Me Vs. Suzuki GSXR 600 - Page 2
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26

This is a discussion on Me Vs. Suzuki GSXR 600 within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally Posted by cnk You're kidding right? If that were the case, then why even bother sticking a V12 in ...

  1. #16
    Registered User britishbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Cantonment, FL
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by cnk
    You're kidding right? If that were the case, then why even bother sticking a V12 in a Lamborghini. . .just stick a 4-cylinder in there. The # of cylinders contributes to the total volumetric capacity of an engine. The more volume an engine can intake and combust, the greater the output. A 2-cylinder engine that produces 50HP versus a 4 -cylinder engine that also produces 50HP can have drastically different TQ curves and that has everything to do with output.

    Calvin
    It is somewhat easier to get higher volumetric efficiency from a smaller cylinder and to get it to rev higher, but there is also total weight of the engine and the biggie, the internal friction caused by having more cylinders. The early 500 fours made 36whp, about the same as a decent (and much lighter) 400 single, and you can guess as to which is faster.

    The main contributors to tourque curves are not the number of cylinders a machine has. A single can be quite peaky if the cam timing and lift are tuned for it. A 50hp 500cc single will have a substancially similar powerband to a 50hp 500cc twin provided similar head and cam designs, with the single having an edge in traction because of the widely spaced power pulses. The single will also be lighter, have less gyroscopic resistance to leaning and less wind resistance. The thing is, you can get a 500 twin to make 80hp, while the single will be limited to about 60hp or less. Something to do with more valve area and higher redline.

    In cars adding cylinders is done mainly add displacement while keeping combustion chamber size small enough to avoid detonation rather than to increase redline, with the nearly agricultural redlines of auto engines.

    The main drawback of the EX500 is its dated head and fuel system design. When it was first put into production in 1986, the overall power to weight ratio of the bike was slightly higher than the 600 fours of the day, with the exception being the 600 Ninja. All these years later it still makes 51 wheel hp while the 600's have gone from 70ish to 100ish and have gotten lighter than the 500 twin. Aprillia has just started producing a modern 450 twin which produced over 80hp in race trim, and will likely lose just a little of that edge for street use; think 70hp.


    The EX500 was called a "finger in the light socket sportbike" with "astonishing" power when it was new, but I read a recent article where it was called so boring that no one should even buy it. Imagine when an STI, which has similar 1/4 mile times and similar handling (on pavement) will be called so dull that it wouldn't even merit a test drive, except as a first car for teenagers. This is in effect what has happened to the EX500. A real beginner bike is a light dirtbike that allows you to exceed the limits and still get up and ride. Try that on any streetbike and you will get punted to the moon. That leaves most street riders as a bunch of chicken sh** pussies who disgrace their mounts in front of porky cars. (Like in front of my 2.5 on the twisties)

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by pingflood
    Well, yes, you are right. I didn't mean to state that they have NO impact on output, but rather that you can't say that a 2-cylinder bike is automatically slower/weaker than a 4-cylinder bike...

    yeah you can, for the most part. A honda cbr 1000rr is putting out more power and about even, maybe a little more, torque than an rc51.

  4. #18
    Registered User Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    569
    Quote Originally Posted by RHONE
    i also agree a bike is not a toy and the street is no place for a bike stick to the track if you want to ride my local canyon road is shut down at least one day per month for biker over the side. all my bikes are gone the only thing close to a motorcycle i own is a 125 shifter kart the ultimate driving machine.
    I have to agree with your first post about speed. Even a 600 traps in the 120's.

    But the point of my post is where do I find out more about the shifter karts?

  5. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by RHONE
    i also agree a bike is not a toy and the street is no place for a bike stick to the track if you want to ride my local canyon road is shut down at least one day per month for biker over the side. all my bikes are gone the only thing close to a motorcycle i own is a 125 shifter kart the ultimate driving machine.

    same can be said about cars. How many gets getting rwd cars drive them right off the road because they think they're the number one drifter? Take it to the track.

    And the street is the perfect place for a bike if you're not going to ride it like an ass. Any bike that gets 50mpg > any car but a deisel or a hybrid gas electric. + it will out perform a lot of cars out there and still get 50mpg.

    Plus it's just plain better not being stuck in a cage.

  6. #20
    Registered User AwdTurboWrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sun Valley,CA
    Posts
    5,793
    i guess i dont understand how bikes lose to 300whp wrx's even with mods. Couldn't he be in first at 45mph?? i know with my friends r6 he could be, my friends cbr f4i also.
    The Ghosts of Zooph and Sarcasmo Will haunt CLUBWRX forever!!!

  7. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by AwdTurboWrx
    i guess i dont understand how bikes lose to 300whp wrx's even with mods. Couldn't he be in first at 45mph?? i know with my friends r6 he could be, my friends cbr f4i also.
    don't know what year it was. Believe it or not, gsxr's only had 80-90whp at one point...

  8. #22
    Registered User AwdTurboWrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sun Valley,CA
    Posts
    5,793
    but even if they weigh 500 pounds which they are less plus driver so at 700. you divide that by 90 you get 7.7pound per whp while with 300whp wrx with driver lets say 3200/300whp you get 10.6 pound per whp, huge difference. Plus bike has way better gearing. I dont get it...
    The Ghosts of Zooph and Sarcasmo Will haunt CLUBWRX forever!!!

  9. #23
    Registered User britishbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Cantonment, FL
    Posts
    96
    Something is going on. We need to know the year of the gix. Must have been an older one or something.

    Here are two "timeslips" from a WRX and a 600:

    The WRX time was pulled from this site, the 600 is an R6 Yamaha which was a little slower than a Gix, ridden by Gadson in CW. I chose them because they had similar 60'foot times.


    R6:

    60' 1.74 secs
    330' 4.62
    1/8th: 6.68
    1/4: 10.51
    trap: 130.74 mph

    WRX:

    60': 1.76
    330': 4.85
    1/8th: 7.39
    1/4: 11.397
    trap: 123.47 mph

    Gadson is running about .5 seconds faster than the average mag times. His 60's are better than a normal human's. So I figure most of a bike's time is in the roll from about 45-130 mph. That is the strongest part of a bike's acceleration, not the weakest part: before drag takes over and after the front ends settles down.

    Do any of you venture a guess as to this car's hp? (Belongs to Dug-e-Fresh). I think more than 300. Other people who claim 300-330 hp are into the mid to high 12's, not low 11's and definately not into the mid to upper 10's like the R6. The R6 is into the 9's when gearing and chassis are lowered (about $200).

    The R6 dynoed at 108 and weighed 397 with an empty tank
    Last edited by britishbikes; 06-25-2005 at 12:48 PM.

  10. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    259
    original poster said he ended up at his back wheels every time. Depending on the year and weight and hp and condition of the bike, this could be possible. Agreed, however, that if this was a brand new 05 gsxr 600 with 130some crank hp and 110ish whp, there would be no way. But if a new r6 did 10.51 by a REALLY skilled rider (because the mag guys do this ALL the time mind you), maye his friend was on an older bike and not cranking down on it all the way or starting at 8k rpm at 45mph on a bike that doesn't start to really move until 10K or so.

    There's a lot of variables here. But, if it's a bike that say, runs 11 flat with an average rider and his friend with a wrx could run and 11.5 or 11.75, what's the length between the two vehiles going over the at 1/2 a second difference and 3/4 of a second?

  11. #25
    Registered User britishbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Cantonment, FL
    Posts
    96
    All I was trying illustrate was that a WRX can come out of the hole as well as a bike, and that a bike doesn't get its good et from the first 60 feet, but from the next 1260. The car whose timeslip I transcribed was a real monster, probably making considerably more than 300 whp. It was not from the thread starter. If it was, I would not debate the results. Any little slip and that car would take a 600 or visa versa.

    A 1.74 is a real feat on an R6, even a mag guy usually can't do it, it was done by a professional dragracer hired for the purpose of setting strip times on the 600's. (Rickey Gadson.)

  12. #26
    fre
    fre is offline
    Registered User fre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    357
    Hrmm I would barely be able to hang with a newer 600 and that is up here at 3500ft. I put out 450whp btw. I tried running with one on pump fuel where I only make a measly 350whp and he beat me by quite a bit. The older 600s would be no problem for me though. Even some of the older 1000 cc bikes I could hang with.
    Last edited by fre; 06-27-2005 at 10:38 PM.
    11.1 @ 131

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •