chevota84 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Wasn't cams 4 cylinder bike around 350? Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Madd Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 <p>Are those numbers at the crank or rear wheel on the 4 poke?</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagunCajun Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 turbo 421.comparing a forced induction 2 stroke against a N/A 4 stroke? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastkid Posted January 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 I didn't compare the two. I was telling the guy that the 4mm that is making 200hp is a turbo... Guess it's only really fair to compare old gp motorcycles since they are the top tier of two strokes not banshees unfortunately. Wish we could get our hands on the old v4 500 that was making 200hp at the wheels. Not sure if the pro stock numbers are crank or the wheels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickedcarbine Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 These debates get brought up time and time again. It's always comparing a 30 year old Banshee/RZ platform against this years latest proto type/ race production stuff. You want a comparison, put an 80's four stroke 350 road bike against an RZ 350. Stock to stock. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m671054 Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 Billet crank and cases with aftermarket cylinders designed and cast within the last 10 years is 30 year old tech? just pot stirring here. I think costs to produce above mentioned power per cc ratios should be brought into this topic. also what about longevity. lets compare apples to apples here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastrykiller Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 I have heard the same conversation about the 10mil turbo but in the same breath was told that the 4mil crank yielded more reliable results and longevity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickedcarbine Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 I have heard the same conversation about the 10mil turbo but in the same breath was told that the 4mil crank yielded more reliable results and longevity. shut up you! I finally got the balls to start doing a 10 mil. Don't make me puss out and start selling shit off and just do a huge bore 4mil motor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastrykiller Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 10mil n/a is good. I was referring to a 10mil turbo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickedcarbine Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 Haha, either way I'm balls deep on it. No turning back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry's Shee Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) Pro stock only has to last a weekend, 4miles (?) max. And what is "stock" on them? Edited January 12, 2014 by Larry's Shee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry's Shee Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 Billet crank and cases with aftermarket cylinders designed and cast within the last 10 years is 30 year old tech? just pot stirring here. I think costs to produce above mentioned power per cc ratios should be brought into this topic. also what about longevity. lets compare apples to apples here This was the post I wanted to quote. See above post ^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.