From: Fraser Johnston on 23 Oct 2009 02:17 "CrazyCam" <CrazyCam(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4ae13fee$0$6094$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > Fraser Johnston wrote: > > <snip> > >> I loved the scream that came out of my 675. Best noise ever. > > That would have been the Daytona? > > It's a pity that the only way you can really enjoy the sound of the Daytona > 675 is when it's on the dyno. > > Actually riding one is just too silly for words. ;-) Tell me about it. I got rid of it because it crippled me. I'm on the lookout for a street triple now. Fraser
From: theo on 23 Oct 2009 02:29 On Oct 23, 4:30 am, JL <jlitt...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Oct 22, 12:36 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > <waits to see if JL and CC can bear to say "and a diesel"> > > Pfft Diesels belong in trucks and pseudo-trucks(1), they don't sound > good, they don't perform well in light vehicles (compared to a petrol > or electric equivalent). I'd rather have an electric thanks. Compare the BMW 320i and 320d engines in this link http://www.bmw.com.au/com/en/newvehicles/3series/sedan/2008/compare.html The 320d is lclaimed to have a top speed of 228, the 320i 220 Acceleration to 100? 320d 8.0, 320i 9.0 I've driven both, for performance I'd choose the diesel any day. All that and 6.0 l/100km. Theo
From: Lars Chance on 23 Oct 2009 04:30 JL wrote: > > Ahhh OK, so what you meant is "I like under-square motors" and weren't > experienced enough or smart enough to know how to articulate that. > Why? Which bit of "Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it grunt." wasn't clear when I posted it half a week ago? Hardly my fault that you read that as "I ride a twin but would rather a supersports 4 because I like my torque-band at 10,000rpm". -- Elsie.
From: JL on 23 Oct 2009 04:44 On Oct 23, 7:30 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > JL wrote: > > > Ahhh OK, so what you meant is "I like under-square motors" and weren't > > experienced enough or smart enough to know how to articulate that. > > Why? Which bit of "Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? > Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it > grunt." wasn't clear when I posted it half a week ago? > Hardly my fault that you read that as "I ride a twin but would rather a > supersports 4 because I like my torque-band at 10,000rpm". And you continue to mistake of thinking the number of cylinders is the relevant method of obtaining the rpm config you profess to like. The 4cylinder I replaced with my current twin had oodles of "low down don't have to go looking for it grunt". My current twin has it's torque peak further up the rev range than the 4 did. In fact the 4 had probably half as much again grunt anywhere in the rev range as the twin does. It's not the cylinder quantity, it's the engine config (mostly the bore stroke, but also the number of valves, the placement of valves, the diameter and length of the exhaust and the presence or absence of cross pipes in the exhaust train). JL And for the record the only bike i've ever owned with the torque band that high is the two stroke
From: Lars Chance on 23 Oct 2009 06:29
JL wrote: > On Oct 23, 7:30 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> JL wrote: >> >>> Ahhh OK, so what you meant is "I like under-square motors" and weren't >>> experienced enough or smart enough to know how to articulate that. >> Why? Which bit of "Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? >> Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it >> grunt." wasn't clear when I posted it half a week ago? >> Hardly my fault that you read that as "I ride a twin but would rather a >> supersports 4 because I like my torque-band at 10,000rpm". > > And you continue to mistake of thinking the number of cylinders is the > relevant method of obtaining the rpm config you profess to like. The > 4cylinder I replaced with my current twin had oodles of "low down > don't have to go looking for it grunt". My current twin has it's > torque peak further up the rev range than the 4 did. In fact the 4 had > probably half as much again grunt anywhere in the rev range as the > twin does. > > It's not the cylinder quantity, it's the engine config (mostly the > bore stroke, but also the number of valves, the placement of valves, > the diameter and length of the exhaust and the presence or absence of > cross pipes in the exhaust train). > > JL > And for the record the only bike i've ever owned with the torque band > that high is the two stroke > And which bit of "Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it grunt." led you to make such a bizarre conclusion JL? Even if it wasn't insanely-hysterical; can you post some evidence to show that a 4 has 50% more torque everywhere in the rev-range than a comparable twin has? Or is it just silly words and childish name-calling? -- Elsie. |