Let?s theorize: CB1100 turbo

VTR1000F_imp

Running like a top
Thread starter
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..
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :D
 
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.
 
Randy B_imp said:
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. :D
Exactly correct for this 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.
 
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 ferret_imp said:
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: Suzuki Recursion Concept | UP TO SPEED
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The Spaceman_imp said:
The ferret_imp said:
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: Suzuki Recursion Concept | UP TO SPEED
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: Suzuki Recursion Concept | UP TO SPEED
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.
 
Cormanus_imp said:
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 :thumbsup:
 
The Spaceman_imp said:
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 :@
 
Pterodactyl_imp said:
The Spaceman_imp said:
The ferret_imp said:
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: Suzuki Recursion Concept | UP TO SPEED
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: Suzuki Recursion Concept | UP TO SPEED
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
Back
Top