Best engine design for a motorcycle?

[boraticus]

I doubt the Valk would fare too well against the 109.

here's some actual performance figures provided by Motorcycle Cruiser Magazine.

PERFORMANCE
Fuel mileage: 30 to 42 mpg, 35.9 mpg average
Average range: 190 miles
RPM at 60 mph, top gear: 2990
200 yard, top-gear acceleration from 50 mph, terminal speed: 74.2 mph
Quarter-mile acceleration: 12.93 sec., 104.0 mph

I looked for this bike because it is a technical marvel and very unique. Throw in decent performance and very good road manners, it's an all round nice bike to have despite it's huge size.

 

[ZGRider]

Both the Valk and the M109 are awesome cruisers because they both "break the mold" and are very original in their approach to the genre. I'd much rather have the huge Valk engine sticking out there for everyone to see, than the loudest pipes made. It is all about the engine after all. I can see why the Valks are so missed.

I promise that you will see them and the 109 on the road for many years as a testimony to their build quality and reliability.

 

[ZGRider]

Originally Posted By: Silk
Originally Posted By: ZGRider

For the BMW faithful, no offense, but don't think for a minute that a Boxer twin could compete with a Ducati V-Twin at the race track.


I don't think for a minute that BMW has ever built a flat twin to compete with Ducati on the race track.They tune their motors for ride ability,not top end power....the torque curve tends to be flatter.

How about a V twin that was actually built to go head to head with BMW? The Honda XLV750 was made to run against BMW 800GS bikes in Paris Dakar....I had one,and now have an airhead.The Honda V twin had some grunt for sure,but it was really a rev head,wanting to run at the redline....which was 1,000rpm over max hp revs.An airhead isn't happy at all at 8,000rpm,but use in the meat of it's power curve makes it an easy bike to ride fast....faster than it feels.

A V twin is just a twin...all twins make more bottom end grunt than a 4 cyl of the same capacity....unless the designer had other plans.


Is that why they continued to upgrade the boxer engine to valve-in-head and now DOHCs? Are you saying that they went to DOHC on the boxers so they will be more rideable, and have a flatter torque curve?

I think there are some BMW engineers that would disagree with you. BMW shortened the stroke even further on the newest Boxer engine -- not for torque or rideablity but higher RPM.

Also, remember that BMW threw themselves into Dakar completely with a factory sponsored team until their twins were banned. I don't think Honda even sponsored a factory team at Dakar. If I remember correctly, they were all private teams on the Hondas.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
as the proud ex owner of the last BMW R100RS imported into Australia I felt I had to add a bit!

BMW's boxer engines have a very proud racing history that stretches back to 1923 - approaching 100 years - long befeore many of today's Manufacturers were even thought about!

They held the World speed record in 1929 (Ernst Henne on a 750 set at 134.68 mph). Henne again raised the record in 1937 to 173.68 mph - a record that stood for 14 years!

George Meier won the Isle of Man Senior TT in 1939 and other riders won GPs into the late 1950s

In this era BMW's greatest rivals were Auto Union-DKW and NSU. Some of their engines were supercharged too. NSU's Wilhelm Herz set the World record at 155.25 mph in 1950 - on a turbocharged 500! Some of their singles looked very much like the later Matchless-AJS engines. There is a story there.........

Perhaps the greatest negative against boxer MC engines in today's racing World is the ground clearance issue. Very few limitations exist in a mechanical sense

 

[TucsonDon]

Best engine design is the one that works, gets you down the road and provides joy.

In other words, the Wing's flat-6!

 

[Silk]

Originally Posted By: ZGRider
If I remember correctly, they were all private teams on the Hondas.


The XLV750 was made for private entries....and there were plenty of private entry BMW's to compete against.It had a lot going for it - great engine,with parc ferme maintinence in mind...easy oil and air filter changing,hydraulic tappets,shaft drive etc.But it was far too top heavy.You saw the crankcases in the US as the RS750.

The factory Honda Paris/Dakar bike was the NXR750,winning in 1986,87,88 and 89.The XLV750 Africa Twin is styled to look like one....but isn't.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: boraticus
I doubt the Valk would fare too well against the 109.

here's some actual performance figures provided by Motorcycle Cruiser Magazine.

PERFORMANCE
Fuel mileage: 30 to 42 mpg, 35.9 mpg average
Average range: 190 miles
RPM at 60 mph, top gear: 2990
200 yard, top-gear acceleration from 50 mph, terminal speed: 74.2 mph
Quarter-mile acceleration: 12.93 sec., 104.0 mph

I looked for this bike because it is a technical marvel and very unique. Throw in decent performance and very good road manners, it's an all round nice bike to have despite it's huge size.


I'm guessing those are the performance numbers for the Valk, as the 109 runs high 11 second 1/4 miles. Your top gear RPMs @ 60 MPH are pretty close to what the 109's turning at that speed, I think it turns about 2800 @ 60. I still think a top gear roll-on comparison between these two bikes would be pretty close. How much torque does the Valk produce? I think the 9 makes right around 97 ft lbs.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: ZGRider
Both the Valk and the M109 are awesome cruisers because they both "break the mold" and are very original in their approach to the genre. I'd much rather have the huge Valk engine sticking out there for everyone to see, than the loudest pipes made. It is all about the engine after all. I can see why the Valks are so missed.

I promise that you will see them and the 109 on the road for many years as a testimony to their build quality and reliability.


I don't see many of them now, let alone what we'll see of them in the future, but that has nothing to do with how they're built. They are very well built bikes (especially the Valk, I've always had a soft spot for Hondas), but they also fill a very small portion or the market. Compared to the total number of MCs on the roads today, very few of them are Valks and 109s. I can't tell you the last time I saw either of these models on the road, and this is one the things I love about these bikes; they're very unique. About 95% of the bikes I see on the road today are Harleys. Everybody and their brother's got one and there's nothing unique about them anymore. That's probably a good part of the reason every time my 109 is parked among a bunch of HDs, my bike's the only one people are looking at. It's unique, and Valks are the same way. I like it this way. I don't want eveyone else having exactly the same bike I've got.

 

[ZGRider]

+1 and well said

 

[SWSportsman]

Originally Posted By: grampi
I don't want eveyone else having exactly the same bike I've got.


I find that quite odd. I have four motorcycles and didn't give ANY thought when buying them to whether they were the same or different than others on the market. They represent what I wanted in a bike at the time and it doesn't matter to me whether NO one else has one like them or EVERYONE does.

 

[boraticus]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: boraticus
I doubt the Valk would fare too well against the 109.

here's some actual performance figures provided by Motorcycle Cruiser Magazine.

PERFORMANCE
Fuel mileage: 30 to 42 mpg, 35.9 mpg average
Average range: 190 miles
RPM at 60 mph, top gear: 2990
200 yard, top-gear acceleration from 50 mph, terminal speed: 74.2 mph
Quarter-mile acceleration: 12.93 sec., 104.0 mph

I looked for this bike because it is a technical marvel and very unique. Throw in decent performance and very good road manners, it's an all round nice bike to have despite it's huge size.


I'm guessing those are the performance numbers for the Valk, as the 109 runs high 11 second 1/4 miles. Your top gear RPMs @ 60 MPH are pretty close to what the 109's turning at that speed, I think it turns about 2800 @ 60. I still think a top gear roll-on comparison between these two bikes would be pretty close. How much torque does the Valk produce? I think the 9 makes right around 97 ft lbs.


Generally, the quoted figures for rear wheel numbers are 100 h.p., 100 ft. lbs. Of course, those figures can vary from bike to bike and year to year. I've read that the early models, 97's in particular were very strong. Some reviews claim that subsequent bikes weren't up to par according to their "seat of the pants" dynos. Honda claims that nothing had been changed that would de-tune them. My take on it is, that once the excitement of the new machine had subsided and the novelty had worn off, people had become accustomed to the power and were pretty much used to it.

Regardless, it's got more than enough power for me. The rush to triple digit speed (mph) is so effortless that it's hard to believe you're going that fast until you look at the speedo.

 

[ZGRider]

Yeah, Valks invented "power-cruisers" with that engine --- not really, but they certainly redefined it. I guess that class was invented by the V-Max.

What I can't understand is why more people weren't attracted to those kind of bikes? I mean, even cruiser guys want power (not poser) don't they?

Maybe style does trump substance.....

 

[beanoil]

Originally Posted By: tomcat27
why are there no 3 cylinder engines on a motorcycle? I know, laugh it up - but I love the 3 cylinder in my polaris snowmobile.

Here are a few for your viewing pleasure.

http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/triumph/triumph-speed-triple-1050-16318.html
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/255/2652/Motorcycle-Article/2009-Triumph-Street-Triple-R-Review.aspx
http://www.suzukicycles.org/GT-series/GT380.shtml
http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2009/08/03/anzani-w3-3-cylinder-motorcycle-engine/

I'm partial to the BMW Boxer engine as a great powerplant. A 90 degree VTwin comes a close second. Riding a bike should stir all of your senses. Both of these engines have character, and make beautiful noise.

 

[boraticus]

Originally Posted By: ZGRider
Yeah, Valks invented "power-cruisers" with that engine --- not really, but they certainly redefined it. I guess that class was invented by the V-Max.

What I can't understand is why more people weren't attracted to those kind of bikes? I mean, even cruiser guys want power (not poser) don't they?

Maybe style does trump substance.....


I'd say the reason the bike didn't become as popular was because the "V twin - biker image" and noise factor wasn't there. Few cruiser enthusiasts appreciate genuine feats of mechanical accomplishment. Two friends of mine who own cruisers (one HD and one Vulcan) bought their bikes for obvious reasons. The V twin engine.

The guy with the Vulcan is a real biker. Mechanically adept and very knowledgeable He and I and our wives went on a 1600 km road trip last summer with Valk and Vulcan. We went to get fuel one night and his headlight dropped and was illuminating his front wheel. We pulled into the gas station and noticed that the head light bracket had suffered a vibration fatigue crack and broke right off. We made a temporary fix with an assortment of bungie cords I had. During the fix, he commented that he had read somewhere that Kawasaki purposely introduced vibration into the engine mechanism to give it the ever so necessary "V twin feel". Trust me, he was cursing Kawasaki for that.

The other friend who owns the Harley doesn't even change his own oil. Into the shop at $80.00/hr no matter how significant. No mechanical aptitude whatsoever. His thing is chrome and noise.

So, the bottom line is that the Valkyrie did not possess the characteristics that the cruiser crowd prefers. Despite all of it's mechanical achievements, it was doomed to fail as sales success.

That however has no impact on me nor my opinion of the machine. I know it's a very competent and unique motorcycle. I've never seen another one yet in my average sized home town and had to bring this one in from 1500 miles away to buy it. I'm certain that it will go down in the annals of motorcycle history as classic.

We see lots of Vulcans and tons of Harleys. Actually, my friend with the Harley was really disappointed one day when the exact same bike as his pulled up beside us in a parking lot driven by a petit, older woman. Here he is feeling all macho in his leather get up and granny shows up on the same machine! The low seat height accommodates a lot of different riders I guess. It was a funny moment....

It takes a "motor head" to truly appreciate remarkable mechanical achievements. It bypasses most people who never get their hands dirty.

 

[ZGRider]

Boraticus, I agree with everything you said except the HD noise part. The most beautiful sounding M/C I ever heard was a V-Max with aftermarket pipes. Not too loud, but extremely potent. It didn't sound bloated, or slobbery like certain V-Twins that will be unnamed. The was the coolest sounding bike ever.

I have heard racing Ducs, Honda RC164s and NR750s, Norton Manxes, MV, you name it and that V-Max was still had the best sound.

To me, HDs are the polar opposite of the adage: "speak softly and carry a big stick." (not bashing, just an observation!)

I have never heard a Valk or Goldwing with aftermarket pipes, I wonder what that would sound like?

 

[boraticus]

Depending on the pipes, they can sound from anything like a F-1 V-8 to a hopped up Chevy small block. With stock exhaust, they're very quiet at lower rpms. Blip the throttle and the revs jump and the sound is bit like a muted Indy car. If you're a motor head, you'll readily recognize it as the sound of performance.

The equivalent Gold Wing engine isn't the same as a Valkyrie power plant. Wings were tuned for fuel economy and had one large carb to feed the engine until the fuel injected models came out. The Valkyrie has hotter cams, different timing, six carbs and freer flowing six into six exhaust. Basically a hopped up version of the same engine. However, despite these performance enhancements, the engine is nowhere near it's potential. Guys are putting blowers, EFI and hotter cams in their Valkyries to crank out some very serious power. Some claim close to 50% more power with no negative effects other than they need a fuel truck to follow them around. Crazy stuff but not for me. I like mine just the way it is.

 

[ZGRider]

My '76 Wing had 4 carbs?

 

[boraticus]

Originally Posted By: ZGRider
My '76 Wing had 4 carbs?


Neat. That's going back a few years. What was their first year out? 1974?

I remember a buddy of mine bought one way back then. I think it was burgundy. I'm pretty sure it's still on the road today with a couple hundred thousand miles on it.

They were certainly an "out of the box" design back then. Opposed four, with liquid cooling, decent handling and capable of doing over 120 mph! Wonderful machines indeed.

 

[ZGRider]

I took all the Vetter junk off it and put it back to UJM. It was like a motor with 2 wheels. It had the spoke wheels and everything. Wish I hadn't sold it. Hardest part was finding OEM seat to replace Mom & Pop swede leather sissybar monstrosity.

It was the candy-apple red.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: boraticus
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: boraticus
I doubt the Valk would fare too well against the 109.

here's some actual performance figures provided by Motorcycle Cruiser Magazine.

PERFORMANCE
Fuel mileage: 30 to 42 mpg, 35.9 mpg average
Average range: 190 miles
RPM at 60 mph, top gear: 2990
200 yard, top-gear acceleration from 50 mph, terminal speed: 74.2 mph
Quarter-mile acceleration: 12.93 sec., 104.0 mph

I looked for this bike because it is a technical marvel and very unique. Throw in decent performance and very good road manners, it's an all round nice bike to have despite it's huge size.


I'm guessing those are the performance numbers for the Valk, as the 109 runs high 11 second 1/4 miles. Your top gear RPMs @ 60 MPH are pretty close to what the 109's turning at that speed, I think it turns about 2800 @ 60. I still think a top gear roll-on comparison between these two bikes would be pretty close. How much torque does the Valk produce? I think the 9 makes right around 97 ft lbs.


Generally, the quoted figures for rear wheel numbers are 100 h.p., 100 ft. lbs. Of course, those figures can vary from bike to bike and year to year. I've read that the early models, 97's in particular were very strong. Some reviews claim that subsequent bikes weren't up to par according to their "seat of the pants" dynos. Honda claims that nothing had been changed that would de-tune them. My take on it is, that once the excitement of the new machine had subsided and the novelty had worn off, people had become accustomed to the power and were pretty much used to it.

Regardless, it's got more than enough power for me. The rush to triple digit speed (mph) is so effortless that it's hard to believe you're going that fast until you look at the speedo.


It's funny you brought up the thing about ealier Honda models being more powerful because they have a long history of doing just that. Look at the CB750. Introduced in 1969, the first model year would do 12.6 in the 1/4 mile, while subsequent model years got slower an slower until they came out with the DOHC engine. Same thing happened with the CBX, the V-65, and even the VTX1800. In all cases the first model year was the fastest and most powerful, yet Honda always claims the same thing, they didn't detune or change anything. This has always been a great mystery to me about Honda as they seem to be only bike maker that does this and I could never figure out why.