Author Topic: Euro 4 Emmissions  (Read 52063 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

finbullet

  • Scooter
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • Karma: 0
Reply #180 on: November 22, 2016, 07:02:11 am
To be fair to BMW they, like Yamaha, have not been afraid to innovate. They were probably the first to have a decent fuel injection system introduced with the "bricks" in the early eighties. At the time only the Kawasaki z1100 had fuel injection and many owners put carbs on it.
Suzuki also had a fuel injection in one of their bikes early in the year -83 it was the suzuki xn85, it also had a turbo charger and a full floating rear suspension and a true high tech of the eighties, lcd gauges for boost pressure and fuel. :D


Richard230

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,023
  • Karma: 0
Reply #181 on: November 22, 2016, 02:37:14 pm
Suzuki also had a fuel injection in one of their bikes early in the year -83 it was the suzuki xn85, it also had a turbo charger and a full floating rear suspension and a true high tech of the eighties, lcd gauges for boost pressure and fuel. :D

And it didn't sell.  :( Those bikes were really innovative and well well received by the motorcycling press. However, they were not as well received by the buying public.  Most likely because the motorcycle enthusiast doesn't really like or appreciate innovation or change (not doubt something that RE owners can appreciate too) and is even less likely to want to pay for it - especially during those days of very high loan interest costs.  The fact that the turbo bikes were quite expensive for their displacement and kind of heavy compared with other motorcycles in the market at the time were a couple of sales-dampening factors.  But then when the insurance industry went after "turbo" bikes with a vengeance and jacked the premiums to insure them out of sight it really put an end to FI and turbo innovation for years (BMW K-bikes VW-type FI being an exception).  :o

Now that FI has returned, it is likely only a matter of time before the turbo starts appearing on our doorstep, just as it has with new automobiles.  Anyone looking forward to a 300cc twin with a turbo making 150 hp.  :o  (I am not sure that I am.) ???   
2018 16.6 kWh Zero S, 2009 BMW F650GS, 2020 KTM Duke 390, 2002 Yamaha FZ1


finbullet

  • Scooter
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • Karma: 0
Reply #182 on: November 22, 2016, 05:50:37 pm
Yes. And they were under powered. I think the last nail to the xn's coffin was the suzuki gs 750 which had the same hp as the xn from a naturally aspirated engine, just a few years after the xn was introduced.

But you can get easily 120 hp from the xn (if I remember correctly,this was from the back wheel.) all you need is 2 inches of wire, soldering Iron and a bleed valve.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2016, 05:59:57 pm by finbullet »


suitcasejefferson

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,589
  • Karma: 0
Reply #183 on: November 22, 2016, 10:30:01 pm
I have had disc brakes fail before, but they didn't lock up completely, and I never crashed. Basically what happens is something suddenly plugs up the fluid return hole, that releases fluid back into the master cylinder, so the line stays pressurized. Changing the brake fluid every couple of years will go a long way toward preventing that, it is usually caused by corrosion due to moisture in the fluid.

Twice I have had to ride out of the desert on my XT225 with no front brake, because the hose snagged on something and cut it. Until recently I have never had a drum brake fail.
"I am a motorcyclist, NOT a biker"
"Buy the ticket, take the ride" Hunter S. Thompson


Rattlebattle

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 973
  • Karma: 0
Reply #184 on: November 23, 2016, 05:59:03 pm
One of the reasons I always change to braided hose is to reduce the risk of rubber hose collapsing, blocking the fluid recovery port and locking on the brakes.
Sic se res habet: fractum est...


Rattlebattle

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 973
  • Karma: 0
Reply #185 on: November 23, 2016, 06:03:29 pm
Yes. And they were under powered. I think the last nail to the xn's coffin was the suzuki gs 750 which had the same hp as the xn from a naturally aspirated engine, just a few years after the xn was introduced.

But you can get easily 120 hp from the xn (if I remember correctly,this was from the back wheel.) all you need is 2 inches of wire, soldering Iron and a bleed valve.


Most reckon the Kawasaki Turbo was the pick of the bunch, though even that was an expensive way of achieving no more than the contemporary GPz1100, even though that had rubbish fuel injection. These days superchargers seem to be more of a thing on bikes. A neighbour has a Kawasaki H2, a 1 litre bike with a supercharger, producing 210 bhp. A cool £22k. Something about opportunity cost.... :)
Sic se res habet: fractum est...


suitcasejefferson

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,589
  • Karma: 0
Reply #186 on: November 23, 2016, 06:20:26 pm
Except for racing, I have never believed in turbocharged or supercharged engines. Just increase the engine displacement. Forced induction puts a lot more stress on all engine parts, and causes them to wear out/break faster than a normally aspirated engine. Plus you have all that additional complication, more stuff to fail.

I've always been a hot rodder (cars) and know a lot of people with superchargers on their engines. But the engine has to be built from the ground up with aftermarket parts to handle the extra power. Many of these cars are never raced, so the supercharger is basically just for show. The additional power rarely gets used.

I race a normally aspirated small block Chevy 383 (350 block, 400 crank) that I built from the ground up with expensive parts. I use one 4 barrel carburetor. For what the engine cost, I could have easily built something with more power, but I chose to spend my money on durability instead, since I race only for fun, and can't afford to keep rebuilding engines.

I never understood the power thing with sportbikes. Sportbikes are ridden on the street, and a Ninja 250 (which I have owned) can cost you your license if you push it. More power means a bigger, heavier bike, which is harder to handle, and has way more power than you can ever use on the street. Real roadracers, which supersport bikes are patterned after are super expensive, and super lightweight for the power they produce. They are hand built out of exotic materials to make them light, something you can't do with a production bike. Plus you can ride 150+ mph on the track, but not on the street. Not for very long anyway.
"I am a motorcyclist, NOT a biker"
"Buy the ticket, take the ride" Hunter S. Thompson


Rattlebattle

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 973
  • Karma: 0
Reply #187 on: November 23, 2016, 07:04:58 pm
The H2 assembly line is separate from the normal one. Each bike is partly hand built. Kawasaki uses its own supercharger (they have a lot of expertise in their aerospace division). The bike has a lot of parts made from fairly exotic metal and is designed from the ground up as a supercharged vehicle. There's an awful lot of electronics on it. Kawasaki also makes the H2R, this is a tuned H2 producing an obscene amount of power and it is not road or racetrack legal in Europe. Like Honda with the CX650 Turbo it is made to showcase their ability.

I agree that they have no real use. I can't see the point in producing an engine with so much power then taming it with riding modes so that it can actually be used. It's just for bragging rights really. Nobody can ride one on the street at anything like its full potential.
Sic se res habet: fractum est...


Blairio

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
  • Karma: 0
Reply #188 on: November 24, 2016, 03:44:28 am
A turbo can contribute to a more efficient engine, as it effectively increases the displacement of an engine. Improve the efficiency of a 2 litre straight 4 engine (as Lotus did) and you can achieve similar power outputs to conventionally aspirated engines of a far higher capacity.  Torque is also increased.  A more efficient engine can be a lighter engine, which leads to a lighter, better handling car. In 1980,  a Turbo Esprit was putting out 210 bhp, and good for 150mph, out of a 2 litre straight 4 engine.

BY 1993 Lotus were getting 300bhp out of a turbocharged 2.2 litre straight 4, and the engines were reliable.  I once had the use of a friend's Porsche 944 Turbo for a week when he was on holiday.  That car was ridiculously fast, but it was also very tractable - even from low revs.  What I didn't expect was that the car was quite frugal for the times, achieving nearly 30mpg, even when driven, err.. vigorously.

Turbos assist less glamorous vehicles too. Most diesel truck engines run turbos, usually at a higher boost pressure than petrol engines, and diesel truck engines are built for far higher mileages than the average car power plant.