PDA

View Full Version : It's just too big! ;)


CosmicNoodle
October 6th, 2014, 05:28 PM
In this thread, engine size, specifically for motorcycles. How big is to big?

Personally I think 900cc is the perfect size, but I am partial to a 2300cc once ina while :P 900cc has PLENTY of power, easily pop a wheelie without effort, the insurance doesn't skyrocket like it does on biger bikes, and you still get 35-40MPG.

What about you? Ya love an economical 300? Or do you wanna' go all out, guns blazing with a 1500?

Karkat
October 6th, 2014, 05:40 PM
Don't you turn into Stephen, now :P

CosmicNoodle
October 6th, 2014, 05:46 PM
Don't you turn into Stephen, now :P

It actually took me about 45 seconds to remmebr who steve was....I didn't sleep last night and it's late :P
And if I'd just titled it "Motorcycle engine capacity" I would have got 2 relpys, gotta farm dem replys :P

Plane And Simple
October 7th, 2014, 10:23 AM
I'll probably end up on either an 800 or 1200 in 3 to 4 years, but i'd say anything bigger than a 12 hundred is too big.

Typhlosion
October 7th, 2014, 10:48 AM
Planes, Trains and Automobiles :arrow: The People's Aquarium :lol3:

--

On a serious note, it seems that, at least in cars, a greater cc may lead to better mpg. Car talk: Is engine capacity proportional to fuel economy? (http://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Auto/Car-talk--Is-engine-capacity-proportional-to-fuel-economy-/-/688614/2147112/-/lc36ckz/-/index.html)

CosmicNoodle
October 7th, 2014, 01:59 PM
Planes, Trains and Automobiles :arrow: The People's Aquarium :lol3:

--

On a serious note, it seems that, at least in cars, a greater cc may lead to better mpg. Car talk: Is engine capacity proportional to fuel economy? (http://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Auto/Car-talk--Is-engine-capacity-proportional-to-fuel-economy-/-/688614/2147112/-/lc36ckz/-/index.html)

Simple answer, no, big engines use more fuel, why do you think all the cars in the UK have 1.6L engines? Because the goverment is BIG on fuel economy. And in 'Murica where the government seems to think oil grows on trees engines are MUCH biger on average.

mrmee
October 8th, 2014, 07:45 PM
Planes, Trains and Automobiles :arrow: The People's Aquarium :lol3:

--

On a serious note, it seems that, at least in cars, a greater cc may lead to better mpg. Car talk: Is engine capacity proportional to fuel economy? (http://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Auto/Car-talk--Is-engine-capacity-proportional-to-fuel-economy-/-/688614/2147112/-/lc36ckz/-/index.html)

That gave a worst case senerio for the small engine and best case for the large. Under equal circumstances, the large engine will always use more fuel.

Plane And Simple
October 9th, 2014, 08:02 AM
Let's get technical.

50kmh scenario
2.0 Inline four: give or take a bore / Stroke of X
6.0L hypothetical case of Inline 4: Bore / Stroke of 3X.

The fuel used to move the pistons in the 2 liter will be X per say 2200RPM. 2200X
The fuel used to move the pistons in the 6 liter will be 3X per say 1200RPM (More torque, lower RPM). 2400X That is. The 2L will use less fuel because even though it's producing less torque and needs to run higher, the bigger engine will still use more due to having to use a minimum of whatever quantity to move it's cylinders.

But yeah, back on topic.

IAMWILL
October 9th, 2014, 10:20 AM
Let's get technical.

50kmh scenario
2.0 Inline four: give or take a bore / Stroke of X
6.0L hypothetical case of Inline 4: Bore / Stroke of 3X.

The fuel used to move the pistons in the 2 liter will be X per say 2200RPM. 2200X
The fuel used to move the pistons in the 6 liter will be 3X per say 1200RPM (More torque, lower RPM). 2400X That is. The 2L will use less fuel because even though it's producing less torque and needs to run higher, the bigger engine will still use more due to having to use a minimum of whatever quantity to move it's cylinders.

But yeah, back on topic.
I know this is obviously just hypothetical talk, but in the real world a 6.0l I4 would be absurd. 1.5l of displacement per cyclinder?!! That's what huge diesel semi trucks have lol. Also car weight plays a big role in fuel economy, and a 2.0l engine is going to weigh hundreds of pounds less than a 6.0l engine.

I think the trend we see in the automotive world of cars going with smaller displacement but adding turbos is indicative of what combination is the most fuel efficient while still maintaining ease of use/proper power/torque levels for the car. Heck I might be buying a Ford Fiesta soon, and one of the engine options is a 3 cylinder, 1 liter turbo. Talk about downsizing. That's less than what a lot of motorbikes use.

Anyway back to the topic, I think optimum engine size is dependent on the purpose of the bike. Anything from 700-1600cc can be a great engine depending on its application.

Plane And Simple
October 9th, 2014, 10:45 AM
I know this is obviously just hypothetical talk, but in the real world a 6.0l I4 would be absurd. 1.5l of displacement per cyclinder?!! That's what huge diesel semi trucks have lol. Also car weight plays a big role in fuel economy, and a 2.0l engine is going to weigh hundreds of pounds less than a 6.0l engine.

I think the trend we see in the automotive world of cars going with smaller displacement but adding turbos is indicative of what combination is the most fuel efficient while still maintaining ease of use/proper power/torque levels for the car. Heck I might be buying a Ford Fiesta soon, and one of the engine options is a 3 cylinder, 1 liter turbo. Talk about downsizing. That's less than what a lot of motorbikes use.

Anyway back to the topic, I think optimum engine size is dependent on the purpose of the bike. Anything from 700-1600cc can be a great engine depending on its application.

Of course a 6l i4 doesn't make any sense, it was for the fact of exemplification.

About the 1.0 Ecoboost, it's an epic engine. Been in on a fiesta and it does work quite well, starts pulling at around 1550RPM on the 100Hp version.

Now once and for all, back on topic

CosmicNoodle
October 9th, 2014, 11:55 AM
I know this is obviously just hypothetical talk, but in the real world a 6.0l I4 would be absurd. 1.5l of displacement per cyclinder?!! That's what huge diesel semi trucks have lol. Also car weight plays a big role in fuel economy, and a 2.0l engine is going to weigh hundreds of pounds less than a 6.0l engine.

I think the trend we see in the automotive world of cars going with smaller displacement but adding turbos is indicative of what combination is the most fuel efficient while still maintaining ease of use/proper power/torque levels for the car. Heck I might be buying a Ford Fiesta soon, and one of the engine options is a 3 cylinder, 1 liter turbo. Talk about downsizing. That's less than what a lot of motorbikes use.

Anyway back to the topic, I think optimum engine size is dependent on the purpose of the bike. Anything from 700-1600cc can be a great engine depending on its application.

Of course a 6l i4 doesn't make any sense, it was for the fact of exemplification.

About the 1.0 Ecoboost, it's an epic engine. Been in on a fiesta and it does work quite well, starts pulling at around 1550RPM on the 100Hp version.

Now once and for all, back on topic

I know that in 'Murica engine sizes tend to be HUGE compatred to the UK, but over here a 1.3L engine, none supercharged ot turbo'ed is very common, admitedly they are slow and dont have the best pulling power, but they are just designed as commuter cars, to get you from A to B in the most basic and economical way possible, and they have amazing fuel economy. Like 50MPG

AND, don't be afraid to get off topic like this, I enjoy sparking conversation in threads, thats the hole reason I make them, I dislike the idea of a specific topic, why not just allow the topic to change and evolve with the conversation? Having a specific topic doesn't really make much sense to me. Anyway, go ahread and talk, don't feel restrained by the question at hand, I love conversation.

Miserabilia
October 9th, 2014, 12:25 PM
oh my lurdy lurd I spent all this time seeing this thread title coming by and ignoring it subconsciously because I must've figured it was Boys Puberty thread... :lol3:

CosmicNoodle
October 9th, 2014, 01:19 PM
oh my lurdy lurd I spent all this time seeing this thread title coming by and ignoring it subconsciously because I must've figured it was Boys Puberty thread... :lol3:

Gotta love dem spam titles, and gotta hate P101 :P