Personally, I don’t see the point of owning a motorcycle that gets worse fuel economy than my car, and I would love to get my hands on one of the four cylinder Honda Goldwings. With a flat 1,200 cc four cylinder engine, those bikes had plenty of power for hauling two people and their gear. The only thing they lacked in comparison is the face-ripping power-to-weight ratio you get with the 1,800 cc Goldwing, which I would never have a desire to use on public roads. Besides, once you add an on-board computer and a sound system to a motorcycle, in my book, it’s not a motorcycle anymore. It’s a couch on wheels, and you’re so separated from the experience, you might as well be in a high-powered luxury car.
I had an 1100 cc 4 cyl Goldwing. It ran at too high rpm’s. It had a loud, buzzy sound to it, and vibrated more. The 6 cylinder gives great, smooth power at lower rpm’s, and is nice and quiet. I don’t think my 1100 got better mpg’s than my 1500 does, and it’s much better mpg than a car.
No comparison between the 4 cylinder vs. 6, especially on longer trips. I know, I’ve owned both.
That explains why Honda didn’t stick with the 1,100 cc Goldwing, but I don’t understand why they made the jump from 1,500 cc to 1,800 cc. Now the Goldwing has an 1,832 cc engine. What’s next, a 2,300 cc engine? Just make it into a car and be done with it.
"What’s next, a 2,300 cc engine? "
Nah, Triumph beat them to it:
http://www.triumphmotorcycles.com/motorcycles/range/cruisers/rocket
1500 is enough for me. Have you ever driven one? Try it out before you knock it.
Engine size has nothing to do with experiencing 2 wheels versus 4 wheels. A larger engine doesn’t turn a motorcycle into a car.
texases, Boss Hoss beat Triumph to it!
http://www.bosshoss.com/products.asp
GW, I am willing to try 1,500 cc, especially if I ever ride two-up.
Friend’s neighbor has one of those Boss Hoss bikes. OUTRAGEOUS!
yawn
"I had an 1100 cc 4 cyl Goldwing. It ran at too high rpm’s. It had a loud, buzzy sound to it, and vibrated more. The 6 cylinder gives great, smooth power at lower rpm’s, and is nice and quiet. I don’t think my 1100 got better mpg’s than my 1500 does, and it’s much better mpg than a car.
Are you sure that wasn’t as much due to Honda’s choice of gearing as much as it was engine size? A lot of motorcycles, especially during the 1980’s were saddled with a fifth gear overall ratio that I would describe as “permanently in a passing gear”.
I never could understand why a 1300cc Honda Civic automobile could cruise down the highway with the engine spinning only 2400 rpm @ 60 mph whilst a motorcycle engine nearly the same size has to spin 3200 rpm or even 3600 rpm at the same speed, and with shaft drive, you are pretty much stuck with that gearing unless you are willing to spend a lot of money and even then, an alternative gear ratio may not be available.
A lot of Yamaha V-Max owners put Venture Royal ring and pinion gear sets on their bikes just so it isn’t revving to the moon on the freeway or so I hear.
On my personal bike, a Kawasaki ZRX1200 R, I swapped the stock 17 tooth countershaft sprocket for an 18 tooth sprocket and swapped the stock 42 tooth rear sprocket for a 41 tooth sprocket and I love it, no more searching for a non-existant 6th gear all the time while cruising the freeway and I routinely get over 50 mpg gas mileage.
I think the old 1200 cc four Gold Wing would make a wonderful touring bike if they would just put a real overdrive sixth gear in it. Passing power? That’s what those other five perfectly good gears are for. Or maybe offer automatic transmissions for those people who never want to downshift.
Large 4 cyl engines need counterweights & balance shafts, both of which saps throttle response. Not a problem for trucks & passenger cars, but it is a taboo for sports cars.
There’s a reason why BMW used straight 6 for so long. An I6 is inherently balanced, needs very little counterweight, and revs smoothly and freely.
“I can see why you think an 1,800 cc engine is more fun than a 1,200 cc engine, but what do you think you are gaining from having those extra cylinders on an engine with EQUAL DISPLACEMENT?”
Whitey,
-
Having an engine of equal displacement with more cylinders results in a smoother-running engine…or at least it can, dependant on engineering.
-
Having an engine of equal displacement with more cylinders results in an engine that performs better at higher RPMs, because:
a) Less reciprocating mass per piston
b) Lower “peak piston speed” at a given RPM (assuming bore:stroke ratio held constant)
c) A smaller cylinder has a greater surface area relative to volume. This means that a scaled-down cylinder breathes better, due to greater valve area (cm^2) per volume (cm^3).
Frankly, I’d like to see a smaller “sporty” car that comes with a “pocket V8,” of maybe 3L, rather than a typical V6 or oversized 4.
“c) A smaller cylinder has a greater surface area relative to volume. This means that a scaled-down cylinder breathes better, due to greater valve area (cm^2) per volume (cm^3).”
Unfortunately, that greater surface area relative to volume also allows more heat to escape from the combustion chamber. Every BTU of heat that migrates from the hot high pressure gasses in the cylinder to the engine parts is a BTU wasted, a BTU that the engine will never be able to convert into 778 ft-lb of mechanical energy.
That’s one reason why small engines cannot match the specific fuel consumption of giant engines found on ships, some of which use less than 0.3 pounds of fuel per horsepower hour.
Years ago I took an internal engines course. At the end of the semester we spent a few classes doing calculations on the board applying what we learned to real life engines. Two points I remember relevant to this thread include:
1: For a given engine displacement, the more cylinders an engine has, the more horsepower it is capable of producing. We compared a V6, V12, and V22 engine with the same displacement.
2: We spent a whole class comparing an 049 model airplane engine to an ocean liner engine (whose piston travel is 2 stories high and has 10 ft diameter pistons). The two engines had remarkably similar brake specific fuel consumption, efficiency, and horse power per unit of engine displacement. They were not identical, but close enough to realize both engines were dealing with the same constraints of physics.
The calculations we did to derive the above were purely theoretical. I would not use it to draw any conclusions to what is actually getting built and optimized in today’s engines.
JM: “1: For a given engine displacement, the more cylinders an engine has, the more horsepower it is capable of producing. We compared a V6, V12, and V22 engine with the same displacement.”
Are you sure this hasn’t changed as engine technology has changed? What about a four cylinder engine with variable timing?
Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, if you had told me there would be a vehicle with a four cylinder engine capable of towing 3,500 lbs., I would have said “no way,” but today, you can find one (and probably more).
“Why do you think a 5 liter V6 engine is any better than a 5 liter I4 engine?”
A 5 liter 4 cylinder gas engine would be prone to spark knock, due to the large bore and long combustion path.
Not a problem with a diesel though.
(nuts)
A few years back BMW decided that an ‘optimum’ cylinder size for road cars was 0.5 l, so they went for 2.0 l I4, 3.0 l V6, 4.0 l V8, and a 5.0 l V10, with turbos added to fill in the gaps. While I don’t think they’re exactly right, it sure led to a good-performing group of engines.
BLE: Yes, the gearing makes a big difference. I think the 1100 was geared for 55 mph speed limits. Rpms were too high on the highway, which is what a Goldwing is for.
Whitey wrote:
JM: “1: For a given engine displacement, the more cylinders an engine has, the more horsepower
it is capable of producing. We compared a V6, V12, and V22 engine with the same displacement.”Are you sure this hasn’t changed as engine technology has changed?
What about a four cylinder engine with variable timing?
I agree today’s technology has pushed advances in numerous areas. But then we’re no longer comparing apples to apples where the only difference is the number of cylinders.