locogato11283 Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 yah, i threw the 650 in th wrong cat, but i was standing up to walk out the door to work, not payin attention when i threw them in there. i was just refering to the power curves so you think that the ds650 and banshee have similar power curves?? youre kidding right? and you think that the blaster, yfz450 and raptor have similar power curves?? please. you need to stick to doing something besides giving out terrible info on here. HQ doesnt need fools like you runnin around giving out shitty information, especially when a lot of guys new to the banshee read these forums. from now on, research before you respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05.Banshee.SE Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 If you've ever noticed when following a 4-stroke you can see the dirt pulsate out from behind the rear wheels under acceleration. Banshee's however have a constant shower stream. I noticed how much Banshees roost (lol), but I never noticed the 4 stroke "pulsating"...huh I'll have to look next time. I'm usually watching the trail, and looking at the sides of the 4 strokes, trying to find passing room on the 1 bike-wide trails. :biggrin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajogejr Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Just remember, when it's throwing roost in trails that means the tires are spinning...not good. 4 strokes hook up better, period. Their torquey nature and power curves just grip the ground. That's why it's hard to beat a 450 out of the hole, much easier to control and feed the power to the rear wheels... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05.Banshee.SE Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 That's why I wouldn't mind picking up a 400EX to use as a wheelie and other shit like that bike. It's sooooo much easier to ride wheelies over distances on them...the Banshee is a huge balancing and braking act. The 4 strokes just don't want to flip your ass off like the Banshee does with it's powerband. It's definately do able, it just takes a lot more practice. But as far as having fun when riding goes, what the Banshee offers, I wouldn't have it any other way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk3000 Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 i would just think the inline twin would be a little smoother at low rpm's IMO, twins have a power stroke every half rotation of the crank where a single would have a power stroke every full rotation of the crank. but thats my guess also heard inlines make more torque then v's, but that is probably b.s. just what i heard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinner Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) i would just think the inline twin would be a little smoother at low rpm's IMO, twins have a power stroke every half rotation of the crank where a single would have a power stroke every full rotation of the crank. but thats my guessalso heard inlines make more torque then v's, but that is probably b.s. just what i heard There are more factors than just saying inlins are more capable of higher torque numbers. Sounds to me like you are talking in vehicle engine terms, which yes Inlines generally create higher torque numbers due to the stroke length over v configuration engines. And how do you mean the inline twin would be smoother in the lower RPM's? Are you talking about smoother as in putting power to the ground, or are you talking internally with the engine's balance, running smoother, that sorta thing? Edited January 26, 2009 by Dinner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastrthnu Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 heya, i was wondering, whats the difference.. between the same displacement if you had a 350 CC twin and a 350 single. knowing that the banshee is 173.5cc per cylinder, which makes it 347cc since its a twin wouldnt it be better to make a single 350cc? whats the difference? is it the Twins accelerate faster, but less power? or what? if the banshee was a 350 single, in which areas would it be better? You cannot compare any 4 stroke vs 2 stroke twin or single. I think on a 2 stroke motor, it is going to run more efficient than a single because you have twice the amount of force going at the crank per revolution. The pistons are traveling at half the speed to turn the crank. Since the pistons are moving slower, there is more time for the exaust waves to force its way with some of the intake charge back into the cylinder on a compression stroke. We all know that a 2 stroke also runs better at higher rpms because at lower rpms there isnt alot of sound energy back preasuring back into the cylinders. For this reason it may make a little more bottom and mid end power on a single piston motor. No matter what, a 2 stroke motor doesnt make good bottom end power because it only gets its power off the pipe. Without these effects from the expansion chamber, a 2 stroke would be a weak engine. No 2 stroke really has a wide powerband range. Any dyno chart you look at is going to look like the side of a mountain. A pipe can be made to manipulate where the range of power will be greatest, but its always in a short band, because that pipe is only made for timing waves to "supercharge" the cylinder at a specific time. Sound doesnt travel at different rates of speed. On a 4 stroke motor, the valve timing events are always the same. Of course the timing can be altered for a movement in power in a specific range, but it will still be in a wider smoother band. when the intake charge comes into the chamber it gets trapped inside and nothing escapes, so on the bottom end its stll producing lots more torque due to no charge escaping. At higher rpms, a 4 stroke is still running at the same efficiency. A 2 stroke makes more power per cc because its actually sort of being supercharged by the pipe, making it more a powerful top end motor on top of having 2 more combustion strokes vs a 4. The compression of a 4 stroke motor is also higher, which can work against it i a way because its harder to pack more air as the piston is moving upward to compress, and to push exaust through a smaller valve hole,. but the power still over compinsates for it. Kind of the same way it takes HP to turn a supercharger, but the boost and the power makes over compinsates for it. If you made tandom 250cc banshee motor and put it up against a single 500cc 2 stroke motor, with the same rpm range pipe and port heights, which do you think would win? The 500 would have a larger bore, ports and stroke, but I bet the twin would win overall, and the bottom/mid gain would be so much greater. It also takes more power to turn a valvetrain,. which a 2 stroke doesnt use, making it less of a maintanance hassle and more efficient. Running powervalves on a 2 stroke motor will build up a broader powerband, but no 2 stroke can be compared to a 4 on torque. In fact I dont think Ive ever seen a dyno chart from a 2 stroke motor where torque exceeded horsepower. I have however on many 4 stroke motors. Thats my .002. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spurdy Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 You cannot compare any 4 stroke vs 2 stroke twin or single. I think on a 2 stroke motor, it is going to run more efficient than a single because you have twice the amount of force going at the crank per revolution. The pistons are traveling at half the speed to turn the crank. Since the pistons are moving slower, there is more time for the exaust waves to force its way with some of the intake charge back into the cylinder on a compression stroke. We all know that a 2 stroke also runs better at higher rpms because at lower rpms there isnt alot of sound energy back preasuring back into the cylinders. For this reason it may make a little more bottom and mid end power on a single piston motor. No matter what, a 2 stroke motor doesnt make good bottom end power because it only gets its power off the pipe. Without these effects from the expansion chamber, a 2 stroke would be a weak engine. No 2 stroke really has a wide powerband range. Any dyno chart you look at is going to look like the side of a mountain. A pipe can be made to manipulate where the range of power will be greatest, but its always in a short band, because that pipe is only made for timing waves to "supercharge" the cylinder at a specific time. Sound doesnt travel at different rates of speed. On a 4 stroke motor, the valve timing events are always the same. Of course the timing can be altered for a movement in power in a specific range, but it will still be in a wider smoother band. when the intake charge comes into the chamber it gets trapped inside and nothing escapes, so on the bottom end its stll producing lots more torque due to no charge escaping. At higher rpms, a 4 stroke is still running at the same efficiency. A 2 stroke makes more power per cc because its actually sort of being supercharged by the pipe, making it more a powerful top end motor on top of having 2 more combustion strokes vs a 4. The compression of a 4 stroke motor is also higher, which can work against it i a way because its harder to pack more air as the piston is moving upward to compress, and to push exaust through a smaller valve hole,. but the power still over compinsates for it. Kind of the same way it takes HP to turn a supercharger, but the boost and the power makes over compinsates for it. If you made tandom 250cc banshee motor and put it up against a single 500cc 2 stroke motor, with the same rpm range pipe and port heights, which do you think would win? The 500 would have a larger bore, ports and stroke, but I bet the twin would win overall, and the bottom/mid gain would be so much greater. It also takes more power to turn a valvetrain,. which a 2 stroke doesnt use, making it less of a maintanance hassle and more efficient. Running powervalves on a 2 stroke motor will build up a broader powerband, but no 2 stroke can be compared to a 4 on torque. In fact I dont think Ive ever seen a dyno chart from a 2 stroke motor where torque exceeded horsepower. I have however on many 4 stroke motors. Thats my .002. Damn! I haven't even read your post yet, but I should be on the clock for this shit! LOL. Gotta go back and read it now. Hope its good. SP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastrthnu Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Damn! I haven't even read your post yet, but I should be on the clock for this shit! LOL. Gotta go back and read it now. Hope its good. SP actually it isnt that good. Its a very big shortcut to what I was trying to explain. I just now re read it and if you dont already know what Im talking about, it prob wont make any sence. :shoothead: I skipped around not fully expaining anything lol. cant type as fast as the thought process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spurdy Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 actually it isnt that good. Its a very big shortcut to what I was trying to explain. I just now re read it and if you dont already know what Im talking about, it prob wont make any sence. :shoothead: I skipped around not fully expaining anything lol. cant type as fast as the thought process. [/quoute] Know what ya mean. It is still ok to follow if you understand a little about engine dynamics. And I am no combustible engine specialist. I thought this post was a little silly from the start. I'm just a "little" more laid back then "loco". Apples are apples and oranges are oranges. While both are fruit and both are round they just aint the same. But hey, I travel for a living and sometimes the entertainment at Applebees just doesn't cut it! SP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKheathen Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 u should get laid man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodneya Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Agreed. Which is why Banshee's generally have trouble "hooking up" and putting power to the ground. If you've ever noticed when following a 4-stroke you can see the dirt pulsate out from behind the rear wheels under acceleration. Banshee's however have a constant shower stream. :down: What are you doing following a 4 stroke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spurdy Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 u should get laid man 35 years old, happily married for 10 years with 3 kids. Come again? SP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKheathen Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 35 years old, happily married for 10 years with 3 kids. Come again? SP not u :shoothead: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowit Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 actually it isnt that good. Its a very big shortcut to what I was trying to explain. I just now re read it and if you dont already know what Im talking about, it prob wont make any sence. :shoothead: I skipped around not fully expaining anything lol. cant type as fast as the thought process. Not going to shoot holes through all of that novel above but I will throw a few things at you. 2- stroke diesel.... cylinder phasing.... Port timing..... 2-strokes are far from gruntless. Also, compare the power made per liter from a good chain saw or weed whacker. Rather impressive number without an expansion chamber. Once you add more than one cylinder, One of the most critical things that determines an engines power curve is cylinder phase. Notice how all OEMs have their own flavor for firing order as well. Those variables have a large affect on how power is made and when. inline, 40*, 50* 90* 180* V twins, common crank pin, dual crank pin, they all make power differently. Also, more than one cylinder does not mean less revs/cylinder. Everything still sees the same speed. The larger benefit of multiple cylinders is reduction of reciprocal mass thus increasing safe rpm potential. Just a few thoughts I guess Brandon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.