Sportbike World banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey guys, monday I bought a 2005 Ninja 250R in silver red/black, and it is lots of fun. Please don't flame me about not owning an R1, or Hayabussa, magnificent machines, but I cannot afford the 91 octane required, the monthly payment, or the dreaded full-coverage insurance for such a rolling masterpiece.

I would like an R1, or a ZRX 1200, or a Bandit 1200S...but this is the cheapest, sportiest, and best-looking new bike I could afford. Don't like my bike, buy me a new one then.

At any rate...

I do love my little 250 Ninja, it revvs to 13 grand and sounds amazing. It is the smoothest twin I have ever ridden, very well counterbalanced. I even bought an additional two years of warranty, and got the third year for free.

I think it is dissappointing that only Japan, Europe, Australia get the high-technology sub-600cc sportbikes. It would be nice if we could get a 250cc inline-four that revvs to 16 grand, weighs under 350 lbs, has four carbs, dohc, a six-speed gearbox, and four valves per cylinder. Oh yeah, this bike does exist: the Honda 250 Hornet!

Lightweight bikes are less intimidating and with performance more easily accessible than 600 and liter class track weapons.

I mean, come on..."Oh no!!! My 0-60 time is only 5.5 seconds on my less-than $4,000 Ninja!!!...I feel like such a loser." Give me a break! A Hayabussa is a great bike, and I would love one. I would truly love a GSX1300R, but who the hell can truly wring one out on the street, where most spend 90% of their riding.

I love performance, but I also know my limits, financial and skill-wise as a rider, and as a human being.

So, without further adue, I introduce myself to the board.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Congrats on the bike, however I don't have to put 91 octane in my busa nor is it recommended. But there is nothing wrong with owning a 250. They are lots of fun and you will learn more in one year on that than you would an R1.

Enjoy the ride and don't be so defensive. Remember your gear and safety course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
Si-lo said:
Congrats on the bike, however I don't have to put 91 octane in my busa nor is it recommended. But there is nothing wrong with owning a 250. They are lots of fun and you will learn more in one year on that than you would an R1.

Enjoy the ride and don't be so defensive. Remember your gear and safety course.
Just don't like getting flamed for a bike I busted my knuckles to afford. Mommy and daddy did not buy this for me, this is my bike.

So, the GSX1300R takes 89??? Isn't compression at least 11.0:1 on that thing? I know the Ninja is 12-something:1 but takes 87, but I use 89.

Oh yeah, I am a veteran rider. I have ridden for over five years now. My first bike was an '86 250 Rebel, and I have ridden (not owned) a VMax, GS750 Suzuki ('77), and a 500R Ninja. I know speed, I just cannot afford it right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
Welcome to SBW. Worry not, no one gets flamed here becouse of their bike choice. Correction, there was one guy that bought a zx10 for his first bike. He got it pretty bad.
As long as you're on two wheels its all good.
 

·
Strength and Honor
Joined
·
6,144 Posts
Si-lo said:
But there is nothing wrong with owning a 250. They are lots of fun and you will learn more in one year on that than you would an R1.

Enjoy the ride and don't be so defensive. Remember your gear and safety course.
+1. Here you'll find the senior members recommending the very bike you chose as one good option for new riders. So, while it may have been by accident, congratulations on making a wise choice.

It would be helpful to us if you kept us up to date with any changes you decide to make, like upgrading. I, for instance, am interested in knowing when you opt for something bigger. Lots of theory on when that happens, but no facts and very few anecdotes.

I can relate to the cost thing. My current ride cost $1k total and insurance is dirt cheap. My gear alone cost more than the bike :eek: Get thee into an MSF course if you have not taken one already!!!!

Whatever the case, welcome!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Vash said:
Welcome to SBW. Worry not, no one gets flamed here becouse of their bike choice. Correction, there was one guy that bought a zx10 for his first bike. He got it pretty bad.
As long as you're on two wheels its all good.
Yes, a very stupid choice for a first bike indeed. I do plan on getting to an MSF course, just to lower my insurance of $700-800/year...I am still shopping around. Any good companies? I am using Progressive now, and I would love to save more if I could.

Also, I don't plan on upgrading anytime soon...no mods, no new bikes, nothing. this is my bike for my last two years of college. After that, i will be moving back to Japan to teach English, get a hot Japanese wife, and a new 250, 400, or 600-class road weapon.

I would love to get a new R1, as it is the loveliest new bike in production, and, in my opinion, the best-looking bike ever made...and I have seen them all. It's just too much. 180hp on the street? That is overkill. Not even Nicky Hayden could fully utilize such performance on the street. Hell, it takes a pro to flog it to the limit on the track, so what would make me think the street would be more friendly?

But the R1 is still badass (Not that the CBR1000, ZX-10R, GSX-R1000, etc. are not all awesome...). They just need to produce one in yellow/matte black and raise the redline to at least 14,000. Then, it would be EVEN MORE perfect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
I agree with ya, the R1 is the best look bike. Well with the exception of exotics. Performance-wise, I think its now the weakest of the liter bikes (cbr1000 is weaker but makes up for it in friendliness). But its still a whole lot of bike.
As for 180hp being too much. Well yeah it is. But is there such a thing as too much power? isnt that like too much money? or too hot a wife?
As for redlines, I disagree. That is the great thing about liters as opposed to 600's. No hunting thru the transmittion to find the power. Just twist the grip and off you go shooting like a bat out of hell. Drop 3 gears and space-time starts to bend and flex
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Sorry guys but as you can tell from the name the 2005 ZX6R's are all the bike this little lady could want....for now. Unfortunately I have to find a way to get the best possible deal on trading in my little ninja 500 for the zx6r! I fallen head over heels for these things. Don't get me wrong R1's, CBR's, and Gixxer's are all beautiful bikes and I get waaaaaayyy to excited anytime I see anything with fairing, a motor and two wheels :drool: :p it's just that only the ninja will do it for me. From the front that thing looks fierce!!! And it's not just the looks I'm into thje performance as well. Anyways, whatever bike you choose just make sure it suits you BEST.

SEE YA!:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
Yep.. Lets face it, kawi's simply rule...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Vash said:
Yep.. Lets face it, kawi's simply rule...
Correction: All DOHC inline fours from Japan rule.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
Just out of interest where do you come up with the info for your sigs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Vash said:
Just out of interest where do you come up with the info for your sigs?
From talking to engineers, and reading car and bike mags since I was 16...I am 23 now.

Oh yeah, and personal experience. :2cents:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
If you're going to subject everyone to these few bits of knowledge, you might want to check up on them a tad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
Vash said:
If you're going to subject everyone to these few bits of knowledge, you might want to check up on them a tad.
I have "subjected" no one to anything. If you don't like it Vash, don't read it. No one has a gun to your head, Mr. Stampede. lol

And I HAVE checked up on them myself. DOHC is superior for fast-spinning, high-revving, lower internalfriction, high-compression engines. That is why COMPOTENT, MODERN companies (Ferrari, Porsche, BMW, Mercedes, Lotus, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Suzuki, Yamaha, Kawasaki, etc, etc, etc...) lean towards those designs (for HIGH PERFORMANCE), and away from pushrod and flathead designs.

Sorry if it offends the clunky old Chevelle in your garage. Not to say that a Chevelle is slow, it is just that it is about as effecient as a shotgun, when a long-range Draganov sniper rifle is more approproiate for the job at hand. Need me to clarify more?

LIFE IS NOT IN A STRAIGHT LINE.

Let's not even get into how most US manufacturers do not understand what low weight, aerodynamics, all-independent suspension, and a lower center of gravity can do for a performance vehicle...with two wheels, of twice that.

I will agree that eight cylinders has more performance potential, than, say, a single lung engine, a "thumper" if you will. But, for the same displacement...a DOHC 3.0 V12 4 valve/cylinder engine with absolutely RAPE a pushrod 3.0 2 valve/cylinder V12 engine.

Why is this?

Because an inherent flaw in overhead valve "OHV" or pushrod designs is that they use pushrods for valve actuation, which limits the speedthe valves can open and close to admit the air/fuel mixture and push out the spent exhaust gasses. Pushrods are great for slower engines for industrial applications (tractors, tugboats, heavy duty trucks, very old tanks, etc...). However, for, say, competing in the Isle of Man TT in the year 2005, more blunt, or, shall I say, "direct" valve actuation is required to slash hundredths of a second off of lap times. Because overhead cam "OHC", and better still, dual overhaed cam "DOHC" engines have their valve actuation systems directly on top of the valves, their is less power lost, and no long pushrod "middleman" to rob the engine of power through friction, added heat, etc. Therefore, the potential for engine speed is much higher, and the only affordable, non-experimental internal combustion engine design in production with more potential for power per cc, and higher rpm, is the rotary engine. Which has only been mastered and made reliable by Mazda of Japan, formerly known as Toyo Kogyo. For future refernece, check out their mid to late 90s RX-7 turbo sportscar, it is pretty trick.

Also, note that DOHC engines breathe better because of MORE VALVES, which mean more air can be shoved in and out, as opposed to what only two large valves can do. Don't believe me? Next time you have five minutes Vash, draw two identical circles, let's say, 4 inches in diameter. Place them side by side with a stencil, or a handy Coke can perhaps. Then fit four small circles, two on each side at opposite ends of the first large circle (Circle A). Then, fit the two largest circles that you can inside the other circle (Circle B), of course, leaving room for the sparkplug in the center of both circle A abd B. REMEMBER: Make the "small" circles as large as you can without overrunning the edges of the largest circles (A and B).

Done now?

See how the four smaller circles (in Circle A) fill MORE surface area, how matter how large the two other circles (in Circle B) are? All of that area (Within Circle B) is left wasted.

It is simple geometry, and circles are the most effecient valve shape, and wear the best, so they must be utilized. Since a circles diameter is limited by the space it is inside (Circles A and B), the MORE "little" circles , or valves you can fit into the larger one, the more air you can move in and out.

Do you think Honda created VTEC just to show off? No. Honda created VTEC, which was copied subesquently by Porsche, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, etc, because it was more effecient at higher RPM...which just so happens to be where an engine makes most of it's power! Wow, really, 2005Ninja250R? The only way to spin one of these engines faster is by utilizing the holy grail of vavle timing: electronic valve timing "EVT", a technology rumored to be in development for decades, but it has never emerged, even as a technolgy demonstrator form a manufacturer. But if it ever surfaces, it will change everything: again. Think about it...literbikes, with 25,000 RPM redlines for under 15,000. I don't know about any of you, but the future is looking very nice. screw the harley "potato-potato", give my not the modern bliss of vroom-vroom, but zooom-zooom!!!

Really.

This principle also applies to jet engines: the faster the blades spin, and the more fuel is compressed and lit inside of the combustion chamber, the faster the F/A-22 will go. This is, of course, limited my metalurgy, and the wear and limits of the engine installed. It is not slow radial piston aero engines that are state-of-the-art! It is the fast-spinning jet engines.

That is, not to say that propeller aero engines have no future. I mean, look at Cessna from crying out loud! But look at what a Cessna is limited to. Then look at the most modern fighters...name one with an "old", slow-spinning design. I thought not.

I may not be an engineer, but I have torn apart a few engines, and know a few guys who build these things, and I feel they are even more qualified to validate what I have typed here.

So Vash, I hope the next time you ride your awesome Kawasaki, know this: Your DOHC engine, and it is ONLY that design, makes your affordable high-performance sportbike possible. Don't count on weak-lunged pushrod engines to do it for you. You have invested in DOHC, like it or not. OHV is a dinosaur in the throws of it's death, accept it.

I hope I have made my point.

Here are some sources to get you started Vash, baby.


http://www.datsuns.com/Tech/ohv_vs_ohc.htm

http://www.allpar.com/eek/cams.html

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/040421.htm

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/050713.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
Strong words buddy. No need to get all defensive about it all. Its just metal.
But abit of background to clearify my point. I'm not a supporter of pushrod design. I've never owned a pushrod engine (one SOHC, 5 DOHC) correction. I do own an f150, which is most likely pushrod. But I bought it couse it was cheap, not powerfull.

So onto engines. DOHC do allow for higher rev lines. But not becouse of reduced friction, rather due to reduced recipocating mass. Less parts have to come to a stop, change direction, accelerate, and come to a stop again. Less vibration=less stress.
Still the limiting factor is most often not the valve train, but rather the linear piston speed. Which is completely unaffected by valve train configuration.
Moving on to the subject of drivability. A high revving engine produces plenty of power on the dyno, but does it work in the real world? Well in the extreme, no. Consider putting a jet turbine in a motorcycle. While it has been done, its little more than a novelty. The engine performs very poor in transients.
Why? becouse the energy of a recipocating (or rotating) part is 1/2mv^2. It has a great deal more to do with its speed than with its weight. So the faster the engine spins, the more reluctant its going to be when it comes time to spin faster or slower. Furthermore in a bike, it will create stronger gyro forces, which will slow down handling. Thus suzukis approach of keeping the stroke as long as possible, limiting rev's but creating an even torque curve with a great deal of ussable power and unparallel throttle responce. Compare that to yamaha's mill and their sudden lunge in the powerband.
Now on to handling. Fewer powerpulses per second (becouse of a twin configuration, or a slower rev) allow the tire more time in a rest state, thus giving it more time to regain traction. The key to the magical advantage ducati's had over otherbikes for years. Thus the big bang firing order was born, which simulates a twin.

And another argument for pushrods. The z06 vette. Not my favorite car, but one that demands respect non the less. It turnes out faster lap time in norimburg (a long involved course) than any porche barring to carrerra gt. The engine itself isnt really anything to be bragging about. However the lower profile of a pushrod engine does allow lower CG than a DOHC engine could. All is not as simple as it seems.
On to honda's v-tech. A simple switch from one cam profile to another at higher revs. The idea was not to get more power, it could've been done with just sticking to a more aggressive profile. The idea was to preserve gas milage at low rpm. BTW ferrari took the same concept to a much more elegant solution by grinding multimple profiles into a single cam, and moving the cam longitudnally as the revs increase. No sharp transition there.

See I dont disagree with your conclusions, just the resoning behind them. And the absoluteness with which you state them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Strong words buddy. No need to get all defensive about it all. Its just metal.

1. Which I am very passionate about.

But abit of background to clearify my point. I'm not a supporter of pushrod design. I've never owned a pushrod engine (one SOHC, 5 DOHC) correction. I do own an f150, which is most likely pushrod. But I bought it couse it was cheap, not powerfull.

2. The newer F-150s utilize SOHC heads...

So onto engines. DOHC do allow for higher rev lines.

3. Which is great.

But not becouse of reduced friction, rather due to reduced recipocating mass.

4. Yes, but reduced friction is not an added benefit of OHC, but rather, a prerequsite of its design. Also, lower recipricating mass is better than clunky pushrods throughout the powerband, makeing an angine that "snaps open or shut" when the RPM rise and when they fall, as opposed to the slower engine braking of most all pushrod engines in production today. Those hundredths of a second matter on the track, which is why in the higest levels of motorcycle racing today, all you see is DOHC. It's not a fashion statement: it's for a legitimate reason.

Less parts have to come to a stop, change direction, accelerate, and come to a stop again. Less vibration=less stress.

5. Uh-huh.

Still the limiting factor is most often not the valve train, but rather the linear piston speed.

6. Beeep! Wrong! The valve train is perhaps the most important factor in engine design. Who cares if an engine will spin freely with virtually no effort, if it wheezes and has difficulty under hard acceleration? The valvetrain is second perhaps to only valve timing in importance.

Which is completely unaffected by valve train configuration.

7. Wrong again.

Moving on to the subject of drivability. A high revving engine produces plenty of power on the dyno, but does it work in the real world? Well in the extreme, no.

8. That is why Japan has produced 18,000 RPM two strokes for the street, and why Kawasaki's beloved ZX-6RR has a 16,000 RPM redline? Far beit for me, a lowly college student to tell the "Big Four" how to produce motorcycles, as I have not created my own, and never will. Drivability is only an issue because of the limits of the rider's skill. If a rider keeps the engine "on cam", or "on the boil", then the engine is in it's element. Pushrod engines are lazier, and take less effort to flog correctly. That must be why dumber people seem to like them so much. Ignorance is indeed bliss afterall.

g a jet turbine in a motorcycle. While it has been done, its little more than a novelty. The engine performs very poor in transients.
Why? becouse the energy of a recipocating (or rotating) part is 1/2mv^2. It has a great deal more to do with its speed than with its weight. So the faster the engine spins, the more reluctant its going to be when it comes time to spin faster or slower. Furthermore in a bike, it will create stronger gyro forces, which will slow down handling.

9. Yet there is still that problem of ever-rising redlines...what to do about that? Better go tell the "Big Four", they might want to know this...

Thus suzukis approach of keeping the stroke as long as possible, limiting rev's but creating an even torque curve with a great deal of ussable power and unparallel throttle responce. Compare that to yamaha's mill and their sudden lunge in the powerband.

10. It is all up to taste. Suzuki has a great powerplant, with a ceiling of 13,000 if i am not mistaken on their GSX-R 1000, and Yamaha is limited to 13,500 on their new YZF-R1, if I am not mistaken. Both great engines, but Yamaha's solutions are more elegant: 5 valves per cylinder, a higher redline, etc. All up to personal taste.

Now on to handling. Fewer powerpulses per second (becouse of a twin configuration, or a slower rev) allow the tire more time in a rest state, thus giving it more time to regain traction. The key to the magical advantage ducati's had over otherbikes for years. Thus the big bang firing order was born, which simulates a twin.

11. Um, yeah, but that can be overcome by holding in the clutch. A secret from me to you, now don't tell anyone Vash...Screw Ducati's overpriced high-maintenance bikes. Screw V-TWINkies.

And another argument for pushrods. The z06 vette.

12. Fast, but still a Chevy.

Not my favorite car, but one that demands respect non the less. It turnes out faster lap time in norimburg (a long involved course) than any porche barring to carrerra gt. The engine itself isnt really anything to be bragging about. However the lower profile of a pushrod engine does allow lower CG than a DOHC engine could. All is not as simple as it seems.

13. I know pushrods are shorter on top than DOHC engines, and all is as simple as it seems. How can you compare a 5.7, with EIGHT cylinders, to a DOHC 3.8 FLAT SIX? You seem to have missed my argument: all other things (displacement, number of cylinders, engine cylinder arrangement...) being equal, a DOHC engine wins. Lets compare a 5.7 'Vette against that same car, but with a DOHC, 4 valve/cylinder engine...The results would be different.

Your argument states essentially: A ZO6 beat a DOHC Honda insight aroung the Nurburgring, so, therefore, DOHC is not as fast afterall. How laughable.

Also the handling of the 911 series of Porsches is quite different from the handling of a conventional front-engined 'Vette.

If all other things are equal Vash...

On to honda's v-tech. A simple switch from one cam profile to another at higher revs. The idea was not to get more power, it could've been done with just sticking to a more aggressive profile. The idea was to preserve gas milage at low rpm. BTW ferrari took the same concept to a much more elegant solution by grinding multimple profiles into a single cam, and moving the cam longitudnally as the revs increase. No sharp transition there.

14. Um, yeah, did you get the memo? Honda's solution to drivability at lower revvs was VTEC, and fuel economy was a secondary concern to perfomance, as VTEC was developed from FORMULA ONE! In street applications (Type-Rs, NSXs, Integras, etc...) fuel economy became more important. Ferraris' solution was nice, but when was the last time you saw the mileage on a Ferrari exceed 100,000 successfully? Elegance at the expence of reliablity: That's Ferrari!

See I dont disagree with your conclusions, just the resoning behind them. And the absoluteness with which you state them.

15. You are free to disagree with me, but I am fre to tear your argument apart, especialy when it is as presumptious as the "Vette argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Just a forewarning, this is going to get ugly quick

2005Ninja250R said:

6. Beeep! Wrong! The valve train is perhaps the most important factor in engine design. Who cares if an engine will spin freely with virtually no effort, if it wheezes and has difficulty under hard acceleration? The valvetrain is second perhaps to only valve timing in importance.
Dude, your conclusions may be close to correct, but you reasoning is DEAD wrong. It is painfully obvious that you are just regergitating this info, and have learned none of it first hand.

The valvetrain is not the most important factor with regard to engine design. It is the cylinder heads, cylinder heads, and the CYLINDER HEADS. Engines are like big air pumps, air in, air out. The more air you can get in, the more air you can get out, the more power you can make. And flow comes from the heads. The intake port flow, exhaust port flow, and equally important, the port velocity. Valvetrain is just an aftermath.

Now for your 4 vavles are better than 2.
not always true. You can only can fit so much valve inside the cylinder bore, a 4" bore can only fit so much valve. so what you are forgetting is that most 4valve heads, have valves that are nearly half the size as a 2 valve head. Now given 4 valve heads do have outstanding low lift flow numbers, but as far high lift numbers go, a properly ported 2 valve head can easily surpase a 4valve head.

If a rider keeps the engine "on cam", or "on the boil", then the engine is in it's element. Pushrod engines are lazier, and take less effort to flog correctly. That must be why dumber people seem to like them so much. Ignorance is indeed bliss afterall.
once again regergetated crap. You simply don't understand the concept of torque. Every engine builder dreams of a fat flat torque curve.


And another argument for pushrods. The z06 vette.

12. Fast, but still a Chevy.

13. I know pushrods are shorter on top than DOHC engines, and all is as simple as it seems. How can you compare a 5.7, with EIGHT cylinders, to a DOHC 3.8 FLAT SIX? You seem to have missed my argument: all other things (displacement, number of cylinders, engine cylinder arrangement...) being equal, a DOHC engine wins. Lets compare a 5.7 'Vette against that same car, but with a DOHC, 4 valve/cylinder engine...The results would be different.

Your argument states essentially: A ZO6 beat a DOHC Honda insight aroung the Nurburgring, so, therefore, DOHC is not as fast afterall. How laughable.
Now is where you are starting to lose it kid, the Carrera GT is a 5.7L V10 that makes power up to 8400rpm. The Z06 makes near equal power(almost 500 to the wheels), and MORE torque at 2000rpm LESS. And the z06 costs SIX TIMES LESS and is just a pinch slower around nurburgring, not bad I would say. Considering the GT is the ONLY production car faster than the Z06.


See I dont disagree with your conclusions, just the resoning behind them. And the absoluteness with which you state them.

/b]
15. You are free to disagree with me, but I am fre to tear your argument apart, especialy when it is as presumptious as the "Vette argument. [/B]
Dude, your not really tearing any argument apart, your making an ass out of yourself. You may have read magazines, and read lots of forums on the internet, but you only half know what you are talking about. Before being so arrogant, try listening, it will go along way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
scottland said:
Just a forewarning, this is going to get ugly quick

1. Bring it on, Scotty.

Dude, your conclusions may be close to correct, but you reasoning is DEAD wrong. It is painfully obvious that you are just regergitating this info, and have learned none of it first hand.

2. I am not an engineer, are you perhaps? Then enlighten me please, Mr. Honda, or is it Dr. Porsche?

The valvetrain is not the most important factor with regard to engine design. It is the cylinder heads, cylinder heads, and the CYLINDER HEADS. Engines are like big air pumps, air in, air out. The more air you can get in, the more air you can get out, the more power you can make. And flow comes from the heads. The intake port flow, exhaust port flow, and equally important, the port velocity. Valvetrain is just an aftermath.

3. Beeep! Wrong Scotty. Without valves to throw in air/fuel, and evacuate exhaust, what is the reason of the head? The VALVES determine the air/fuel and exhaust movement. The VALVES determine the effeciency of the head.

Now for your 4 vavles are better than 2.
not always true. You can only can fit so much valve inside the cylinder bore, a 4" bore can only fit so much valve. so what you are forgetting is that most 4valve heads, have valves that are nearly half the size as a 2 valve head. Now given 4 valve heads do have outstanding low lift flow numbers, but as far high lift numbers go, a properly ported 2 valve head can easily surpase a 4valve head.

4. Again, as I wrote earlier, "ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL..." You need to read my former posts again. Then talk smack.

once again regergetated crap. You simply don't understand the concept of torque. Every engine builder dreams of a fat flat torque curve.

5. How else does one learn of engine design? Through osmosis perhaps? No, it is through READING, TALKING with master engine-builders, tearing down and building-up performance engines. Also, asking questions of these geniuses often helps in understanding. You might want to try it sometime.

Now is where you are starting to lose it kid, the Carrera GT is a 5.7L V10 that makes power up to 8400rpm. The Z06 makes near equal power(almost 500 to the wheels), and MORE torque at 2000rpm LESS. And the z06 costs SIX TIMES LESS and is just a pinch slower around nurburgring, not bad I would say. Considering the GT is the ONLY production car faster than the Z06.

6. I am not losing anything, and you might want to forego calling me a kid, I have served my nation in the USAF. I may be only 23, but i have seen a great many things in my time, "son".

Again, "ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL BUT VALVETRAIN..."
Two 5.7 V8s, made of the same material, with the same cylinder angles, etc...but one with DOHC and one with OHV...the DOHC one will push out more power, everytime.

See I dont disagree with your conclusions, just the resoning behind them. And the absoluteness with which you state them.

Dude, your not really tearing any argument apart, your making an ass out of yourself. You may have read magazines, and read lots of forums on the internet, but you only half know what you are talking about. Before being so arrogant, try listening, it will go along way.

7. I AM tearing arguments apart, your disagreeing with me does not change that Scotty. You are the ass, Scotty. I don't get my info from thhings as unrelaible as forums: a Chevy forum will think differently than a Honda forum, of course...

I have listened, to people who build these damn things, so shut your trap before talking smack Scotty.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top