Never, because it simply isn't true, and the V-4 proves it...
Why is the V-4 so underutilized in motorcycles?
- Thread starter grampi
- Start date
- Status
You apparently don't know what a fact is...like I said, all you have to do to prove your point is post the output data of another engine configuration that matches or exceeds both the low end torque and high HP output of a V-4 that's the same or comparable displacement. You haven't done so because no such engine exists...
They probably would if they were also 1679cc with the same bore and stroke. Larger displacement engines pretty much equate to more torque. The Vmax has a huge displacement advantage. Cylinder configuration doesn't really matter, every other engine design factor does.
But more "low end grunt" doesn't matter much unless it was a one gear transmission. The area under the HP curve is what matters, and once you start changing gears near redline, the bike with the best gearing (transmission and final drive) and the most HP will be on top (assuming all other factors are equal like weight, aerodynamics, etc).
Last edited:
Not according the the dyno charts I posted (see post no. 115). The V4 is handily outgunned at all rpm. Even when disadvantaged by 8% on displacement the "cammy inline 4" matches the V4 despite. So, you asked for proof, you got it. I would love to show more, but direct comparisons are no longer possible as the V4 mfrs (Ducati and Aprilia) have gone oversize cheater engines to keep up.
Finally, if V4s REALLY had this magical property you and BLS hang onto, why would outboard boat engine manufacturers not go the V4 route on engines whose major load challenge occurs at low rpm, precisely where you claim the inline they chose is at a irrefutable disadvantage? I'll reply for you: they chose the inline because it DOES not suffer at low rpm and, in this particular case, because the even firing order of a flat-plane crank I4 allows it to accelerate without chugging, something an engine with an odd firing sequence cannot do at low speed and high load.
One last thing, for kicks (LOL): what is the magical power multiplier V4 engines supposedly have? 3%? 5%? 10%? 20%?
Not sure what is up with hanging on to this unicorn engineering but it's never too late to embrace reality.
Finally, for your viewing pleasure:
Try that on an uneven-firing V4 and report back... LOL
To add ... go research what a 1507cc displacement kit does to a Busa. They put out around 230 HP and 135 ft-lbs of torque at the rear wheel. Bump it up another 172cc and it would be putting out even more. The 2021 1679cc Vmax did around 183 HP and 122 ft-lbs of torque at the rear wheel with an exhaust and tune.
If you could magically morph a Vmax (like Christine did) while keeping all the same engine design technology and tuning except put the cylinders from a V4 configuration to a I4 configuration, the T and HP curves vs RPM isn't going to change enough to see outside the noise and repeatability of a dyno. If you think it would, I'd like to hear why you think that.
Last edited:
Another very good V4 bike was the Pan European, I almost bought one instead of the SC24, the price was close at the time. I rode both and the CBR even being short over 100 cc was a more powerful engine and much quicker. I bought the CBR. The pan European was a nice bike to ride with a great engine but it was heading into the truck size category.
OK. This thread has run its course.
Bickering. Chest thumping. Bragging about burnouts on the street. Name calling. The intelligent points have been made a while ago.
Bickering. Chest thumping. Bragging about burnouts on the street. Name calling. The intelligent points have been made a while ago.
- Status
Similar threads
