The best ever 4-stroke vertical twin?
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: tomorrow on 16 Jul 2010 14:56 On Jul 16, 2:07 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > tomor...(a)erols.com <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2:26 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older > > Gentleman) wrote: > > > > Did you know that in the 1970s Norton was that ---> <--- close to > > > clinching a deal to buy XS650 engines to put into the Commando chassis? > > > Really? Never have heard that before. Where did you learn that? > > Some years ago, from a guy called Mike Jackson, who was export director > of NVT, back in the day. He now values classic bikes for an auction > house, I think. > > He said that Yamaha was happy to supply the engines. You have to > remember that at the time, Norton and Yamaha were quite close, and > Norton actually built trail bikes equipped with Yamaha DT engines - > Google for the NVT Rambler, if you want. > > And Yamaha supplied XS750 bikes for a British police force, which Norton > kitted out and even badged as Nortons, which was quite funny. > > Anyway, apparently the whole deal was ready to go. They'd measured up > the engines, determined that they'd fit, and maybe even built an example > to test the concept. And at the last minute, some NVT honcho decreed > that it if couldn't be put on the road for an allegedly unrealistic low > price, then it wasn't going to happen. And that was that. > > > > Now *that* would have been a bike. > > > Ick. I quite liked the featherbed chassis of my Atlas, and someday > > hope to build a 650cc pre-unit Triton out of one, but the Commando > > chassis with its isolastics was developed solely to quell the > > vibrations from the 750cc (and later, 850cc) versions of that > > (originally 500cc!) Norton vertical twin, and was not nearly so good a > > chassis as the featherbed. > > > I actually can't think of a much worse combination of a ho-hum British > > chassis with a ho-hum Japanese motor than an XS-650 engined Commando! > > The engine was better than the Norton's in every respect, and the > Commando chassis was better than the Yamaha's. I agree that the > Featherbed would have been a better frame, but the XS engine is a tall > and maybe wouldn't fit. Anyway, the Featherbed frame was history by > then. Motorcycle engines are funny things. The Commando's engine, of course, made more horsepower and torque than the XS650, so it was measurably better in those two respects. I'm pretty sure the engines were about the same in weight; I've lugged both around the garage at one time or the other, and don't recall any striking differences. Both consumed aproximately the same amount of fuel; that being more dependent really on state of turn and carburation provided than the basic engine designs themselves (both were air-cooled 2-valve designs; the biggest differences being the Norton's longer stroke vs bore and the use of pushrods vice ohc; and of course the trannie being seperate rather than cast in-unit). And of course, the XS650 engine was more oil-tight and was counterbalanced, so it vibrated less - the latter of which was no advantage when paired with the Commando frame and its isolastic engine/ swingarm mounting system. And, in my experience, the XS650 held together longer before requiring rebuilds, which is a distinct advantage in a culture where people use their motorcycles for transportation; less so where they are used as weekend toys and playthings. At any rate, I think the Commando engine is a FAR better engine in the things that motorcycle enthusiasts generally prize the most, and that - in my mind - includes sound, the elusive quality known as "soul", reputation, looks, history, and collectibility. To this day, people who overhear me talking about owning classic bikes will often inquire as to whether I ever owned a Commando, or knew anyone who owned a Commando. No one has ever asked that question wrt the XS650, the fact that it was a very successful bike for many, many years - and quite significant in its own right - notwithstanding. No, I really don't think of the XS650 engine as being a "better" engine than the Norton vertical twins.
From: Beav on 16 Jul 2010 15:01 "tomorrow(a)erols.com" <tomorrowaterolsdotcom(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d9e5e968-59cd-482c-8168-2e91e0ec4ee2(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> SQ [hrrrumph.] > > Vertical 4-stroke twins... > > I've owned a 78 Kawasaki KZ400, two Yamaha XS650s (77 standard and 81 > Special), a 67 Norton Atlas 750, a 81 Honda CM450, a 74 Norton 850 > Commando, a 72 Triumph T100R Daytona 500, and a 72 Triumph TR6RV 650. > > The Norton 850 Commando was by far the best of the lot - by engine > alone. The Yamaha XS650 was dull, stodgy, uninspiring, heavy, > whirry, and did I mention uninspiring? Oddly enough, finding a decent XS 650 motor these days is pretty difficult as they've been snapped up by the customisers for years. I used to wonder why until I rode one and found the motor very pleasing from a feeling and a sounding POV. My personal preference is still for Norton, but that's probably because I had my first ever road ride on a Commando in the early 60's and like the first women you ever bed, it sort of sticks in your mind. -- Beav
From: The Older Gentleman on 16 Jul 2010 17:32 tomorrow(a)erols.com <tomorrowaterolsdotcom(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Motorcycle engines are funny things. The Commando's engine, of > course, made more horsepower and torque than the XS650, so it was > measurably better in those two respects. Not really. The XS650 made 50bhp. The Commando made about the same. <Wiki> 51bhp, to be exact. 65 for the short lived and fragile Combat. So you're just wrong there. > > I'm pretty sure the engines were about the same in weight; I've lugged > both around the garage at one time or the other, and don't recall any > striking differences. I've never luggaed a Commando lump, but 've lugged several XS650 engines about! I'll take you word for this one. They're not light. Ouch: my back! > > Both consumed aproximately the same amount of fuel; that being more > dependent really on state of turn and carburation provided than the > basic engine designs themselves (both were air-cooled 2-valve designs; > the biggest differences being the Norton's longer stroke vs bore and > the use of pushrods vice ohc; and of course the trannie being seperate > rather than cast in-unit). Yes > > And of course, the XS650 engine was more oil-tight and was > counterbalanced, so it vibrated less This is complete nonsense. The XS650 had no balancer shafts. Instead, Yamaha paid huge attention to balanciung the reciprocating components, which was *why* it was so smooth. And why I rate it. You may have been thinking of the 500 and the short-lived TX750 twins, both of which *did* use balancers. > - the latter of which was no > advantage when paired with the Commando frame and its isolastic engine/ > swingarm mounting system. See above. You've got your facts wrong. > > And, in my experience, the XS650 held together longer before requiring > rebuilds, which is a distinct advantage in a culture where people use > their motorcycles for transportation; less so where they are used as > weekend toys and playthings. The engione was over-engineered to an astonishing degree. And I'd suggest reliability matters to all customers - it's what put the Japanese on the map, after all. > > At any rate, I think the Commando engine is a FAR better engine in the > things that motorcycle enthusiasts generally prize the most, > and that > - in my mind - includes sound, the elusive quality known as "soul", > reputation, looks, history, and collectibility. To this day, people > who overhear me talking about owning classic bikes will often inquire > as to whether I ever owned a Commando, or knew anyone who owned a > Commando. No one has ever asked that question wrt the XS650, the > fact that it was a very successful bike for many, many years - and > quite significant in its own right - notwithstanding. > > No, I really don't think of the XS650 engine as being a "better" > engine than the Norton vertical twins. OK, we have to agree to differ here. But what you've admitted is that the engine was tougher and smoother and you've got it wrong about the power differences and the tech. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: BrianNZ on 16 Jul 2010 20:03 The Older Gentleman wrote: > tomorrow(a)erols.com <tomorrowaterolsdotcom(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I've owned a 78 Kawasaki KZ400, two Yamaha XS650s (77 standard and 81 >> Special), a 67 Norton Atlas 750, a 81 Honda CM450, a 74 Norton 850 >> Commando, a 72 Triumph T100R Daytona 500, and a 72 Triumph TR6RV 650. > > I like the fact that you've chosen 360 degree twins every time, not 180 > degree. Nice. Did you guys get the TRX 850's up there? 190ish kg, 80HP, 270 degree crank...... > >> The Norton 850 Commando was by far the best of the lot - by engine >> alone. The Yamaha XS650 was dull, stodgy, uninspiring, heavy, >> whirry, and did I mention uninspiring? >> >> In engine alone, I would rank them: Commando, TR6RV, Atlas, T100R, >> XS650, CM450, KZ400. >> >> As complete motorcycles: Commando, Atlas, XS650, KZ400, T100R, CM450. >> >> I wouldn't have any of them again unless they were given to me. > > I'd have another XS. And I've had four. Or is it five? > >
From: tomorrow on 16 Jul 2010 23:17
On Jul 16, 8:03 pm, BrianNZ <br...(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote: > The Older Gentleman wrote: > > tomor...(a)erols.com <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> I've owned a 78 Kawasaki KZ400, two Yamaha XS650s (77 standard and 81 > >> Special), a 67 Norton Atlas 750, a 81 Honda CM450, a 74 Norton 850 > >> Commando, a 72 Triumph T100R Daytona 500, and a 72 Triumph TR6RV 650. > > > I like the fact that you've chosen 360 degree twins every time, not 180 > > degree. Nice. > > Did you guys get the TRX 850's up there? 190ish kg, 80HP, 270 degree > crank...... Briefly, in the very short-lived TDM850. |