| Author | Message | ||
     Roc |
Ha - well I made you look. But seriously, anyone look at one of these and think the thing was destined to have a turbo installed? I have, and my thoughts are as follows: 1. Plenum, needed to equalize pressure pulses on a twin and supplied on the Xb's in the form of a big sealed air box. 2. Oil supply lines to the oil cooler, needed to hook-up an oil supply to the turbo, near the oil cooler, which is conveniently located by the... 3. Sturdy exhaust mount, which could be used to fit a turbo unit. 4. The bike also has extensive heat management measures. 5. The exhaust seems to dump in the right place for a turbo mount. 6. The plumbing from the turbo unit to the plenum goes past where the ram air intake is, which provides a convenient place to mount an intercooler. 7. Fuel injection. This is a problem for now, as I can find no information regarding the injectors on the Xb's, but a pug and play system may be an option. Otherwise maybe bigger injectors. 8. More heat management, the swing arm is a nice heat sink for hot oil - which an oil cooled turbo would make. 9. Oil cooled turbos are cheap compared to the Aerodyne units we Buell owners have available to us. This bike may allow for the use of an oil-cooled turbo. Ok so there are problems too: the need to idle the bike – maybe a turbo timer – to flow oil and cool the turbo prior to shutting it off, the need for lower compression, the need for a higher pressure fuel pump – fuel injection as a whole in the beginning, all of the little and unforeseen problems associated with adding unnecessary complexity to a fine motorcycle, etc. Brought to you by Anheuser-Busch, the purveyor of this evenings substitute for sound mechanical engineering. | ||
| Blake |
I'm all for it and have contemplated similarly. Here's hoping Buell will do it and do it well. Imagine a 100RWHP/50MPG sport bike with the handling of the XB9's. Only negatives are the added weight and complexity. Biggest hurdle would be integrating it into the already tight package. But then, a longer wheelbase to go along with the boost in power would certainly make some sense... back to 55"? | ||
| Elvis |
I'm sure this is going overboard, but how 'bout bumping up displacement to 1200, turbocharge, new valves (of undetermined design) to increase revs to 10,000 +, keep the weight the same, keep the wheelbase the same, and you've got a pavement burning wheelie monster like nothing the world's ever seen before. Uhhhhh, someone may have to bribe the EPA noise tester. | ||
| Twodogs |
Hal's has a xb1200 stroker available that is making around 110rwhp NOW and it's reliable. I'm running A "hybrid"XB1200stroker in my 97 S3 and it's doing some amazing stuff. HALSPA.COM | ||
| Peter |
Roc, I sat for about an hour looking at an XB in a showroom having the same thoughts as you. I was thinking of trying to fit the turbo where the airbox is (in terms of lag, I think the airbox would be too big as a plenum.) Trying to fit a small water cooled intercooler in there as well. Header running through the current intake hole. I haven't seen under the dummy tank on one yet though. Would it fit? PPiA | ||
| Jim_Witt |
Drake, So how much is this reliable stroker gonna cost us to get a 110rwhp (including parts and labor)? Cheers, -JW:>  | ||
| Roc |
The plenum should be twice the engine or cylinder displacement, I forget which - so I think the stock air box would be good. Also, it is already there so that would be one less thing to replace and add cost. It seems to be well sealed, and the snorkel which feeds it would be a convenient place to hose clamp an intercooler to. The intercooler could also be used to transition the tube size from the turbo outlet to the snorkels diameter. My thought would be to retain the stock header, again as it is already there. I don't think it would add much weight as it would replace the stock muffler. The weight would be low and forward too. I would go with and air to air intercooler for the sake of simplicity and weight. Turbos are excellent at the reduction of engine noise. I suspect that if it were correctly designed it would pass the EPA noise tests. This would be a boon for Buell. Turbos make big power at low RPM, I would keep the revs low. This would enhance longevity and also allow the use of many stock engine components. My S2 will see better than 50 MPG if I ride it under the boost threshold, which really only happened when I was breaking it in. But it would be a nice option if someone wanted to take a trip, with the XB's limited fuel capacity. On the other hand, the bikes range would be dismal when ridden hard. Turbo lag would be a thing of the past with the EFI. Most of what people think of as lag is really the transition between running through the boost threshold anyway. If a turbo compressor of the was correctly selected then a rider would only have to keep the engine above say 3000 RPM, and there would be no transition – only power. I think a system producing 8 pounds of cool boost would allow the use of pump premium and make maybe 115 RWHP and 105 LBS of torque. Electronically controlled boost would be great. Maybe a nice 3 PSI for running around town. Fill up with race gas, push a few buttons to change the ignition/fuel delivery/boost, and go nuts. I think 5 HP per pound of boost it the rule of thumb, better flowing heads would only enhance this. Add complexity, ah yes. That and cost would be the big draw backs. The use of a common turbo unit, unlike the Aerodyne model that is currently the only kit option for Buells, would reduce cost dramatically. It would also leave users with a vast supply of cheap parts. If someone sorted out the fuel injection, which may mean increasing fuel pressure/increasing the injector duration/going to bigger injectors, that would be the biggest hurdle as I see it. I know that this has been done, but I don’t see it as readily/commercially available yet. It would be great if this were all solved by a plug in box, which might be possible depending on the pressure the fuel pump can put out and the amount of additional injector duration that is currently available given the stock redline and injectors. Makes me wish: I could weld well, I was a master at the electrical inner workings of fuel injection, I had a lot more money, and more free time – or maybe just a lot more money. | ||
| Spiderman |
I already have a few wicked ideas, now i just have to go home and sketch them down. . . . . . . . . Oh yeah and get the bike and money too LOL | ||
| Sarodude |
In a ridiculously simplified world, I think every 14.7 PSI of boost would yield an additional 100% of normally aspirated power. So... a 100 HP engine with 7ish PSI would get you 150ish HP. Keep dreaming though... Reality intervenes with a vengeance. I'm NOT saying this WILL happen - but a 5 HP / PSI boost is an odd generalization. A 5.0 Mustang will only benefit 5 HP from 1 PSI boost? A 3.5 HP Briggs engine will benefit 5 HP from 1 PSI of boost? -Saro PS - The 14.7 psi (actually 14.695950) is atmospheric pressure under standard conditions. It's sheer coincidence that the number looks an awful lot like stoichiometric A/F ratio. Just thought I'd clarify. | ||
| Blake |
Yep. Where do I find small turbo chargers.  | ||
| Firemanjim |
Blake,3 good books to check out--Motorcycle Turbocharging,Supercharging,&Nitrous Oxide, by Joe Haile. (HP Books) Turbochargers by Hugh MacInnes, and Maximum Boost ,by Corky Bell.I got mine from Amazon and Barnes and Nobles. | ||
| Roc |
Sarodude - Honestly, that was off of the top of my head and I think - but I'm not sure - the original source of it was Aerocharger. The 5 HP per pound of boost was for the S2 Buell specifically; I have not looked into turbos for much else. I applied it to my thinking on the XB’s, perhaps erroneously. According to this article, http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcbuell/1995s2.html , a stock S2 makes about 68 foot pounds and 64 HP - I needed a base of comparison and it was the first article I found, sounds reasonable though. My S2, with T-storm heads and compression lowered to 8.25/1, made 124 foot pounds and 124.9 HP at 15 pounds of boost. It made this power at around 5,500 RPM, so I think with a fully functional ignition module it should have made more power. I also think maybe the T-storm heads are cheating a bit, but I doubt my bike would do any better than 64 HP without the turbo. So my bike maybe makes 64 Hp, approximately, with the T-storm heads and 8.25/1 compression and it makes 124.9 HP with 15 pounds of boost. That is pretty close to 100% more power with 14.7 PSI of boost - just as you stated. Imagine if my ignition and fuel pressure regulator were functioning correctly and I had another 1000 RPM to run through. I also have an intercooler, which Aerocharger tells me is good for 10 to 20 more HP – depending on my speed and the intercoolers efficiency. So maybe 5 Hp per pound of boost is not correct, but it is not too far off. Perhaps one might even refer to this rough estemate as a "rule of thumb". The vengeance of reality is usually the correlation between time, money, and desire. I’m no expert at any of this so if anyone can add to my knowledge I welcome it. | ||
| Roc |
Perhaps we should call it a generalization, as rule of thumb is actually a very ugly term that refers to the diameter of stick a man was allowed to beat his wife with under law. |
