As cable sez, more power from a smaller displacement engine . . . . . which allows less overall weight, smaller chassis, potentially better handling, less costly suspenders for the same amount of filthy lucre . . . .
Making engines larger has a lot to recommend it, but it does start a snowball affect . . . .

But it's not quite that easy and simple.
I turbo'd a KZ 650 in the 80's...
To do it right, the engine needs to beefed up. virtually everywhere.
The tranny needs to be made to handle the power.  Ditto for the cooling, chassis, suspension and brakes.
I'm sure there have been improvements and probably break-throughs, but they can't defy physics.
My turbo-650 was an expensive lesson that it's cheaper and easier to buy a bigger bike.

 I was very bummed to find out this kit has been discontinued now that I can afford it: http://www.aaperf.com/vfrkit-gen5.html

As cable sez, more power from a smaller displacement engine . . . . . which allows less overall weight, smaller chassis, potentially better handling, less costly suspenders for the same amount of filthy lucre . . . .

Making engines larger has a lot to recommend it, but it does start a snowball affect . . . .

Weight difference between the 6R and the 10R is only 7 pounds. Unless the SC is made out of Titanium and Carbon Fiber....and Unicorn Tears ®

SC also takes up a lot of space were the airbox / fuel tank goes

A whole lot of hate on manufacturers trying new things.   


I thought this forum was better than that. 

More automotive motors are going turbo for emissions reasons.

Could the move to turbo'd motorcycle motors be coming from the same arena? This might be a "beginning of the curve" production.

I was a 6th gen owner back when Toro was developing his Toro-charger...that was a great thread to read.  I would love to ride a VFR with THAT much power.  Would probably be the perfect bike for my needs/wants.

Quote from: Squareman357 on November 21, 2013, 09:15:32 AM

Quote from: Jim on November 21, 2013, 09:11:31 AM

More automotive motors are going turbo for emissions reasons.

Could the move to turbo'd motorcycle motors be coming from the same arena? This might be a "beginning of the curve" production.

Enlighten me.  I'm not that knowledgeable on motors and whatnot.  Why would a turbo be better for emissions?

My guess would be smaller tubo'd motors with torque/hp output equal to a larger displacement motor.  Generally, smaller motor = less emissions.

As well, a turbo effectively recycles some of the exhaust into the system. Helps clean up some of those Nasty hydrocarbons. And that's how turbo units get gunked... by acting as a filter for the exhaust. Ever rebuilt a Caterpiller? That turbo is pretty nasty with soot and crap that gets shoved through it.

LT

My guess would be smaller tubo'd motors with torque/hp output equal to a larger displacement motor.  Generally, smaller motor = less emissions.

This is my belief - wring out as much power from as little displacement as possible. Along with variable cylinder drop-out/disable (direct reduction of displacement that is processing fuel).

As well, a turbo effectively recycles some of the exhaust into the system. Helps clean up some of those Nasty hydrocarbons. And that's how turbo units get gunked... by acting as a filter for the exhaust. Ever rebuilt a Caterpiller? That turbo is pretty nasty with soot and crap that gets shoved through it.

I don't agree with this. Spent exhaust does not get recycled into the clean air intake stream (which is what I'm taking from your reply). The spent exhaust is used to spin the turbo and is then moved through the rest of the exhaust system and out. Because the turbo is a two vane device, the "other" vane is used to pressurize / pack-in more clean air into the intake system.