TuneBoy? was Re: Bathurst 1000
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
From: CrazyCam on 21 Oct 2009 01:55 Zebee Johnstone wrote: > 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. But Guzzi owners are, by their own admission, pretty weird! ;-) regards, CrazyCam
From: CrazyCam on 21 Oct 2009 01:57 JL wrote: <snip> > JL > (likes twins, likes 4s likes two strokes, likes singles - they all > have their good points) > > Yeah, but, like me, you are a cheap tart! regards, CrazyCam
From: atec 7 7 "atec on 21 Oct 2009 02:41 CrazyCam wrote: > Zebee Johnstone wrote: >> 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. > > But Guzzi owners are, by their own admission, pretty weird! ;-) > > regards, > CrazyCam If you saw the bloke on the guzzi going down the hill into Beenleigh this morning early you wouldn't make that claim .
From: atec 7 7 "atec on 21 Oct 2009 02:44 JL wrote: > On Oct 21, 12:34 am, Lars Chance <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> Nev.. wrote: > > JL > (likes twins, likes 4s likes two strokes, likes singles - they all > have their good points) > > so do 6's until they fall down I dropped the 6 pot once , repaired it and sold it to a swede who took it back with him which brought about buying the first hogly Two pots are just generally cheaper to break
From: Lars Chance on 21 Oct 2009 02:47
JL wrote: > 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 > Well torque obviously ISN'T the right word if you're talking about what an engine is doing at 7000->10000 RPM! That isn't lazy low-down grunt in anyone's language (anyone vaguely normal that is!) That's back 3 gears at 100kph to access the fat part of the torque-curve? How could that possibly qualify as "don't have to go looking-for-it grunt"? -- Elsie. |