Let´s theorize: CB1100 turbo

[VTR1000F_imp]

So..who would be the first to build a nice small turbo kit for a CB? Wouldn´t it be nice and interesting? Have you ever had a turbo bike?

Coming from aircooled Volkswagen world, we build all kind of stuff, custom engine cases, CNC crankshafts, CNC heads, EFI, turbos, superchargers, everything engine related you can imagine..

[The Spaceman_imp]

Assuming you're willing to completely discard the design ethos of the bike (and why not for the sake of discussion?) the CB is an excellent candidate for turbocharging. There's lots of room for picking up the exhaust at the front of the engine, as well as room up front for the turbo and associated hardware. The side-intake setup is equally suitable for the pressurized pipe. You could probably even fit an intercooler near the oil cooler. Or you could add a nitros kit to cool the intake charge. I'm thinking 200 HP at the rear wheel is doable with a setup like this (along with the necessary FI mods etc., of course).

Or...you could go buy a ZX14.

[shdwghst457_imp]

Doesn't the compression ratio need to be taken into consideration here? I would think we're at least at an advantage in the sense that the stock setup doesn't require 91/93 octane gas, which should give some room to increase compression.

[wayne van horn_imp]

what about cost of parts and labor ? I don't think it would make any sense.

[Randy B]

Lets face it...putting a turbo on a bike isn't really supposed to make sense, now is it. It's like a jet dragster.....it's all about the cooooool factor.

[Pterodactyl_imp]

In principle turbocharging is possible, as too would supercharging. Or both, and throw in inter-cooling for the full monty. But,and it's a big BUT, why would you? This has nothing to do with the "retro" bit, just the same basic problems that beset any manufacturer or modifier of motorcycle engines. Turbocharging increases cost and complexity and introduces the Achilles heel of all turbocharged systems, turbo lag. Turbo lag is particularly disadvantageous in engines where rapid and large throttle responses are a requirement, that is motorcycle engines. The CB has a great linear power response. Goodbye to that with turbocharging. A better result is obtained by just putting in a bigger capacity normally aspirated engine. Turbo lag can be overcome. Just apply more complexity, and it's blood brother, cost.

However, the hobbyist or enthusiast defies reason and will spend big bucks to achieve their dream. Buy a racing yacht, buy a racehorse, modify engines. It's all the same. However, in theory the CB would be a good candidate. I guess about any bike would have its own challenges. Look at this:

[/img]. CT 90 with NOS - Yeeeeeeha!

Cheers, and keep theorising.

[The Spaceman_imp]

Lets face it...putting a turbo on a bike isn't really supposed to make sense, now is it. It's like a jet dragster.....it's all about the cooooool factor.

Exactly correct for this [i]bike. Having the first and perhaps only turbo-charged CB1100 in captivity is worth whatever it takes.

However, there's been some press about a resurgence of turbo bikes that has me interested. Suzuki's Recursion Turbo prototype is said to put out approximately 100HP with a 500cc twin. And do it with 500cc fuel economy. Kawasaki got some patents a while back that indicated they're considering moving some of their turbo and supercharger tech to bikes as well. The press thought the 2014 ZX-14 might have a blown engine.

I never got to own or ride any of the turbo bikes back in the day, but with modern FI, vastly improved turbo technology, and drivers like emissions control, my chance may come again. If Suzuki puts the Recursion or something like it in production, I'll buy one.

[the Ferret]

Spaceman..factory turbos from the big 4 never delivered like people imagine ( I think it was blamed on low boost pressure if memory serves me) they were uglier, heavier, more complicated and more expensive than their normally aspirated counterparts and were not that much faster.

[The Spaceman_imp]

Spaceman..factory turbos from the big 4 never delivered like people imagine ( I think it was blamed on low boost pressure if memory serves me) they were uglier, heavier, more complicated and more expensive than their normally aspirated counterparts and were not that much faster.

Yes, that was true three decades ago, but turbo and controller technology has changed dramatically in the meantime. Car tech has driven it, but it's trickling down to bikes. I'm expecting to see lightweight, powerful 2 and 3 cylinder turbo bike engines that put out power comparable to displacements twice their size.

Here's an excerpt from an interesting article on the Recursion:

At the heart of this prototype is a newly developed, 588cc, water-cooled, parallel twin with a turbocharger and intercooler tucked beneath the shapely fuel tank. Turbocharging is a simple concept. A small turbine, driven by exhaust gases, force-feeds pressurized air into the combustion chamber to boost power. Forced induction hugely increases the power-per-liter equation. Here Suzuki claims 100 hp at 8,000 rpm and a remarkable peak-torque figure of 74 pound-feet at 4,500 rpm. These numbers suggest ample power spread across a broad rev range, which would make this a fast and easy-to-ride machine.

Read more: http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/featur...z36uQYXi41

[the Ferret]

If it works out that would be fantastic.

Yes, 30 years ago, turbo tech was not up to par for motorcycles is what I was saying. not that it would be the case today. It would be fantastic if the turbo dream became a reality... Either that or a super charger. Not for me of course, but for a new generation of motorcyclists.