Brand Bashing Yamaha Sleds

[turbo800]

Hmm
Given nearly identical engine sizes, I would have thought that 6lbs of boost would be the same total volume of compressed air in both engines.

Granted, I am no turbo expert by any stretch of the imagination, but..
Something ain't right here.

So what you're telling me is that these two engines are NOT running the same boost inside the engine cylinder.???

Suzuki builds a good engine. I really doubt there is much if any inefficient differences. Could be wrong...

Essentially yes, an engine is nothing more than an air pump. Air in.....Air Out

A big turbo can move X amount of CFM at a lower pressure, while the little turbo will have to work harder, make more heat, to move the same amount.

The downside to the big turbo is it takes more volume longer to spool up and feels laggy, while the little turbo takes less and will feel snappy and crisp. It's a fine line...

 

[cacsrx1]

The more efficient the engine the less boost needed to make X amount of power.

 

[Deep Powder Guy]

Numbers are off on the Cat... 14# of boost yields more than 175 hp

DPG

 

[LoudHandle]

While I understand where you both are coming from I disagree with the terminology being used, your analogies are flawed as well but we don't need to go into that.

The turbo regardless of size does not pump pressure, it only moves air, it is the resistance to the movement of the air that creates the pressure. So (assuming they are identical displacements, the few CC's difference is negligible anyways) for a given pressure the volume of air the turbo must move is the same for both engines. The Cat's turbo has to move a much larger volume of air to achieve the 14PSI than the Yammi's turbo has to move to get the 6PSI. Regardless of turbo size or design. Just basic physics and applies to everything, not just this.

My guess is the Cat has more torque as a result of a longer stroke? And the Nytro more HP due to an extra power pulse from the extra cylinder? I've not spent any time looking into either engine. Just my guess.

 

[stingray719]

The more efficient the engine the less boost needed to make X amount of power.

What he said. ^

 

[turbo800]

Numbers are off on the Cat... 14# of boost yields more than 175 hp

DPG

I agree.

Even if the N/A cat only makes 123HP vs. 135HP, it should only take about 1.25 lbs more boost to bring the CAT up to spec.

 

[treemagnet03]

Before y'all start spouting off about who is right and who is wrong I suggest you all study this fine equation for flow of fluids very closely. Both for compressible and non-compressible fluids...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html



And for what it's worth, physics only wins when it's calculated correctly. Just sayin...

 

[Matt@MPI]

While I understand where you both are coming from I disagree with the terminology being used, your analogies are flawed as well but we don't need to go into that.

The turbo regardless of size does not pump pressure, it only moves air, it is the resistance to the movement of the air that creates the pressure. So (assuming they are identical displacements, the few CC's difference is negligible anyways) for a given pressure the volume of air the turbo must move is the same for both engines. The Cat's turbo has to move a much larger volume of air to achieve the 14PSI than the Yammi's turbo has to move to get the 6PSI. Regardless of turbo size or design. Just basic physics and applies to everything, not just this.

My guess is the Cat has more torque as a result of a longer stroke? And the Nytro more HP due to an extra power pulse from the extra cylinder? I've not spent any time looking into either engine. Just my guess.

Your on the right track. Look what the Cat N/A 1100 makes for HP and compare that to what the Yamaha makes stock, it not even in the same league. The Cat turbo has very low compression and needs 14# of boost to make 170 HP. The reason we only run 6# is because of the compression of the stock Yamaha motor. The throttle response is night and day.

 

[cacsrx1]

While I understand where you both are coming from I disagree with the terminology being used, your analogies are flawed as well but we don't need to go into that.

The turbo regardless of size does not pump pressure, it only moves air, it is the resistance to the movement of the air that creates the pressure. So (assuming they are identical displacements, the few CC's difference is negligible anyways) for a given pressure the volume of air the turbo must move is the same for both engines. The Cat's turbo has to move a much larger volume of air to achieve the 14PSI than the Yammi's turbo has to move to get the 6PSI. Regardless of turbo size or design. Just basic physics and applies to everything, not just this.

My guess is the Cat has more torque as a result of a longer stroke? And the Nytro more HP due to an extra power pulse from the extra cylinder? I've not spent any time looking into either engine. Just my guess.

As an example .....2 engines are exactly the same except 1 has a more restrictive cylinder head. Its going to need more boost (PSI) to make the same power(because the restrictive head is resisting flow). I think we are saying the same thing.

 

[christopher]

Your on the right track. Look what the Cat N/A 1100 makes for HP and compare that to what the Yamaha makes stock, it not even in the same league. The Cat turbo has very low compression and needs 14# of boost to make 170 HP. The reason we only run 6# is because of the compression of the stock Yamaha motor. The throttle response is night and day.

OK, so if I am understanding this now, though the two engines are very comparable in total displacement, they are NOT highly comparable in engine components (stroke, heads, ect) so we are not really comparing apples to apples here at all?

 

[Shattered1]

I don't know the reason why, but it seems that the more cylinders you throw into an engine, the more horsepower you produce.

A good example is the R1 engine (four cylinder) in the Apex and the Nytro (three cylinder) engine. Out of the box, the Apex 998cc engine produces in the neighborhood of 165 HP. The Nytro 1039cc engine (the same engine that the Viper uses) produces something in the neighborhood of 135 HP. I'm told that the Nytro has a lot of torque (which should translate into horsepower) but doesn't produce the power that the R1 engine does. The same goes when you boost them. The R1 will always make more horsepower.

The Arctic Cat M1100 has a two cylinder four stroke engine. Therefore produces less horsepower.

Again, I don't know why this is. There is probably an equation that explains it, but my observation has been that you produce more power per cc with more cylinders. The engines seem to last longer and take boost better with more cylinders as well.

 

[Matt@MPI]

OK, so if I am understanding this now, though the two engines are very comparable in total displacement, they are NOT highly comparable in engine components (stroke, heads, ect) so we are not really comparing apples to apples here at all?

One motor replaced Fred Flinstones feet and one is a little more modern.

 

[christopher]

One motor replaced Fred Flinstones feet and one is a little more modern.

he he.
And I can only imagine what Yamaha has in store for us with a BRAND NEW engine...

 

[cacsrx1]

I don't know the reason why, but it seems that the more cylinders you throw into an engine, the more horsepower you produce.

A good example is the R1 engine (four cylinder) in the Apex and the Nytro (three cylinder) engine. Out of the box, the Apex 998cc engine produces in the neighborhood of 165 HP. The Nytro 1039cc engine (the same engine that the Viper uses) produces something in the neighborhood of 135 HP. I'm told that the Nytro has a lot of torque (which should translate into horsepower) but doesn't produce the power that the R1 engine does. The same goes when you boost them. The R1 will always make more horsepower.

The Arctic Cat M1100 has a two cylinder four stroke engine. Therefore produces less horsepower.

Again, I don't know why this is. There is probably an equation that explains it, but my observation has been that you produce more power per cc with more cylinders. The engines seem to last longer and take boost better with more cylinders as well.

A lot of the differences you are referring to are due to operating rpm. 11,000 vs 9000 vs 7500. HP=(TQxRPM)/5252 & Smaller cylinders are easier(quicker) to fill than larger ones. EXample, R6's produce more HP per liter than the R1's do.

 

[OuraySledder]

The reason the three cylinder makes more power than the two cylinder is often related to the total valve area. It is directly related to airflow as many have correctly stated. Is the Yammi a five valve like the bikes? That is a definate advantage. Matt was right on with the compression ratio comments, low compression/high boost vs high compression and low boost, total cylinder pressures are very close at similar power levels. Better designs allow for more total cylinder pressure on a given fuel before detonation sets in.

So the Yammi version works better for several reasons, all related to it being the better designed engine of the two. I suspect it is more expensive to manufacture but, Yammi is likely able absorb much of that by using the engine in other applications.

 

[christopher]

So the Yammi version works better for several reasons, all related to it being the better designed engine of the two. I suspect it is more expensive to manufacture but, Yammi is likely able absorb much of that by using the engine in other applications.

You are quite right.
The Yamaha Genesis engine, in many different configurations, has seen some widespread use over the years.


Genesis is an engine design by the Yamaha Motor Corporation that debuted in the 1984 Yamaha FZ750.

The engine employs a DOHC design and uses five valves per cylinder with the cylinder group slanted forwards 45 degrees. It used downdraft carburetors instead of the side draft carburetors that were more common at that time.

The same engine is used in the Yamaha FZX700 model, a naked bike that was introduced in the USA in 1986. Originally the engine was 750cc [FZ750], but due to import restrictions 700cc was considerably cheaper, and therefore produced instead.

For more than ten years, until the 2007 model year, the Yamaha YZF-R1 used a 5-valve head and downdraft intake design.

The flexible design of the engine allowed Yamaha to use it on a variety of configurations, from sportbikes to high performance outboard engines.
When the engine was introduced, it used downdraft carburetors on the entry level Yamaha FZ750 sportbike, in a 20 valve configuration, using three intake valves and two exhaust valves per cylinder. The engine has evolved on the different motorcycles that Yamaha has used it for during the past several years to fill different kinds of markets. Applications ranged from the Supersport YZF-R6 and YZF-R1 models using electronic fuel injection with YCCT and YCCI to the less extreme but still powerful Yamaha FZ6 (4 valve per cylinder) and FZ1 Fazer line, using a simpler fuel injection designs but essentially the same basic engine design. The most significant changes made were the 4-valve per cylinder configuration and the crossplane crankshaft found on the YZF-R1 2009, along with the change of cylinder sleeves to steel for high precision and high temperature durability. Performance and reliability have made this engine design a total success over its long life.

Because of its high performance capacity (usually from 100 BHP 350 BHP), the engine has also been employed in various other uses such as gyroplanes and high power marine engines, making it an affordable solution for a high performance applications.

The engine is also used in a racecar championship in Norway called SevenRacing. It is a copy of Lotus Super Seven, and is produced by MK and Stuart Taylor.




http://www.yamahamotorsports.com/sport/sno/tech_eng.aspx

INDUSTRY-DOMINATING 4-STROKE ENGINE TECHNOLOGY.
It isn’t something you buy from a vendor. It’s developed by a highly skilled team of engineers with over 50 years of engine-building experience. Yamaha’s engine department has developed a new, high-tech and reliable 4-stroke snowmobile engine for five out of the past six years. That’s an engineering track record nobody in the sport has been able to match. Yamaha engineers are dedicated to developing the best-performing, most-reliable and lowest-emission, lightweight engine packages in the industry. The new Genesis 130FI triple is the latest fast-revving, high-torque powerplant to hit the snow. It shares the same advanced fuel injection system as its 80 and 150 horsepower-class cousins, giving you razor-sharp throttle response, excellent fuel economy and dependable cold starting. Industry-leading technology isn’t something you outsource, it comes from within. Yamaha Motor Corporation delivers the very best engines in the sport… and they’re 4-strokes!

GENESIS 150FI
The high-performance 150hp-class Genesis 150FI engine is built with exotic materials and Yamaha’s high-tech manufacturing processes to be lightweight, durable and highly potent. The lightweight crank design and advanced fuel injection system give this engine right-now performance. Its broad power curve is easy to clutch and it delivers excellent acceleration out of a backshift.

Models:
Apex® RTX | Apex LTX GT | Apex LTX
Apex MTX SE | Apex MTX | Apex GT

GENESIS 130FI
The new fast-revving, high-torque, 130hp-class Genesis 130FI boasts a sizable performance gain over the Genesis 120. That gain can be credited to a slightly larger displacement, 1050cc 3-cylinder design and the introduction of Yamaha’s advanced fuel injection technology. The Genesis 130FI uses lightweight crank technology and the fuel injection system to deliver razor-sharp throttle response. It also features a new Engine Braking Reduction System to give riders some “coast” feeling when the throttle is released.

Models:
FX Nytro® RTX | FX Nytro | FX Nytro MTX

GENESIS 120
The smooth-running 120hp-class Genesis 120 triple has proven itself one of the most reliable engines in all of the sport. Its broad power curve and excellent fuel economy have earned the engine a strong following among high-mileage enthusiasts. Competitive 2-stroke engines fall off as soon as they achieve their peak horsepower. As you can see from the dyno chart, the Genesis 120 keeps pulling hard once it gets into the peak performance zone.

Models:
RS Vector® LTX | RS Vector GT | RS Vector
RS Venture® GT | RS Venture

GENESIS 80FI
The lightweight, sporty 80hp-class Genesis 80FI powers the fun Phazer sleds. Its high-tech, fuel injection system gathers and analyzes data about the ambient conditions as well as from the engine to maintain optimum fuel flow. The fuel injection, combined with the Genesis 80FI’s lightweight, counterbalanced crank, gives it razor-sharp throttle response. A knock sensor helps protect the engine when you can’t find 91 octane fuel.

Models:
Phazer® RTX | Phazer | Phazer MTX | Phazer GT | Venture Lite

 

[christopher]

Hoping Yamaha delivers us a new Cross Plane engine..



Published on Jul 15, 2013
The crossplane or cross-plane is a crankshaft design for V8 engines with a 90° angle between the cylinder banks. The crossplane crankshaft is the configuration used in most V8 road cars.3d model of a cross-plane crankshaft demonstrating the 90 degree angle between the crank throws and the large counter weights.The crossplane crankshaft has four crankpins, each offset at 90° from the adjacent crankpins. The first and last of the four crank pins are at 180° with respect to each other as are the second and third, with each pair at 90° to the other, so that viewed from the end the crankshaft forms a cross. The crankpins are therefore in two planes crossed at 90°, hence the name crossplane. A crossplane crank may have up to five main bearings, and usually does, as well as large balancing weights.

Crossplane V8 engines have uneven firing patterns within each cylinder bank, producing a distinctive burble in the exhaust note, but an even firing pattern overall. Their second-order balance, owing to the 90° bank angle and 90° throws, means no additional balance shaft is necessary to achieve greater smoothness. Without the 90° bank angle, a balance shaft may be required.
The other prominent design for a V8 crankshaft is the flatplane crankshaft, with all crankpins in the same plane and the only offset 180°. Early V8 engines, modern racing engines and some others used or use the flatplane crankshaft, which is similar to that used in a straight four or flat-four engine. Flatplane V8 engines may use any angle between the cylinder banks, with 60° and 90° the most common. They lack the V8 burble and the superior mechanical balance of the crossplane design, but do not require the large crankshaft balancing weights. Inherent balance of the big ends is like a straight four, and modern designs often incorporate a balance shaft for smoothness. But without balance shafts, flatplane designs have the least flywheel effect of any V8s, which allows them to be more free-revving.

The crossplane design was first proposed in 1915, and developed by Cadillac and Peerless, both of whom produced flatplane V8s before introducing the crossplane design. Cadillac introduced the first crossplane in 1923, with Peerless following in 1924.

Inline-4 engines can also use the crossplane concept. The 2009 Yamaha YZF-R1 motorcycle uses the crossplane crankshaft and, in the absence of the 90° bank angle of the V8, must use a separate balance shaft geared off the crankshaft to eliminate the inherent vibration (a primary rocking couple) found in this type of crank.

A crossplane crank has been used in Yamaha's M1 MotoGP racing models in the past. Yamaha claims advances in metal forging technologies make this a practical consumer product.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/oEXUrO5wYcE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[christopher]

And this is the engine we are HOPING we will see a higher output derivative of in the next gneration Yamaha sled...

http://www.yamahamotorsports.com/sport/products/modelfeatures/685/0/features.aspx

 

[snowmobiler]

looks cool.bet thats a spendy engine.

 

[christopher]

I would guess that Yamaha has already spent all the money on the engine.
Now its a matter of building as many of them as possible to recoup the design and engineering expenses and amortize it over LOTS of different platforms.