhore 3.8 v6 and at lower revs than the Commonwhore. Why? Because it's a well designed engine.
A well designed engine out performs the old trick of big stroke everywhere, every time.
We could also make a 4cyl with the same rev limit and CC as the MT and I'll put a fair few $$ on it out performing the MT.
Got a cool few million for me to make a new motor?
OK lets examine this... if you look at an MT (for arguement sake) 65 ft lbs per litre, so you can argue that it produces less ft lbs than a CBR (74lbs)
You then throw a car engine into the equation... different strokes mate!! It's still a much longer stroke than your 'busa engine, high revving or not.. and 'high revving' is likely to be 8-9000rpm not the 14k of a busa. You avoid answering the obvious re the BSA and a sidecar..... reciprocating mass..... the low revving long stroke motor has a much higher level of kinetic energy stored in the reciprocating components,,, thats why your sprot bike revs up so bloody fast, little to no reciprocating mass, and yes of course a 1670cc 'busa would destroy an MT. It's STILL a short stroke high revving, fast pick up 4 cyl, compared to a long stroke V twin with push rods, not even OHC.... funny thing is without a turbo, the MT has easily been tuned to 115 bhp and around 130ft lbs of torque. A 'very low boost' turbo one produced 160bhp and almost 200 ft lbs....... still none of these versions rev higher than 6k rpm.
the biggest 'crippler' for any large bore, long stroke motor is the inability to move sufficient 'mass of air' on induction and exhaust. Something a 4 cyl will always do better. Half the capacity per cylinder and equally as large airbox/injector/carby/exhaust.
You can enjoy your 4 cyl, I still have one (ZZR1.1) if I want the rush when riding....... I prefer feeling the motor working as I open the throttle
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions; and a man is judged by his deeds and his actions, why say it's the thought that counts? -GrayWolf
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks