• Required reading for all forum users!!!

    Welcome!
    Register to access the full functionality of the GSResources forum. Until you register and activate your account you will not have full forum access, nor will you be able to post or reply to messages.

    A note to new registrants...
    All new forum registrations must be activated via email before you have full access to the forum.

    A Special Note about Email accounts!
    DO NOT SIGN UP USING hotmail, outlook, gmx, sbcglobal, att, bellsouth or email.com. They delete our forum signup emails.

    A note to old forum members...
    I receive numerous requests from people who can no longer log in because their accounts were deleted. As mentioned in the forum FAQ, user accounts are deleted if you haven't logged in for the past 6 months. If you can't log in, then create a new forum account. If you don't get an error message, then check your email account for an activation message. If you get a message stating that the email address is already in use, then your account still exists so follow the instructions in the forum FAQ for resetting your password.

    Have you forgotten your password or have a new email address? Then read the forum FAQ for details on how to reset it.

    Any email requests for "can't log in anymore" problems or "lost my password" problems will be deleted. Read the forum FAQ and follow the instructions there - that's what we have one for...

  • Returning Visitors

    If you are a returning visitor who never received your confirmation email, then odds are your email provider is blockinig emails from our server. The only thing that can be done to get around this is you will have to try creating another forum account using an email address from another domain.

    If you are a returning visitor to the forum and can't log in using your old forum name and password but used to be able to then chances are your account is deleted. Purges of the databases are done regularly. You will have to create a new forum account and you should be all set.

For those that advocate using 87 octane in these bikes

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7981GS
  • Start date Start date
Allie said:
All Suzuki motorcycles were two strokes at the time, so how relevant is it?
Click to expand...

It isn't.

What Suzuki meant was don't use rubbish fuel - and you could get some real crap in the old communist eastern Europe, for instance, that was smuggled across in to the west every now and then. Suzuki weren't referring to the octane rating. The UK owner manuals at the time always just said leaded 2 Star (our lowest rating) - 87 octane - for the whole range.
 
old_skool said:
Wow, why does everybody just assume contradition is an argument, seeing as you were from Ca, and in the early 70's emissions starting coming into play, and Ca was always ahead of everyone else due to smog control, thought maybe Ca only had 87. I was stirring the pot for the die hard octane guys, and everybody has a tender spot for controversey as of late.
Click to expand...

Wasn't assuming anything. Just highlighting the fact that I'm younger than most of you geezers for a bit of Sunday-morning ribbing.
 
old_skool said:
I thought maybe you thought I was getting mad or something, far from it, see, the post worked, started some morning coffee spilling:D <---should have used more of these:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've never warmed up to the emoticons and that's my own reluctance to fully abandon typographic culture. Maybe I'm a conservative after all?

(Sh*t, we don't want this turning P!)

I wasn't salty in the least, I promise. Reading it again, I can see how "relax" could seem aggressive. I just meant it as "I'm WAY too young to have a reliably-informed opinion on the matter at hand, so please disregard my conversational contributions as their intended folly, nothing more."
 
You stirred the pot, so don't cry when ums gets spattered... :rolleyes: I still think it's an interesting question, how does fuel grade and/or octane rating (I didn't mention octane either, just asked a question) compare from two stroke to four stroke engines? Impossible to tell from original fuel specs, but I bet a lot of folks that have both bikes and run on modern fuels have insight.
 
UncleMike said:
I can see how "relax" could seem aggressive.
Click to expand...

Well I AM RELAXED!!!!!!!!

imagesqtbnANd9GcSr9RV_tji2sF8de_bT1M61MGIfvo7Ev-wHSe1cIt0KgnlTiWpk.jpg
 
Allie said:
You stirred the pot, so don't cry when ums gets spattered... :rolleyes: I still think it's an interesting question, how does fuel grade and/or octane rating (I didn't mention octane either, just asked a question) compare from two stroke to four stroke engines?
Impossible to tell from original fuel specs, but I bet a lot of folks that have both bikes and run on modern fuels have insight.
Click to expand...

I have two 2-stroke motorcycles and a 2-stroke twin boat engine.
They all run on premium fuel mixed with synthetic oil/dino oil blend.
Two are piston port engines and one has reed valves.

Eric
 
old_skool said:
Second, don't know what part of the country you lived in in the early 70's, 98 super high test was available in Ohio.
Click to expand...
I used to be able to buy 100 octane at any station around here for about 32 cents through the mid '70s.
 
7981GS said:
I have two 2-stroke motorcycles and a 2-stroke twin boat engine.
They all run on premium fuel mixed with synthetic oil/dino oil blend.
Two are piston port engines and one has reed valves.

Eric
Click to expand...

Just curious, what are the compression ratios, and what are the factory fuel recommendations? Of what vintage are they?
 
Allie said:
Just curious, what are the compression ratios, and what are the factory fuel recommendations? Of what vintage are they?
Click to expand...
IIRC the cr on my old 305 was down around 7.3:1 or so. They are firing every stroke so combustion temps were probably higher than on a 4 stroke and detonation was a bigger problem on two strokes.
 
Billy Ricks said:
IIRC the cr on my old 305 was down around 7.3:1 or so. They are firing every stroke so combustion temps were probably higher than on a 4 stroke and detonation was a bigger problem on two strokes.
Click to expand...

That's the kind of info I'm interested in. I guess a four stroke cylinder has a lot more time to cool between explosions. I wonder how number of cylinders affects cylinder temps? I'm far from an engineer, but it would seem that multis might have an advantage in that even more time elapses between a cylinder's firing? Are there any engines where more than one cylinder fires at once? I'm picturing a Ferrari v-12 here.... each little cylinder waiting it's turn to fire... Surely there there's some overlap? Or would that take away some of the smoothness? Maybe it's one at a time but one cylinder fires while the previous is not quite finished yet? Anyone ever driven a two stroke Saab? And, and, where do little mechanics come from? What is our purpose in life?
 
The last of the two-stroke GP bikes were running big bang engines to tame the wheelspin coming out of corners. Cylinders firing close together instead of at even intervals. More cylinders would just raise redline so temps would go up. The GT750 went liquid cooling mostly to keep that center cylinder cool. Before Suzuki built the Titan it was thought a two cylinder 500cc two stroke couldn't be built because of the heat problems. Trying to get three big cylinders to stay cool meant liquid cooling.
 
Allie said:
Just curious, what are the compression ratios, and what are the factory fuel recommendations? Of what vintage are they?
Click to expand...

Impossible to find any useful info on my '75 YZ 400 MX as so few were made.
I got it literally in boxes and could not find any manuals for it when I put it back together. :(

It looks a lot like this only my seat needs recovering now and one of my son's lost the right side cover out in the desert somewhere. :mad:
I have been looking for years for a replacement. :pray:

Yamaha-MX400B_75.jpg


As for my (ugly) green '72 TS 250, I found this: http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/suzuki_ts_250_1974.php

1973_Suzuki_TS250_side1_580.jpg




Eric
 
The reason for the relatively low compression on two-strokes is everything has to happen in one revolution. Intake and exhaust are both happening at the same time at the bottom of the stroke. The fresh charge coming in pushes out spent gasses and part of the stroke is spent clearing the ports. Until the piston clears the port no compression is made.
 
OS, the '75 YZ 400 MX was not only the fist mono-shock Yamaha MX bike (under the fuel tank), it was a one year only model.
Not easy to find parts for this dinosaur. :(

Eric
 
I remember that Yamaha as being a beast, but fun as long as you did not nail the throttle and stayed within the limits of the suspension.
Of all the TS models I preferred the 175, not as powerful but a bit lighter. Still would prefer the 250 over the 125 which was just too underpowered.
 
koolaid_kid said:
I remember that Yamaha as being a beast, but fun as long as you did not nail the throttle and stayed within the limits of the suspension.
Of all the TS models I preferred the 175, not as powerful but a bit lighter. Still would prefer the 250 over the 125 which was just too underpowered.
Click to expand...

It is actually much easier to ride in the tightest of rock-filled (boulders) turns on some of the most technical trails around here.
It is so low to the ground, easy to turn and has gobs of low-end torque.
Effortless compared to my big XR600R and XR650R Honda's and the Yamaha YZF400FK. :eek:

26 miles per 2.1 gallons of gas though. :eek:

I try to ride it at least once a year to remind me of what a beast it was when I was 16 YO when the dinosaurs still roamed the earth. ;)

Eric
 
Baatfam said:
Helium...

Less un-sprung weight.
Click to expand...

Which is why if you're driving a tanker truck filled with helium cargo and you go across the scales overweight, you just have to add more.

Or maybe not....


;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top