| Author |
Message |
    
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 12:46 pm: | 
|
I think what it comes down to each engine attribute gives a certain behavior. Just anything artful, what matters most will only be able to be identified by the final user. |
Rick_a
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 03:57 pm: |
|
They both have their purpose. If you ask me neither one is more "complicated." While liquid cooled, most OHC motors have a very simple valvetrain arrangement. While aircooled, pushrod twins have a comparatively complex valvetrain.
I-4's have their attributes. They tend to be very smooth, have excellent street manners, and are monsters in the upper R's.
Our twins give up that top end end rush, have lumpy V-twins, and IMO make better street motors.
I think all the common talk of OHC motors being "modern" and pushrod motors being archaic is a bunch of crap. They both have roots in the early 1900's with some 15-20 years separating them.
Efficiency can be measured in many ways. It depends on what is most important to you.
Fuel mileage, torque to weight ratio, power to weight ratio, max horsepower and rpm, brake mean effective pressure, 1/4 mile times, top speed, etc.
Frankly I'm surprised how easy the modern big I-4 literbikes are to ride. If you can control your throttle hand it's actually a piece of cake compared to even an XB9. I have the doods at work tell me all the time I need to trade in my Buell. At over 100hp with around 60ft-lbs available off idle and being considerably lighter than stock my S1 is already more than a handful and a lot more fun at semi-legal speeds. I need no more. In fact, I am starting to feel it's a bit too much and will be going for a single cylinder in the not too distant future. |
Rainman
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 04:55 pm: |
|
Come along Rick, I traded my 1100 Goldwing in on a Blast, with the help of a few homeless, starving chipmunks with a need to nest and a taste for electrical wiring.... |
Tom_b
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 04:57 pm: |
|
IL4, v-twins. Kinda like a big boob, small boob discussion. Both have good and bad points, but manage to serve the purpose. I like a v-twin for low cost, low end end grunt. i like an IL4 for low cost, smooth high speeds. never really cared much for flat twins. vertical twins are o.k. |
Tom_b
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 04:59 pm: |
|
Slaughter.. NICE vf's. Don't see em that nice very often |
Rick_a
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 05:36 pm: |
|
Well sir, my single will most likely be a liquid-cooled four valve DOHC with a high specific engine output 
As I mature I am finding less and less need for riding a racebike with lights or to be exceeding 100mph on the street. |
Rainman
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 08:20 pm: |
|
Rode a KTM Duke (the single)and the super motard version......nice....expensive, but nice... |
Doubled
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 10:30 pm: |
|
I think all the common talk of OHC motors being "modern" and pushrod motors being archaic is a bunch of crap.
Agreed. Just look at the current crop of Corvettes. All pushrod engines, all competing very well with the foreign OHC "supercars". |
|
