| Author | Message | ||
     Gonen60 |
Just curious, How Much more power can be pulled out of the Air Cooled V twin? and keep it reliable and in one piece? HP and Torque has to go up every couple of years, to keep riders Happy, So how much is left in the Motor. | ||
| Sshbsn |
I'll betcha if they redid the XB12 with a shorter (XB9) stroke but same displacement, stuck on four-valve heads, and ever so slightly freed up the exhaust it would remain reliable and give us, well, I'm not going to guess HP but it certainly wouldn't be less.  | ||
| Glitch |
It's only a matter of money. | ||
| Brucelee |
I would agree that there is more HP left by tweaking. I think the key is to get more revs top end, say like the VROD motor does. Come to think of it, the VROD motor in a Buell? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm | ||
| Stainlessmag |
Last time i checked a vrod motor is water cooled | ||
| Bomber |
the best place to figure that our might be to check the power/displacement ration of late WW2 radial aircraft engines . . . . . pertty reliable (hard to pull over to the curb from 15K feet), and certainly powerful . . . . . . any aircraft freaks reading? | ||
| R1DynaSquid |
Last time i checked a vrod motor is water cooled And so were the first bikes Erik built. The cycle would be complete then. | ||
| M1combat |
He'll stay air cooled for a long time. We can't afford the weight and we don't need the power. edited by M1combat on June 11, 2004 | ||
| R1DynaSquid |
Its already been proven by many companies that just because you have a radiator does not mean extra weight. There are quite afew drivetrains out there that put out more hp than the present XB's do & are water cooled, yet weigh less. it can be done, just a matter of "are they willing to". | ||
| M1combat |
Of course... But AIR COOL THOSE!!! Then they are even lighter. It's all moot anyway. There's no REAL use for more power. More torque? Sure. You understand that torque is the application of rotational force yes? I don't need to do the 195MPH that 185HP will give me. I could care less. I want more torque. That means more displacement. Not more RPM's. Granted, I like RPM's. Don't get me wrong. I love IL4's. It's just that I like torque more. Sure, an R1 has as much if not a bit more torque than a 12 but you need to be near 9K or so RPM's to use it. I don't mean to pick on the R1 because you own one, but because it seems to be the class leading IL4 ATM. I'd still take a ZX10 over it though... More torque as I recall and better delivery of power. It's all about torque under the curve. Look at the useable RPM range on the Buell and then look at the useable RPM range on an IL4. Is there that much difference? Nope. For MY interests, a WIDE torque band is good, and it helps if its tall too, but the flatness at the top is key. It's about the area under the curve. HP is good for nothing but outright speed that I would rather not use. I would prefer Erik stick to an air cooled simple high torque engine. Exactly what he has. After having said all that though, sure, I'd like DOHC and another 1000 RPM's but even after that it's still a low revving high torque engine that's simple. edited by M1combat on June 11, 2004 | ||
| Opto |
The Rolls-Royce Merlin engine had 4-valve heads, and 10psi supercharger. It was ahead of its time. What are the latest aircooled V-twins doing? Any faster than the XB's? R1 I wonder if you're sitting on the fence, I see you putting down the Buell for HP in a few different threads, maybe you've been blown off by a few Buells in the corners? Straight-line speed for you would not be a problem obviously. | ||
| M1combat |
I find it very funny when people mention that Buell needs 1350cc's to keep up with 600 IL4's. What about the fact that those IL4's have 2X the pistons and 4X the valves? | ||
| M1combat |
Yeah, line that puppy up and twist Dyna. Sorry... I had to say that. | ||
| 984_cc |
What would be best is to have an all-new lightweight design that still utilizes air-cooling. This way is simple and would be even lighter than a liquid-cooled engine. Two valves per cylinder is just fine. Just take a look at one of the top engines in the world- The Chevrolet LS1. For what these bikes are designed for- going around corners- they really don't need a big top-end rush of horsepower. What would be cool is a small supercharger. The WWII fighters used superchargers. Remember, liquid-cooling equals more maintenance and sometimes ugly packaging on a motorcycle. | ||
| M1combat |
Well, sure, the LS1 is a good engine, but it would be better if it was DOHC. The problem with DOHC is the center of gravity is raised. That's bad at LE-Mans. Very bad. However, they could DOHC that engine and increase the V angle to bring it back down. The V angle is one of the most closely guarded secrets of most F1 teams. It's nearly impossible to get pictures of the back of those engines. | ||
| Fullpower |
984, what you want is a big bore set up. bump the bore out to 3-13/16". that will give about 1450cc. stock stroke means you can keep your 6800 rpm with no problem. that will give you plenty of scoot, you wont be able to keep more torque than that under control with a 52 inch wheelbase. 4 valve heads are not really a big deal for an engine with that long a stroke. your 2 valve xb heads are just fine up to the rpms that the crank is capable of surviving. | ||
| 984_cc |
And keep the hydraulic lifters and pushrods. I like not having to adjust the valve-train. Increase the oil capacity too and it will run cooler. I've read about the new replacement for the Corvette LS1 V8. It uses technology they developed for the Cadillac Sixteen showcar (V16 cylinder, pushrod, 2 valve/cylinder). They actually have variable-valve timing using the one camshaft down in the block. I don't know too much about it, but that sounds pretty slick. The best of both worlds. | ||
| R1DynaSquid |
R1 I wonder if you're sitting on the fence, I see you putting down the Buell for HP in a few different threads, maybe you've been blown off by a few Buells in the corners? Where the hell did that come from? Havent said didly about the Buells hp. For what they are they put out damn good power...& blown off by a Buell?? LOL, you dont remember me because of a minor name change? I still own an X1 & ride with Buells on regular basis. Right now I will tell you to quit believing all the hype & literature on every damn bike being sold because none of them are any good unless the rider is a good rider. I have come up against riders on better nachines when I rode the Buell & whipped their ••• purely because I am a better rider than they are, & yet more & more you see the youngsters who have a year or 2 under their belt buying the XB's & thinking they are going to blow off the old fart on the R1 in the corners. To that I say "bring it on". PS..btw my bike isnt even 1000cc's yet manages 155rwhp...can I use it all yet? Obviously not, but give it time. Plus its nice just having it. | ||
| Daves |
You coming to Blackhawk on the 23rd of August Dyna?  Ride to the edge! Dave daves@h-dappleton.com | ||
| 984_cc |
You're right about the higher center of gravity M1. OHC engines have been around just as long as OHV engines. They both have advantages and disadvantages. OHC engines are more complex and heavy with the higher center of gravity. They also tend to make their power up higher because more valve area usually equals more top end but less bottom end. OHC engines can rev higher but not necessarily that much higher. Marine modified Oldsmobile 455s (pushrod engine/2 valve per cylinder) can go up to 10,000 RPM with an under-square bore/stroke ratio (4.125" bore and a 4.25" stroke)Engines with small valves usually have more low-down grunt than engines with bigger valves. Pushrod engines give you lighter weight, (a low hood-line on the Corvette), and less complexity which makes it easier to hop-up, and costs less to build so the builders can pass the savings on to you. | ||
| R1DynaSquid |
I just may be coming Dave..of course on that tight assed little track I know you will hand me my •••....Road America may be a completely different story tho  | ||
| 984_cc |
One more thing regarding pushrod vs. OHC. They put the LS1 in the Cadillac CTS-V instead of the Northstar because they wanted the the lightness, easier packaging, cost-effectivness and brute-strength of that engine. It hits 60 in 4.6. | ||
| M1combat |
60 in 4.6 is pretty good for a car... I always liked those Northstar engines. Those caddies are FAST. Just the car I want a 81 year old blue hair driving... | ||
| Bomber |
there was a guy in Australia years ago who found a couple of old Mosquito Fighter-Bombers (WW2 British) . . . . he grabbed some fo the Merlins, and sliced em up to make Vtwins outa them, and put at least one of them in a home brewed frame now THERE's a guy that don't need no more torque | ||
| Ted |
Ya a OHC with 4v would help. Also could use 2 sparks/per cycl, like Ducati. Like some m/c mag writer said: 'hey Eric, the 80's called, they want their transmission back' of course its all a $ thing. | ||
| M1combat |
I like the transmission in my bike... As far as dual sparks... It's VERY doable. | ||
| Ingemar |
The only real thing I'm hoping for (but won't happen I guess) is 4 valves per cylinder and high velocity porting. As far as my knowledge goes these are the only things that can dramatically increase torque along with a larger displacement. You see, I'm not waiting for 100+ hp's. Torque gives me a grin, high top speeds makes me •••• in my pants. | ||
| 984_cc |
You would lose a lot of the character these bikes possess if you just made another DOHC/8 valve V-twin. All that 4 valves per cylinder and high velocity porting would give you is more top end. These bikes don't need it. They are designed for everyday kind of power- the kind you can enjoy all of the time and not just occasionally- especially exiting a real sharp corner. You add more weight (up high) and lose some reliability by adding more complexity. If you want DOHC and 8 valves, buy an Italian or Japanese V-twin. I like those bikes, but one of the reasons I like my Buell better is because it has so much character. Give me the robust simplicity over complexity any day. These engines can still be made to put-out more power and be completely reliable. Like I said before, if they make a new engine, just make an all-new lighter version of what they have right now. | ||
| 984_cc |
Oh yeah, dual spark plugs are for emission purposes, they don't really add any power- little if any. Making the combustion chamber more efficient is a better way to go. | ||
| Elvis |
I can't remember the details clearly, but about 20 years ago, when BMW started making their K-Bikes, wasn't that the death of the "ancient" air-cooled boxer twin design? It seems they weren't quite dead yet. |
