Got injured in an accident? You could be a click away from a claim worth millions. You can start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan at ForThePeople.com/repairman without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win.
Any engine is a compromise between power, economy and durability. Motorcycles are light so fuel efficiency is not much of an issue. Neither are they built to last 300 000 miles.
Depends on the bike. Some are built for reliabiity and economy.. the old honda rebels are bulletproof reliable, and Ive gotten close to 100mpg in city driving. however, the aerodynamics on motorcycles are so bad, they will never get good milage at high speeds. Their coefficient of drag is worse than a bus. It can be made better by laying on the tank and not using luggage, but that's not a great way to get around, and it's still not as efficient as a car.
@@bluedistortions my dad had an old Indian Chief and said it consumed 3 1/2 litres/ 100km. ( 67 mpg ) A friend had a Kawasaki 750 and said that it consumed 15 litres, or 15mpg.
@@bluedistortions the cd is not as big of a deal as the frontal area. A car has about 4 times the frontal area and 0.3cd if not more. A bike has a cd around 1. Do the math.
Quite a few people have fitter a Hybusa motorbike engine to a mini car. I believe they go like the clappers but do not last very long due to the extra weight of the car that they have to move.
It has nothing to do with the weight of the car. It's because of the oil pickup is different, a bike leans and a car doesn't. If you fit them with a dry dump they last just fine.
Exactly. Comparing power to cylinder volume. Main objective for motorcycles is engine power to weight ratio. Less low end torque can be compensated with gear changes. Would be interesting to compare ICE aircraft engines to motorcycle and car engines. Aircraft engines have a high power to weight ratio and high reliability on relatively low rpm. Therefore large cylinder volume. Chain saws have very high power to weight ratio at high rpm and short service life. Simply stated, engines are different depending on application.
Very large cylinder volumes: the classic “O” series used for many years in planes like Cessnas are a 6 liter (360 ci) opposed 4 or a 9 liter opposed 6. Massive cylinders with relatively low compression ratios but still need 100LL octane fuel to avoid detonation. The classic, WW II supercharged Merlin V-12 was circa 27 liters and also needed at least 100 octane. The monster WW II air cooled 18 cylinder radials were about 54 liters, likewise needed 100+ octane fuel and needed methanol-water injection at max turbo/supercharger boost of war emergency power to control detonation.
@@christophercripps7639 Another factor is that aircraft operates at very different altitudes so air pressure is vastly different. I think that high octane fuel is only needed at low altitudes. Early Merlins did run on 87 octane. With improved supercharging and higher boost pressure they had to use 100 octane. Must be easier to design a marine engine which usually operates at sea level. Just joking.
I had an old BSA Shooting Star with a 500 cc engine that also had 45 hp. That was 8 more than a stock engine. A friend had tuned it but I doubt if it could do more than 6000 rpm.
The pistons come forged on my Yamaha, most are forged. Super high compression ratios, light weight strong pistons. It's very rare to see forged stock internals on a car.💯👌
You can only change gear ratios so much before it requires a massively bigger transmission which is then added to the weight you need to pull. So it's counterproductive
Bikes have typical short stroke engines and as such can rev higher ( one limiting factor is the travel speed of the piston in the cylinder, short strokes need to travel less distance). Thus the horsepower mainly comes from the higher RPM's.. Example: 10.000 rpm's = 5000 igniton moments per cylinder per minute ( two rotations of the crank = 1cycle). thus the crank gets pushed 5000*4= 20.000 times per minute ( 4=cylinders). However more horsepower , does not mean better torque. Short stroke engines have far less torque as the lever action on the crank is less then with long stroke engines. Car engines are typical long stroke and have more torque as a short stroke engine at the same RPM's. But they can't rev as high , due to the piston speed limitations in the cylinders . Thus a car engine has an RPM redline at 7000. that is 3500*4= 14000 combustions, where as the example of the biike with a redline at 10.000 RPM's has 20.000 combustions in t he same time.. Thus the car engine has less power then the bike ( assuming the same displacement) , but has a better torque. Its always a balance Power versus Torque
Decent vid, but 2 things. The advertisement for a video should not be 25% of the content. Also, please speak in proper technical terms. Four times less is properly expressed as a quarter. I don't know who started that silly language, but it's reverse logic, and doesn't sound smart.
Oh please tryna sound smart and then causing people who aren’t good in English to not understand anything? This is a RUclips channel not a scientific journal, deal with it.
@axe4770 so you're all for lowering intelligence rather than educating people are you? FYI this language was never used until a couple of years ago. So if it's never been necessary until then, why should it be now? It's stupid marketing language that should never be used, period. We're all stupider for it.
Motorcycles engines have low internal weight, low internal friction from small piston rings to small main bearings to a lightweight flywheel/clutch, It is much easier to spin low mass internals. HP per liter is cakewalk with small motorcycle engines.
This anwers the question I've oftern wondered about, so it's essentially due to fitment. Of course production costs will always okay a big part in any consideration.
another thing with motorcycles is many run higher compression, filling a bike with premium isn't as big of a deal due to the tanks being like 2 to 3 gallons. where in a car, most of them are made to run the cheapest stuff. in my bike im still building the motor but im running 16:1 compression as the thing will only run e85 and at 2.4 gallons for a 224cc engine this really isn't a problem. however on a car needing 30% more fuel is like making the gas tank an extra 4-5 gallons
Interesting long way to say a car is heaver and needs more torque than a bike. Replace the 120hp bike engine in a car that also has a 120 engine, without changing the number of gears and their ratios.
Well, in fact, the objective is to create a small and light engine to fit in a bike at the expense of a more expensive engine that consumes relatively more fuel.
Why wouldn't it be? Grab a small weight and move it out and in from your shoulder as fast as possible. Now double it and see how fast you can go... Also, the load on the conrod is far greater with a heavier piston, which is effectively what limits your rpm capacity. Double the weight takes 4x the force to accelerate at the same rate.
@@jaredbawden6707 F=m*a. F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration. solve for m and you have m=F/a. If you double the m and want a to be the same you need to double the F, not quadruple it. It's a linear equation.
@@jaredbawden6707 it's ok, we all make mistakes. Thing is, doubling the mass of a piston would take more than double the amount of fuel to accelerate it at the same rate because of efficiency. Plus, the inertia is a big factor, the bang pushes the piston down but the rod will have to take the stress which means you need a thicker rod, thus heavier and so on.
Got injured in an accident? You could be a click away from a claim worth millions. You can start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan at ForThePeople.com/repairman without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win.
Any engine is a compromise between power, economy and durability. Motorcycles are light so fuel efficiency is not much of an issue. Neither are they built to last 300 000 miles.
Naaah my 1200 bike gives me only 38miles to a gallon..they do drink
Depends on the bike. Some are built for reliabiity and economy.. the old honda rebels are bulletproof reliable, and Ive gotten close to 100mpg in city driving. however, the aerodynamics on motorcycles are so bad, they will never get good milage at high speeds. Their coefficient of drag is worse than a bus.
It can be made better by laying on the tank and not using luggage, but that's not a great way to get around, and it's still not as efficient as a car.
@@bluedistortions my dad had an old Indian Chief and said it consumed 3 1/2 litres/ 100km. ( 67 mpg ) A friend had a Kawasaki 750 and said that it consumed 15 litres, or 15mpg.
Any maintained japanese bike will do 300 000 miles if you really want it to
@@bluedistortions the cd is not as big of a deal as the frontal area. A car has about 4 times the frontal area and 0.3cd if not more. A bike has a cd around 1. Do the math.
Quite a few people have fitter a Hybusa motorbike engine to a mini car. I believe they go like the clappers but do not last very long due to the extra weight of the car that they have to move.
It has nothing to do with the weight of the car. It's because of the oil pickup is different, a bike leans and a car doesn't. If you fit them with a dry dump they last just fine.
@@RUclipsforcedmetochangemyname That is interesting, I will pass that tip along to my mates. Thank you.
@RUclipsforcedmetochangemyname
i dont get
@@RUclipsforcedmetochangemynamethat makes no sense. The engine swap means the dry sump was installed WITH the engine
@@vistakayHyabusas don’t come with dry sump systems
Exactly. Comparing power to cylinder volume. Main objective for motorcycles is engine power to weight ratio. Less low end torque can be compensated with gear changes. Would be interesting to compare ICE aircraft engines to motorcycle and car engines. Aircraft engines have a high power to weight ratio and high reliability on relatively low rpm. Therefore large cylinder volume. Chain saws have very high power to weight ratio at high rpm and short service life. Simply stated, engines are different depending on application.
Very large cylinder volumes: the classic “O” series used for many years in planes like Cessnas are a 6 liter (360 ci) opposed 4 or a 9 liter opposed 6. Massive cylinders with relatively low compression ratios but still need 100LL octane fuel to avoid detonation. The classic, WW II supercharged Merlin V-12 was circa 27 liters and also needed at least 100 octane. The monster WW II air cooled 18 cylinder radials were about 54 liters, likewise needed 100+ octane fuel and needed methanol-water injection at max turbo/supercharger boost of war emergency power to control detonation.
@@christophercripps7639 Another factor is that aircraft operates at very different altitudes so air pressure is vastly different. I think that high octane fuel is only needed at low altitudes. Early Merlins did run on 87 octane. With improved supercharging and higher boost pressure they had to use 100 octane.
Must be easier to design a marine engine which usually operates at sea level. Just joking.
the honda CBR 250 RR SP22 had a redline of 20,000rpm and made around 45 hp. Im my opinion, the best demonstration of how far you can push an inline 4
I had an old BSA Shooting Star with a 500 cc engine that also had 45 hp. That was 8 more than a stock engine. A friend had tuned it but I doubt if it could do more than 6000 rpm.
@@ngauruhoezodiac3143how is this a response?u a bot?
Great Explanation and Visualization , its straight to the point and no frills . I wish more Videos were like this without all the padding and such
Great video. Straight to the point.
The pistons come forged on my Yamaha, most are forged. Super high compression ratios, light weight strong pistons. It's very rare to see forged stock internals on a car.💯👌
An 800cc “twin” efi rotax motor keeps revs lower, good torque & power to spare (for road use)Nice.
Thanks for the video
oh my god the ad
Individual throttle bodies don't increase horsepower
why should the mass of the object you are trying to propel be proportional to the torque the engine can create.
I suppose if you dont do that you might need to rev the engine up to 5000rpm in order to start moving the massive vehicle from standstill
@@fidelcatsro6948you are missing the point. gears exist
@@tlovsoe4211 ah yes those like cookies made of metal with spikes
@@fidelcatsro6948not necessarily they don't have to have fixed ratios
You can only change gear ratios so much before it requires a massively bigger transmission which is then added to the weight you need to pull. So it's counterproductive
Wow i need to watch this rocket science a few more times to comprehend !🤔
Something went wrong with video halfway it suddenly went into a different channel so didn't see rest of it
Bikes have typical short stroke engines and as such can rev higher ( one limiting factor is the travel speed of the piston in the cylinder, short strokes need to travel less distance). Thus the horsepower mainly comes from the higher RPM's.. Example: 10.000 rpm's = 5000 igniton moments per cylinder per minute ( two rotations of the crank = 1cycle). thus the crank gets pushed 5000*4= 20.000 times per minute ( 4=cylinders). However more horsepower , does not mean better torque. Short stroke engines have far less torque as the lever action on the crank is less then with long stroke engines. Car engines are typical long stroke and have more torque as a short stroke engine at the same RPM's. But they can't rev as high , due to the piston speed limitations in the cylinders . Thus a car engine has an RPM redline at 7000. that is 3500*4= 14000 combustions, where as the example of the biike with a redline at 10.000 RPM's has 20.000 combustions in t he same time.. Thus the car engine has less power then the bike ( assuming the same displacement) , but has a better torque. Its always a balance Power versus Torque
you forgot that motorcycles do not have to meet mpg and stringent emission standards like cars do.
because a motorbike has much less mass than a car, the engine and gearbox don't need to be build as robust as those of a car.
I wish my bmw k1600 had six throttle bodies... 😊
Why you dont talk about piston stroke and crankshaft rotation diameter??
Its more important than other reasons.
And piston stroke its same reason
Decent vid, but 2 things. The advertisement for a video should not be 25% of the content.
Also, please speak in proper technical terms. Four times less is properly expressed as a quarter. I don't know who started that silly language, but it's reverse logic, and doesn't sound smart.
Thank you!
Oh please tryna sound smart and then causing people who aren’t good in English to not understand anything? This is a RUclips channel not a scientific journal, deal with it.
@axe4770 so you're all for lowering intelligence rather than educating people are you?
FYI this language was never used until a couple of years ago. So if it's never been necessary until then, why should it be now?
It's stupid marketing language that should never be used, period.
We're all stupider for it.
@@jaredbawden6707after reading your comments it's tough to argue against all of us being more stupider
WOW
Motorcycles engines have low internal weight, low internal friction from small piston rings to small main bearings to a lightweight flywheel/clutch, It is much easier to spin low mass internals.
HP per liter is cakewalk with small motorcycle engines.
Keep repeating that nonsense about idle speed lol every bike I ever had idled below 1000rpm warm. Not every car tho
This anwers the question I've oftern wondered about, so it's essentially due to fitment. Of course production costs will always okay a big part in any consideration.
another thing with motorcycles is many run higher compression, filling a bike with premium isn't as big of a deal due to the tanks being like 2 to 3 gallons. where in a car, most of them are made to run the cheapest stuff. in my bike im still building the motor but im running 16:1 compression as the thing will only run e85 and at 2.4 gallons for a 224cc engine this really isn't a problem. however on a car needing 30% more fuel is like making the gas tank an extra 4-5 gallons
Interesting long way to say a car is heaver and needs more torque than a bike. Replace the 120hp bike engine in a car that also has a 120 engine, without changing the number of gears and their ratios.
Well, in fact, the objective is to create a small and light engine to fit in a bike at the expense of a more expensive engine that consumes relatively more fuel.
And why sound so different?
Due to all this constructive differences and because they rev up to 15,000 RPM
piston weight is not very relevant to rpm capability.
Lighter pistons rev up quicker i suppose
Why wouldn't it be? Grab a small weight and move it out and in from your shoulder as fast as possible. Now double it and see how fast you can go... Also, the load on the conrod is far greater with a heavier piston, which is effectively what limits your rpm capacity. Double the weight takes 4x the force to accelerate at the same rate.
@@jaredbawden6707 F=m*a. F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration. solve for m and you have m=F/a. If you double the m and want a to be the same you need to double the F, not quadruple it. It's a linear equation.
@@vasilisgreen yes you're quite right. I had the wrong principle in my head.
@@jaredbawden6707 it's ok, we all make mistakes. Thing is, doubling the mass of a piston would take more than double the amount of fuel to accelerate it at the same rate because of efficiency. Plus, the inertia is a big factor, the bang pushes the piston down but the rod will have to take the stress which means you need a thicker rod, thus heavier and so on.