123bhp,148ftlbs of torque,56mpg, 3cyl,999cc??? buy one today???

[norcolmille]

since you started with the Ford Ecoboost-

I sold my Expedition and found a Ford Flex Ecoboost limited. It can pull with the towing package a little over 5000 lbs - and I it holds 3000 lbs of bricks - as well as six passengers in comfort with -a refrigerator / freezer in the center console.

and with the twin turbos it has an impressive 355 horsepower and a responsive 350 lb.-ft. of torque across a broad rpm range
to and from Aspen- loaded down at up to 10,000 feet 22.5 mpg - and no one passed me ....

a great gasoline engine ....

[banzairx7]

So I have a low mile Ninja 250cc twin in a crate under my workbench I was going to take to a buddy in Belize back before driving through Mexico became a rather dangerous proposition. I have chassis of various sorts sitting around all over the shop. A long, and fully enclosed streamlined drop tank sort of body would work perfect. I guess to get any sort of sponsorship $$$ or parts I should probably be thinking about how to use a Vespa motor and cvt tranny with the turbocharger....hmmm. I bet at 30bhp (at any elevation/altitude) with the full time closed loop fuel control from the Vespa ecu in a really clean body could easily top 100mph and cruise 70-80mph at 100-130mpg if not higher.

If nobody else does this soon maybe getting the motorcycle efficiency races started again could become a forum project. TV time would probably be pretty easy to get to since reality based tv is all you can find on the stupid box anymore. This definitely has potential.

A few years ago when the new Ninja 250 came out I went to the dealer to check them out. I was doing a lot of commuting then on my Ninja 650 and thought I might be able to step up the mileage with the 250. Boy was I wrong. I averaged 62mpg on the 650. That wasn't the best mind you it was the average. The 250 was quoted to me as getting 56-58mpg. Huh? How do you lose 400cc's and 40hp and also lose 5 or 6mpg? That really showed me how little engineering goes into some bikes as far as fuel mileage goes.

[jrflanne]

Speaking of fat burger, torque of 148ft-lbs and hp of 123 adds up to a whopping 4360rpm. And that's a game changer?

Might as well get a Rocket III. "Triumph claims 147 ft.-lbs. of torque at 2,500 RPM and 140HP at 5,750 RPM for the oversquare fuel-injected mill."

[Bayross66]

Might as well get a Rocket III. "Triumph claims 147 ft.-lbs. of torque at 2,500 RPM and 140HP at 5,750 RPM for the oversquare fuel-injected mill."[/QUOTE]

Your totally correct the Triumph teapot looks equally flaccid with that sort of output from a 2300cc engine....

[jrflanne]

Might as well get a Rocket III. "Triumph claims 147 ft.-lbs. of torque at 2,500 RPM and 140HP at 5,750 RPM for the oversquare fuel-injected mill."

I would like to ride one but those things are freaking huge.

[Micah / AF1 Racing]

It is amusing Jack, the BIG Brit bike is a study in contradictions. The lest I rode was a genuine 140 bhp on our dyno with something like 155 ft/lbs of torque...from 1k rpm-5k rpm. The clutch let to on me only fifteen minutes into my test ride but up to that point it was a definitely holy-fuck sort of ride. Getting on the highway I left a black stripe from the previous stop light, up the ramp and probably right to the place where I reduced throttle to set cruise. If that motor were half or less it's current weight and mounted in a non cruiser chassis I cannot imagine what that would be like to ride. I am supposed to have a supercharged rocket III brought in pretty soon, I quoted very high on the dyno work because NONE of the rocket III guys have A: a sense of humor. B: deep as they claim pockets. C: patience. They therefore pay the "cover charge" or get to use a dynojet somewhere else. Our dyno has a reputation for "killing" clutches on those bikes die to ot being a brake type dyno and here may be some truth to this. I know that is also part of the consultation I have to give to interested parties, "so there is a really good chance your clutch will not survive this tuning session no matter how easy I try to be on it...".

I really think the 800cc 2T DFI or semiDFI is the way forward for monster torque and strong midrange and top end. At .1-.2 times the amount of weight per bhp as compared to the rocket three motor. I see it as a novelty, something I think would be fine fun in a many dragster or open wheel racecar like a Toyota Atlantic series chassis.

[QuickHX]

A well done 500-800cc twin cylinder "clean 2T" with either the BRP port injection system as used on snowmobiles or the more typical DFI system as used by Evinrude and appropriate gearing should be able to get 70mpg on a bike easily, at least 55 mpg in spirited riding. Notice the Ford motor is not some stupid shirt stroke sort of thing, it is designed to minimize rotating friction by using a stoke long enough to actually move some air to the turbine at low engine speeds...key to higher efficiency numbers.

yeah, amazingly clean, high specific output :http://www.brp-powertrain.com/en/des.../374_read-355/

Rotax 800R E-TEK
DESCRIPTION
2-stroke
2 cylinder
Reed valve controlled
PERFORMANCE
163.9 HP
DISPLACEMENT
799.5 cc
COOLING SYSTEM
Liquid cooled
LYBRICATION SYSTEM
Electronic oil injection pump
FUEL SUPPLY
Direct fuel injection

[Micah / AF1 Racing]

I personally feel that motor is ALL I could ever need/want or use in a 300lbs chassis, it might not be motoGP powerful up top BUT it would out-torque by at least double anything on the GP grid! I would be totally willing even to give up some of the existing power to package smaller, use a cataylzer to finish off any emissions argument and make it quiet, then of course have a different set of pipes and flash ready for play days! I would like to see what kind of life you could get out of one of these things on the street, in terms of miles covered and gallons burned. Harold Bartol was quite correct, when the 2T's return they will be bigger and make more torque than ever before!