Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/)
-   Paranoid News Clips (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/paranoid-news-clips/)
-   -   200-inch Baby-Block Chevy-Engined Motorcycle! (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/paranoid-news-clips/2013-200-inch-baby-block-chevy-engined-motorcycle.html)

SmokeU 07-31-2003 10:07 AM

Re: Look the New Drysdale 1000-V8 Cruiser:
 
Looks like a Monster rip off. Bad pics, can't see the V8....if there is one

captainwhoopass 07-31-2003 10:19 AM

Re: 200-inch Baby-Block Chevy-Engined Motorcycle!
 
Why bother with a pushrod engine? BBecause they are easier to modify to get big power. Just look at the NHRA and NASCAR- they do just fine with pushrod engines. And there is a large group of people out there riding motorcycles who really don't care about going fast around corners, because you can't on the street.

KPaulCook 07-31-2003 10:20 AM

Re: Look the New Drysdale 1000-V8 Cruiser:
 

ShadowPhil 07-31-2003 10:51 AM

Re: 200-inch Baby-Block Chevy-Engined Motorcycle!
 
scaling down each dimention of a 3-dimensional object will reduce the overall size of the thing by a factor of 8. So the weight should go down by a factor of 8 (which is good), but the cubic inches will also go down by the same factor. So you would have a 50 pound engine with 50 cubic inches producing 25 horsepower.



If you wanted to make the package 200 pounds, instead of halving each side, you would need devide the dimension by the cube root of 3. Each side would be a bit under 24 inches - then the rest of the numbers should be correct. 2 cubic feet is a bit large to stick in a cycle.

nokneedragin 07-31-2003 10:51 AM

Re: 200-inch Baby-Block Chevy-Engined Motorcycle!
 
He was taking 2 yamaha 400 i4's and slapping them together. Funky idea, don't know if he was getting the HP, or torque number talked of here.

majmpb 07-31-2003 10:55 AM

Re: 200-inch Baby-Block Chevy-Engined Motorcycle!
 
Um, a little math error here. If you reduce all of the dimensions by half, you will cut the bore by half as well. Displacement is a product of the square of the radius of the bore, so your displacement would be on fourth of the original engine, giving 50 Cubic Inches (about 830 ccs). But it would be lighter than you stated by about a fourth as well, and power would likely be higher than 1/4th of the original 220, due to lighter reciprocating mass and a higher redline.



Sounds a lot like the V-8 a guy built out of two FZR 400 engines a couple of years back...

nweaver 07-31-2003 10:56 AM

Sorry, wrong answer...
 
Compare the dyno chart for the GSXR-1K

http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompa...opendyno.motml



with a Harley Deuce

http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompa...oenixdyno.html



The GSXR, although being "only" 1L rather than 1.5L, is making almost the same power at low RPM, while being stratospherically more at high RPM.



The only reason you don't really see engines like that in cruisers is because 95% of the cruisers are V-twin engines, chosen for looks not performance.

SmokeU 07-31-2003 10:57 AM

Re: Why Pushrods? I'll tell you why
 
I take it you don't know that Ford truck engines are OHC??

seruzawa 07-31-2003 11:10 AM

Re: Why Pushrods? I'll tell you why
 
True, but GM's new truck engines are pushrod and perform at least as well as Ford's.



When engine RPMs are limited there is no real advantage to OHC. OHC engines in bikes like the Shadows or V-Stars are an unneceassry complexity. In a truck engine where you want low end power OHC is pointless. Ford is probably using OHC more as an advertising ploy than for any real engineering requirement. The engines don't get anywhere near the revs to suffer from valve float. Neither do the engines in most Japanese cruisers. Even Yamaha went back to pushrods to lower the center of gravity in the RoadStar engines.

captainwhoopass 07-31-2003 11:32 AM

Re: Why Pushrods? I'll tell you why
 
And also, like I said above, you can get just as much power out of pushrod engines as you can OHC engines. Just look at NHRA.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:27 PM.