From: Nev.. on 20 Oct 2009 17:58 Lars Chance wrote: > Nev.. wrote: > >> Never understood all the allegations about twins and torque. None >> seem to produce as much as a good jap inline 4. >> > > Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? (Apart from you, obviously) I never said any such thing. I rarely ever use the top half of the tacho. > Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it > grunt. That is precisely my experience of inline 4s. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8
From: Fraser Johnston on 20 Oct 2009 22:27 "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message news:Mp6dnRyKyYnir0PXnZ2dnUVZ_gEAAAAA(a)westnet.com.au... > Lars Chance wrote: >> Nev.. wrote: >> >>> Never understood all the allegations about twins and torque. None >>> seem to produce as much as a good jap inline 4. >>> >> >> Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? (Apart from you, obviously) > > I never said any such thing. I rarely ever use the top half of the tacho. > >> Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it grunt. > > That is precisely my experience of inline 4s. No kidding. My blackbird and my jap sports 1000s all have way more bottom end than my DL1000. In fact getting off my CBR1000RR and onto the Vstrom makes the V feel positively gutless. Fraser
From: Zebee Johnstone on 20 Oct 2009 22:47 In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:34:57 GMT Lars Chance <lars.chance(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Nev.. wrote: > >> Never understood all the allegations about twins and torque. None >> seem to produce as much as a good jap inline 4. >> > > Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? (Apart from you, obviously) > Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it grunt. > Maybe "torque" isn't the right word for it. Don't buy a Guzzi then. They get their jollies at the higher end of their rev range. Zebee
From: JL on 20 Oct 2009 22:50 On Oct 21, 12:34 am, Lars Chance <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Nev.. wrote: > > Never understood all the allegations about twins and torque. None > > seem to produce as much as a good jap inline 4. > > Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? (Apart from you, obviously) > Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it grunt. > Maybe "torque" isn't the right word for it. No torque is the right word, it just sounds like you've not compared engines lately. I own a late-ish model litre twin, I love the way the engine performs and sounds, but it has by no means the low down grunt of the 4cylinder it replaced. The only real difference between it and a brand new current litre twin would be a smidgen more top end at the expense of even less bottom end. The reality is even the tuned & modified version of the Raptor (TL1000 motor) I have only has a 110 RearWheel HP (stock is about 10 less- 125 at the crank claimed) with about 105Nm of torque at the crank claimed (don't have my dyno chart handy to be able to tell you what mine actually has at the rear wheel. A litre 4, even one 10 years old has at least as much (1999 R1 crank claimed 150 HP and 108 Nm for example) The current model 4's have more all round (the GSXR1000 is renowned for it) and the current twins are giving away torque to get HP up top. Sure if you compare a 1200 twin to a litre 4 it's about even. Ie 2009 Ducati 1098R - claimed 180HP and and 134Nm, 2009 R1 claimed 180hp and 115Nm and yes the 4 has it's peak higher up the rev rang (10K vs 7K) yes 20Nm is noticeable but 200cc you'd expect a little more bottom end and the longer rev range tends to make the fact you're revving it harder not very noticeable JL (likes twins, likes 4s likes two strokes, likes singles - they all have their good points)
From: Lars Chance on 20 Oct 2009 23:20
Fraser Johnston wrote: > "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message >>> Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it grunt. >> That is precisely my experience of inline 4s. > > No kidding. My blackbird and my jap sports 1000s all have way more bottom end > than my DL1000. In fact getting off my CBR1000RR and onto the Vstrom makes > the V feel positively gutless. > Are you talking about 2000 or are you talking about 5000 (which may be "low down" on a 4 but is almost redline on a big Harley)? I can't even FIND a 4cyl torque-curve that has figures below 3 (which is what; 30kph over the city speed-limit in top?), but according to these they seem pretty similar from 3,000 to 5,500. http://www.factorypro.com/prod_pages/prodh75.html http://www.holeshot.com/dynocharts/images/DL1000_slipon_06.jpg Not really a fair comparison though; the CBR should probably be compared to a big BM, Ducati or a Norge (I can't think of any big Jap twin cruisers) and the Vstrom should probably be compared to a Z1000 or something a bit milder. -- Elsie. |