Moto-cross 4 stroke VS 2 stroke

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

Post Reply
alex.barylski
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 6267
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg

Moto-cross 4 stroke VS 2 stroke

Post by alex.barylski »

I haven't followed racing in at least a decade, but I used to be right into moto-x, etc...

Back in the day, all the hottest bikes were two stroke....my very own beloved RM80 is most certainly a two stroke. The sound or should I say buzz of that little engine always pushed me ahead of my friends who otherwise had four strokes.

Today I have friend who bought himself a Kawasaki (125/250 or similar) and it's 4 stroke. I laughed at him and called him a wussy and he explained that 4 stroke had come such a long way they now equalled 2 strokes in almost everyway. He then proofed his claim by hilighting most bikes in his category were indeed four stroke.

He proved his point but I am at a loss as to how this can be, having a basic understanding of the principles behind the two different types of engines, a 4 stroke out-performing a 2-stroke seems to almost defy logic. I searched Google.

It sounds as though, 2 strokes are slowly being replaced by the heavier, more complicated, albeit more efficient 4 strokes, but not nessecarily due to equalled performance. More like, regulations, environmental concerns, etc.

I had a similar argument with another friend a while back about his crotch rocket - he had told me it was 4 stroke and indeed it is. I was shocked and still am shocked.

Anyone know why and when these bikes started turning to 4 stroke technology?
User avatar
iknownothing
Forum Contributor
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia

Post by iknownothing »

Fuel Efficiency, Emissions, Quieter and Engine Life, are basically it. Its technology which has caught up to the power of 2 strokes. A well designed 2 stroke will always have more torque, and far greater power-to-weight ratio.
User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Post by feyd »

I prefer 2-stroke.
User avatar
ReverendDexter
Forum Contributor
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 1:26 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Post by ReverendDexter »

For power to displacment, you're not going to beat a two-stroke. In a two stroke motor, you're getting a combustion on every downstroke of the piston. Contrast that with a 4 stroke, where you're only getting a combustion every other downstroke.

However, by the way they work, 2-strokes don't burn the entire air-fuel mixture, and they burn oil. Both of these lead to a lot higher hydrocarbon content of the exhaust, and lower fuel economy (also, you have to run premix).
User avatar
RobertGonzalez
Site Administrator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
Location: Fremont, CA, USA

Post by RobertGonzalez »

Man, I love our forums. Where else would you find a bunch of web nerds talking about combustion engines.
User avatar
ReverendDexter
Forum Contributor
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 1:26 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Post by ReverendDexter »

I wanted to ad this earlier, but for all you car-driving types, if you're a fan of the 2-stroke, try a rotary engine. Again, where your normal 4-stroke engine gets 1 combustion for every 2 revolutions per piston, a rotary engine gets 3 combustions per every single rev! Which is why you can get 200+ hp from a naturally aspirated 1.3L engine. Of course, they suffer from all of the usual 2-stroke faults, and you have to learn to drive them correctly (i.e., keep the rpms up), or they become horrendously unreliable.
User avatar
RobertGonzalez
Site Administrator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
Location: Fremont, CA, USA

Post by RobertGonzalez »

Rotary engines rip! I remember doing an engineering paper on Felix Wankle. It is a friggin' awesome design and concept.
User avatar
Christopher
Site Administrator
Posts: 13596
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: New York, NY, US

Post by Christopher »

ReverendDexter wrote:However, by the way they work, 2-strokes don't burn the entire air-fuel mixture, and they burn oil. Both of these lead to a lot higher hydrocarbon content of the exhaust, and lower fuel economy (also, you have to run premix).
It should be noted that this is where the four-strokes have closed the gap. Because two-strokes do not burn the air-fuel mixture as completely as four-strokes the gap in actual power produced is narrowed. Continued improvements in four-strokes have shrunk that gap. I recall reading that there are some thermal reasons why multi-cylinder two-strokes are less efficient than multi-cylinder four-strokes -- further closing the gap.
(#10850)
alex.barylski
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 6267
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg

Post by alex.barylski »

arborint wrote:
ReverendDexter wrote:However, by the way they work, 2-strokes don't burn the entire air-fuel mixture, and they burn oil. Both of these lead to a lot higher hydrocarbon content of the exhaust, and lower fuel economy (also, you have to run premix).
It should be noted that this is where the four-strokes have closed the gap. Because two-strokes do not burn the air-fuel mixture as completely as four-strokes the gap in actual power produced is narrowed. Continued improvements in four-strokes have shrunk that gap. I recall reading that there are some thermal reasons why multi-cylinder two-strokes are less efficient than multi-cylinder four-strokes -- further closing the gap.
Interesting.
Post Reply