What is it with the more displacement is better mentality?

[Greenman]

I had some jackoff at work ask me what size my bike was and when I told him 650cc he comes back with a puzzled look and a, "whoa, that's small" comment. Like I suddenly became less of a man because I ride a 650cc bike. He then proceeds to tell me he wants to get a bike but he's going to get a liter bike. I asked him why a liter bike? And he says, "I just like the way they look." I then asked him if he's ever ridden a motorcycle before and he tells me that he has owned quads and then tells me a story of him pulling a wheelie for 5 miles down the 15 freeway and about a friend of his who does stoppies.

Meanwhile, I ride with guys who have all sorts of different bikes from Ducati Sport Classic to a Kawasaki ZX10R to a Suzuki Bandit 1200 and I have no difficulty keeping up with any of them in the twisties on my lowly SV650...and none of them give me shit about my bike. Probably because they realize it's not about the bike but about the rider's ability.

I have another friend who just bought a ZX10R and he says that bike is scary fast, he rode an older GSXR750 prior to this. He never even gets it out of 3rd at 80mph on the freeway. It's just too much bike for street use. This is a guy I respect, unlike the douche I was talking to the other day.

Funny thing is, I've talked to a bunch of guys who ride super sports who have owned the SV and nearly all of them say they wish they never got rid of their SV. Then you see some guy show up at a track day on an SV and destroy guys riding liter bikes. It's easier to have fun pushing a smaller bike to the limit than it is to wrestle with a fast bike trying to find the limit.

I know I probably won't find much sympathy here in the garage because everyone here owns an 8.0L V10 650hp Dodge Viper.

That's an easy one to answer, he doesn't understand modern engine design. A lot of the Harley i love you's (south park reference, don't ban me) say "there's no replacement for displacement". They don't understand short stroke overhead cam engines, and think that more CC's are the only way to increase horsepower. Most of them are pretty hooked on torque as well, which I understand, because lots of torque is lots of fun. A buddy of mine has a 106 inch Harley that puts 113 foot pounds of torque to the pavement. The thing will idle up hill in third gear, it's a LOT of fun to ride.

 

[exdeath]

That's an easy one to answer, he doesn't understand modern engine design. A lot of the Harley i love you's (south park reference, don't ban me) say "there's no replacement for displacement".

There isn't.

Take your boosted, overhead cam, vario this and that, 15k RPM engine that makes 300 HP / L but is only 1 liter.

Now make it 4 liters, without changing anything else. Now you have 1200 HP. Get it?

Anything you can do to a small engine you can do to a big engine.

Formula for engine power output:

power = (technology+boost+exotic materials+this+that+electronics+unicorn blood+RPM+balls to the wall every last bit of power per cubic inch you can possibly get with current design and materials) x displacement

None of the things in the parenthesis are "replacements for displacement" because their application is independent of displacement and can be implemented with equal effect on engines both large and small.

 

[Jeff7181]

There isn't.

Take your boosted, overhead cam, vario this and that, 15k RPM engine that makes 300 HP / L but is only 1 liter.

Now make it 4 liters, without changing anything else. Now you have 1200 HP. Get it?

Anything you can do to a small engine you can do to a big engine.

Formula for engine power output:

power = (technology+boost+exotic materials+this+that+electronics+unicorn blood+RPM+balls to the wall every last bit of power per cubic inch you can possibly get with current design and materials) x displacement

None of the things in the parenthesis are "replacements for displacement" because their application is independent of displacement and can be implemented with equal effect on engines both large and small.

Right... an engine is an air pump, the more air you can move through it the more power it can make. The easiest way to increase the amount of air you move through it is to increase the volume of it's cylinders. But you can use forced induction, improve airflow through the heads and engine itself, OR (drumroll) spin the engine faster... all of which increase the amount of air going in and coming out of the engine.

 

[yottabit]

I'm getting a bored ZX14 with nitrous and a stretched swingarm for my first bike!...

I think the ignorance of his comment is due to the fact that he's never ridden a bike before. He probably doesn't realize how fast a 600 is

Somebody needs to take him on a ride on an R1 until he shits himself, then you'll see him riding a Ninja 250

SV650s are nice bikes... they are lacking in HP compared to the "r" class 600s but make up for it with a nice broad torque band. I think the "beating 600r's" on the track stems from when you're looking at non-professional/expert riders. In the hands of an expert a 600r would take it but for the average person it's a lot easier to keep the sv650 in the powerband

 

[Jeff7181]

It can mean both. Torque = Power (Towing) and in the sense where theres smoke theres fire, if youve got torque you've got horsepower. Depending on the application of course.

No, it cannot. They are fundamentally different, and the reason you're getting confused is because you keep applying a subjective definition to the word, power. As in, if something is powerful, how powerful is it? Would I be powerful if I could bench press 1,000 pounds? Would I still be powerful compared to a crane that can lift a 20,000 pound steel girder 40 stories to the top of a high rise? To properly compare, you need to assign a value to the term "power."

In the automotive industry, horsepower is the standard unit of power. Power is a measure of the rate at which work is performed. Torque is a measure of force. They are not, have not been and never will be the same thing.

 

[yottabit]

No, it cannot. They are fundamentally different, and the reason you're getting confused is because you keep applying a subjective definition to the word, power. As in, if something is powerful, how powerful is it? Would I be powerful if I could bench press 1,000 pounds? Would I still be powerful compared to a crane that can lift a 20,000 pound steel girder 40 stories to the top of a high rise? To properly compare, you need to assign a value to the term "power."

In the automotive industry, horsepower is the standard unit of power. Power is a measure of the rate at which work is performed. Torque is a measure of force. They are not, have not been and never will be the same thing.

They're the same at 5,252 RPM

 

[skyking]

Indeed. My truck only makes about 220 HP as it is now, but closer to 600 ft pounds of torque. The HP is sufficient to move the 17,000 pounds load it carries, but would lack the "force" to get it going if it were a more square situation, 220 HP and say 300 ft pounds torque. All things equal, a 220 HP I-4 could keep it going down the highway. It would fail miserably at getting it started.

 

[ShawnD1]

Right... an engine is an air pump, the more air you can move through it the more power it can make. The easiest way to increase the amount of air you move through it is to increase the volume of it's cylinders. But you can use forced induction, improve airflow through the heads and engine itself, OR (drumroll) spin the engine faster... all of which increase the amount of air going in and coming out of the engine.

NUH UH. There's no way to replace displacement. Any 3.5L engine is automatically more powerful than a 2L engine. Example: A 3.5L Accord is rated for 270HP while a 2.0L Lancer Evo is only rated for 290HP. As you can see, the bigger engine always makes more power.

My truck only makes about 220 HP as it is now, but closer to 600 ft pounds of torque

What kind of truck is it?

 

[yottabit]

NUH UH. There's no way to replace displacement. Any 3.5L engine is automatically more powerful than a 2L engine. Example: A 3.5L Accord is rated for 270HP while a 2.0L Lancer Evo is only rated for 290HP. As you can see, the bigger engine always makes more power.



What kind of truck is it?

I dunno, the 1.9 L naturally aspirated in my Saturn makes 124 bhp, but a K20 2.0 naturally aspirated makes 200 bhp... I think it's that extra 0.1 L that makes all the difference

 

[ShawnD1]

I dunno, the 1.9 L naturally aspirated in my Saturn makes 124 bhp, but a K20 2.0 naturally aspirated makes 200 bhp... I think it's that extra 0.1 L that makes all the difference

Maybe your Saturn is broken

 

[LTC8K6]

NUH UH. There's no way to replace displacement. Any 3.5L engine is automatically more powerful than a 2L engine. Example: A 3.5L Accord is rated for 270HP while a 2.0L Lancer Evo is only rated for 290HP. As you can see, the bigger engine always makes more power.



What kind of truck is it?

Well, let's give the 3.5L some forced induction too and compare again...

 

[MotF Bane]

NUH UH. There's no way to replace displacement. Any 3.5L engine is automatically more powerful than a 2L engine. Example: A 3.5L Accord is rated for 270HP while a 2.0L Lancer Evo is only rated for 290HP. As you can see, the bigger engine always makes more power.



What kind of truck is it?

/facepalm

 

[JulesMaximus]

Indeed. My truck only makes about 220 HP as it is now, but closer to 600 ft pounds of torque. The HP is sufficient to move the 17,000 pounds load it carries, but would lack the "force" to get it going if it were a more square situation, 220 HP and say 300 ft pounds torque. All things equal, a 220 HP I-4 could keep it going down the highway. It would fail miserably at getting it started.

Only 220hp? That's small. You drive a wimpy little girl's truck.

 

[skyking]

Only 220hp? That's small. You drive a wimpy little girl's truck.

Be glad I was not drinking my coffee when I found this gem.

 

[skyking]

Shawn-troll-1, it is a Dodge Cummins turbodiesel.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'm getting a bored ZX14 with nitrous and a stretched swingarm for my first bike!...

I think the ignorance of his comment is due to the fact that he's never ridden a bike before. He probably doesn't realize how fast a 600 is

Somebody needs to take him on a ride on an R1 until he shits himself, then you'll see him riding a Ninja 250

SV650s are nice bikes... they are lacking in HP compared to the "r" class 600s but make up for it with a nice broad torque band. I think the "beating 600r's" on the track stems from when you're looking at non-professional/expert riders. In the hands of an expert a 600r would take it but for the average person it's a lot easier to keep the sv650 in the powerband

0-60mph:
Suzuki GSX-R600...3.25 secs
Kawasaki ZX-6R... 3.27 secs
Yamaha YZF-R6... 3.35 secs
Honda CBR600RR... 3.38 secs
Suzuki SV650... 3.65 secs

Horsepower:
Kawasaki ZX-6R... 107.8hp @ 12,750rpm
Honda CBR600RR... 105.4hp @ 13,500rpm
Yamaha YZF-R6... 105.4hp @ 12,750rpm
Suzuki GSX-R600...101.7hp @ 13,250rpm
Suzuki SV650... 76hp @ 8,800rpm

Torque:
Kawasaki ZX-6R... 46.7 ft-lbs @ 10,750rpm
Suzuki GSX-R600...45.8 ft-lbs @ 10,750rpm
Yamaha YZF-R6... 44.7 ft-lbs @ 11,750rpm
Honda CBR600RR... 43.7 ft-lbs @ 11,250rpm
Suzuki SV650... 47.2 ft-lbs @ 7,000rpm

Lacking hp? A bit, but the SV650 deveops peak power at a much lower rpm and makes more torque at a much lower rpm as well. Much more suited to day to day riding.

It's not hard to keep a 600cc supersport in the powerband...it's just louder and more likely to attract cops on the street, especially with an aftermarket exhaust. Where the 600cc sport bikes beat the SV is above 60mph where they really start to get into the upper revs. In the twisties I have no problem keeping up with them.

 

[Jeff7181]

Also, depending on where you live, road conditions aren't going to let you push a bike to its limits. Here in Michigan there are roads where even on a 250R you'd be at neutral throttle coming out of a turn simply because the road is so poor you can't lay the power down coming out with only a few square inches of rubber on the ground.

 

[ShawnD1]

Well, let's give the 3.5L some forced induction too and compare again...

Are you sure you understand what the word "replace" means?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/replace

to provide a substitute or equivalent in the place of: to replace a broken dish.

If I want more power, I can add a turbo charger in place of a larger engine.

DUURRRRR THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT*
*if we completely change the definition of the word "replacement"

 

[Zargon]

you are the one who doesnt seem to get it....

forced induction can be used to make power on a smaller engine to surpass the larger engine......however.....you can still put FI on the larger engine and beat it(in general of course).

great you can turbo your z16 or ka24 to beat a stock LS1's output, but the LS1 has a much higher ceiling than the other motors do

0-60mph:
Suzuki GSX-R600...3.25 secs
Kawasaki ZX-6R... 3.27 secs
Yamaha YZF-R6... 3.35 secs
Honda CBR600RR... 3.38 secs
Suzuki SV650... 3.65 secs

Horsepower:
Kawasaki ZX-6R... 107.8hp @ 12,750rpm
Honda CBR600RR... 105.4hp @ 13,500rpm
Yamaha YZF-R6... 105.4hp @ 12,750rpm
Suzuki GSX-R600...101.7hp @ 13,250rpm
Suzuki SV650... 76hp @ 8,800rpm

Torque:
Kawasaki ZX-6R... 46.7 ft-lbs @ 10,750rpm
Suzuki GSX-R600...45.8 ft-lbs @ 10,750rpm
Yamaha YZF-R6... 44.7 ft-lbs @ 11,750rpm
Honda CBR600RR... 43.7 ft-lbs @ 11,250rpm
Suzuki SV650... 47.2 ft-lbs @ 7,000rpm

Lacking hp? A bit, but the SV650 deveops peak power at a much lower rpm and makes more torque at a much lower rpm as well. Much more suited to day to day riding.

It's not hard to keep a 600cc supersport in the powerband...it's just louder and more likely to attract cops on the street, especially with an aftermarket exhaust. Where the 600cc sport bikes beat the SV is above 60mph where they really start to get into the upper revs. In the twisties I have no problem keeping up with them.

yeah the 0-100 times should show a larger difference

and I would call 25% less HP a bit more than 'a bit' :hmm:

 

[hanoverphist]

lulz... hence the 9000 in your name?

my 750 is slow, considering its a 79, older tech and really heavy. but its still fast enough for me, and i can push it to stupid limits if i care to. when i ride other bikes, like my friends liter kawi, sure i take it much easier. its not mine, im not fully used to it and i dont want to replace it. but i can handle it just fine, and keep up with others on it. funny thing is, i could keep up with all kinds of sport bikes back in the days when mine was running. it didnt have many issues with power at all.

i used to love it when i would be at a light and a hurricane or ninja would pull up to me, and i could tell the rider was new or inexperienced. they would always want to race, and they were easy to overcome. guys on stock harleys were a blast too.

 

[BurnItDwn]

600cc race bikes are ~100+ hp. my detuned 600 makes ~75hp.

Well, there you go, more than enough power for bike and rider ... Even an Atom 500 or Bugatti SS would have problems trying to keep up...

 

[yottabit]

you are the one who doesnt seem to get it....

forced induction can be used to make power on a smaller engine to surpass the larger engine......however.....you can still put FI on the larger engine and beat it(in general of course).

great you can turbo your z16 or ka24 to beat a stock LS1's output, but the LS1 has a much higher ceiling than the other motors do




yeah the 0-100 times should show a larger difference

and I would call 25% less HP a bit more than 'a bit' :hmm:

almost a 50% increase from the sv650's perspective

don't get me wrong though, the torque is nice and you can't expect 4 cyl RPM out of a v-twin

Honestly I think the only reason the 0-60 times are so close is it's hard to lay that much power down. I bet with a longer swingarm the 600s would pull away harder

sv650 is a ~12 second bike while most r-type 600s are capable of ~10 sec 1/4, at least low 11s

 

[LTC8K6]

If I want more power, I can add a turbo charger in place of a larger engine.

What does the turbocharging cost relative to the NA engine?

Let's compare two Accords. The EX and the EX V6. What does it cost to get the EX up to the EX V6's power?

You need 81 more horses and 92 more lb ft of torque.

Go!

 

[Zargon]

almost a 50% increase from the sv650's perspective

don't get me wrong though, the torque is nice and you can't expect 4 cyl RPM out of a v-twin

Honestly I think the only reason the 0-60 times are so close is it's hard to lay that much power down. I bet with a longer swingarm the 600s would pull away harder

sv650 is a ~12 second bike while most r-type 600s are capable of ~10 sec 1/4, at least low 11s

gearing helps

I recall my r6 doing 70 or so in 1st gear, 100 in second

sv's do around 50 in 1st, 2nd gear 67 mph. 3rd gear, 86 mph. 4th gear

 

[alkemyst]

This is akin to the Camry guys saying their car is just as _adequate_ as a bugatti veyron day to day.