Let´s theorize: CB1100 turbo

[Cormanus]

I assume the increased popularity of diesel cars is a product of turbo technology. My VW has a turbo diesel which has, once or twice, not worked properly. The engine runs but there's no acceleration you just have to lumber, endlessly, up to speed. Otherwise, although it's not quick by CB standards, it's surprisingly nimble. The one problem, as Pterodactyl notes, is a slight lag before it kicks in. That would be a problem on a bike.

I reckon,though, it will be fantastic when the technology transfers. Who knows, Ferret, smaller displacement, lighter bikes with as much effective power may well keep us riding a bit longer.

[The Spaceman_imp]

I had a diesel Nissan Sentra back in the 80's. Not turbo charged. Slow as hell, but the damn thing got 40+ mpg day to day, and almost 50 on the highway. They only sold them for a brief time, and I wish I had kept it. Then I had a turbo diesel Isuzu Trooper. It wasn't fast, but I loved it anyway. It put a rod thru the pan around 13k miles, but Isuzu fixed it even though the warranty was past. Shoulda kept that one too...

I believe the military has a diesel or JP fueled bike that can go 400 moles on a single tank. Not sure if its turbo it not, but the turbo whine wouldn't be very stealthy.

[Cormanus]

My VW will get better than 900 kms on a single tank. Diesel's more expensive than petrol, but goes a lot further. It is also much less affected by additional weight than a petrol one.

[Pterodactyl_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

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
I thought that the crux of VTR1000F's initial post was that this would be a private, or hobbyist, project. If factory R and D is involved then, dollars aside, easy peasy! Just throw money into developing new materials and technologies and finally, but not certainly, a result will be had. If there is a " green" consequence involved then, in all likelihood, turbos will be developed for motorcycles. But first a lot of difficulties need to be overcome.

Supercharger technology is something I've experienced first hand. Supercharged aero engines were developed to a high degree of sophistication. For very obvious atmospheric reasons they had to be. Aircrew operating large supercharged compound radial engines would have more engine failures in five years than five, or even fifty, modern era pilots, operating modern turbine engines, would have in five lifetimes! Problem? Well, with the materials available, to achieve lightweight devices meant a certain "fragility".

Turbo charging Diesel engines is a practical proposition especially large truck type engines (trains were amongst the first successful candidates for turbos in the '50/60s). Stationary engines, of all sizes, are great examples of successful turbocharging. But even now, as Cormanus and others have experienced, existing turbo diesel technologies for light private vehicles have been less than ideal. Power for weight, disregarding other efficiencies, is still disappointing and good old turbo lag, even when badged KOMPRESSOR, still laughs at us.

Solution? Well as Spaceman suggests, new technologies may be just around the corner. If you don't believe that is possible then you'd still be standing on the sands of Kittyhawk mumbling "I told Wilbur, and I told Orville, it will never fly." Meanwhile an F16 and an A380 fill the sky with sound, drowned out by all that thunder from Canaveral.

Cheers.

[the Ferret]

I assume the increased popularity of diesel cars is a product of turbo technology. My VW has a turbo diesel which has, once or twice, not worked properly. The engine runs but there's no acceleration you just have to lumber, endlessly, up to speed. Otherwise, although it's not quick by CB standards, it's surprisingly nimble. The one problem, as Pterodactyl notes, is a slight lag before it kicks in. That would be a problem on a bike.

I reckon,though, it will be fantastic when the technology transfers. Who knows, Ferret, smaller displacement, lighter bikes with as much effective power may well keep us riding a bit longer.

Amen to that brother

[flynrider]

I had a diesel Nissan Sentra back in the 80's. Not turbo charged. Slow as hell, but the damn thing got 40+ mpg day to day, and almost 50 on the highway. They only sold them for a brief time, and I wish I had kept it. Then I had a turbo diesel Isuzu Trooper. It wasn't fast, but I loved it anyway. It put a rod thru the pan around 13k miles, but Isuzu fixed it even though the warranty was past. Shoulda kept that one too...

I believe the military has a diesel or JP fueled bike that can go 400 moles on a single tank. Not sure if its turbo it not, but the turbo whine wouldn't be very stealthy.

I believe you're thinking of the Hayes KLR 650 diesel conversion used by the military. It runs on diesel or jet fuel. No turbo on it, but it does have a lot more torque but less hp than the stock KLR. The main reason for the conversion is so that all military vehicles run on the same fuel.

As for turbos, I had a chance to ride the Kaw 750 turbo on the track back around '85 or so. Of all the factory turbo bikes of the era, I think it was one of the best engineered. It had the power of a liter bike with the size of a 750. To this day, it's one of the more exciting rides I can recall on a bike. I would have bought one right then, but a quick check with my insurance guy revealed that the insurance payments would exceed the bike payments

[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

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
I thought that the crux of VTR1000F's initial post was that this would be a private, or hobbyist, project. If factory R and D is involved then, dollars aside, easy peasy! Just throw money into developing new materials and technologies and finally, but not certainly, a result will be had. If there is a " green" consequence involved then, in all likelihood, turbos will be developed for motorcycles. But first a lot of difficulties need to be overcome.

Supercharger technology is something I've experienced first hand. Supercharged aero engines were developed to a high degree of sophistication. For very obvious atmospheric reasons they had to be. Aircrew operating large supercharged compound radial engines would have more engine failures in five years than five, or even fifty, modern era pilots, operating modern turbine engines, would have in five lifetimes! Problem? Well, with the materials available, to achieve lightweight devices meant a certain "fragility".

Turbo charging Diesel engines is a practical proposition especially large truck type engines (trains were amongst the first successful candidates for turbos in the '50/60s). Stationary engines, of all sizes, are great examples of successful turbocharging. But even now, as Cormanus and others have experienced, existing turbo diesel technologies for light private vehicles have been less than ideal. Power for weight, disregarding other efficiencies, is still disappointing and good old turbo lag, even when badged KOMPRESSOR, still laughs at us.

Solution? Well as Spaceman suggests, new technologies may be just around the corner. If you don't believe that is possible then you'd still be standing on the sands of Kittyhawk mumbling "I told Wilbur, and I told Orville, it will never fly." Meanwhile an F16 and an A380 fill the sky with sound, drowned out by all that thunder from Canaveral.

Cheers.

I just re-read the OP, and it almost looks like he's soliciting someone to work on developing a turbo-CB.

"we build all kind of stuff, custom engine cases, CNC crankshafts, CNC heads, EFI, turbos, superchargers, everything engine related you can imagine.. "

It'd be nice if he came back to his thread and chimed in.

[wayne van horn_imp]

could be a scam, you ship your bike to him to get work done, and you never hear or see your bike again.

[AzBob_imp]

Quote: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).
I've never seen a turbo application in which the builder experienced more than 100% increase in power, nevermind 167%.

Unless you're talking about with nitrous-oxide injection as well, in which case, I still think that's high.

Typical returns from a "safe" turbo application (on an automobile, which is water-cooled, which provided many advantages over the air-cooled bike we're dealing with), are usually somewhere around 50% increase in hp. So, you could expect something in the neighborhood of 112hp at the rear wheel of the CB. With a 50 shot of nitrous, you're still only looking at about 150hp, which is less than every major liter bike currently manufactured. The nitrous shot would be dangerous, IMO, both from a mechanical standpoint and from a riding standpoint. I would never put nitrous on a motorcycle.

The turbo lag thing has been mostly mitigated by modern impeller technology and design, AFAIK.

[Randy B]

Something to consider is the fact of the small displacement lends itself to a much larger percentage increase than is typically seen in an automotive application. It's much easier to get 1 hp or more per cc or cid the smaller you go in displacement and still be usable for every day driving.

And in a racing application you can easily double (or more) your output with a turbo. Have you ever seen what a Grand National can do? I have seen those put down close to 1000 hp. And yes they are turbo charged from the factory, but with a larger turbo and mostly head work and an upgraded intercooler you can just about make whatever power the block and gaskets can take before failure.

Basically it's all about how much do you want to spend to go fast (or look cool).