597cc twin cylinder 2-stroke Rotax!!
#21
08-07-2003, 10:06 PM
597cc twin cylinder 2-stroke Rotax!!
Any motor that must drive a CVT must make big HP because the CVT robs 30%-50% of the power going to the ground. Sleds have alot of resistence too, so they have to have big HP. Same with all CVT quads, the V-Force makes 49 hp at the crank but puts about 32 to the ground. With the proper clutching you can gain alot of that lost HP back.
CVT based ATVs usually are engine dynoed which I would think his explorer is and he is using stock HP figures VS to the ground HP on the banshee. That is how you can say it makes more than a banshee.
CVT based ATVs usually are engine dynoed which I would think his explorer is and he is using stock HP figures VS to the ground HP on the banshee. That is how you can say it makes more than a banshee.
#22
08-07-2003, 10:15 PM
597cc twin cylinder 2-stroke Rotax!!
the drakart is kind of archaic compared to the rigs at www.shortsandcars.com or www.sandbullet.com
Quite a few of the long travels are churning 350-400 horse out of the 'busa motor. Buggy weights run from 550-900 lbs.
jbt
Quite a few of the long travels are churning 350-400 horse out of the 'busa motor. Buggy weights run from 550-900 lbs.
jbt
#23
08-08-2003, 09:00 AM
597cc twin cylinder 2-stroke Rotax!!
95 sport 400 is right on the money , the indy 400 sled engine is a little over 30 hp. Was that reed or piston port ? The 77 rotax 340 would have to be a 340 rv (rotary valve ) engine, and yes they did make tons of power . I believe it used to be the factory race engine in a trail chassis ,all aluminum , with factory twin pipes . Correct me if I'm wrong.
#24
08-08-2003, 03:47 PM
597cc twin cylinder 2-stroke Rotax!!
We had a motorcycle at the dealership i used to work at that was on display promoting the widowmaker hillclimb championships. It had a summit 670 motor in it. It was amazingly done. It was very compact and I spent alot of time going over that bike and it looked like it would easily go in a DS frame. They said it put out 145HP and the internals of the motor was stock and CPI had custom made the pipes. I guarentee you in a quad that thing would RIP IT UP!! They also had a CBR 1100 motor in one that had a 1325 kit in it. I guess it was insane fast as well but alot heavier than the 670 bike.
#25
08-08-2003, 03:52 PM
597cc twin cylinder 2-stroke Rotax!!
Originally posted by: bbertram
Any motor that must drive a CVT must make big HP because the CVT robs 30%-50% of the power going to the ground. Sleds have alot of resistence too, so they have to have big HP. Same with all CVT quads, the V-Force makes 49 hp at the crank but puts about 32 to the ground. With the proper clutching you can gain alot of that lost HP back.
CVT based ATVs usually are engine dynoed which I would think his explorer is and he is using stock HP figures VS to the ground HP on the banshee. That is how you can say it makes more than a banshee.
Any motor that must drive a CVT must make big HP because the CVT robs 30%-50% of the power going to the ground. Sleds have alot of resistence too, so they have to have big HP. Same with all CVT quads, the V-Force makes 49 hp at the crank but puts about 32 to the ground. With the proper clutching you can gain alot of that lost HP back.
CVT based ATVs usually are engine dynoed which I would think his explorer is and he is using stock HP figures VS to the ground HP on the banshee. That is how you can say it makes more than a banshee.
Yea...and a DS makes 52 HP at the flywheel [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif[/img]
#26
08-08-2003, 04:23 PM
597cc twin cylinder 2-stroke Rotax!!
Bellracing2 is correct, it was a 340RV and yes they made over 60hp stock with factory twin pipes and two 34mm Miks. My Blizzard 6500 (which is the liquid cooled 340 rotary valve motor) ran with a 440SRX up to about 80 when the Yammie would pull away.
The cvt does rob some power, but not 30-50%. It makes up for it by giving a much wider ratio between low and high gear which keeps the motor much closer to it's peak power output, plus of course, no need to shift it. A snowmobile loses about 1/3 of it's horsepower before it gets to the snow, but that's because of the huge, heavy flat tire (track) it's turning and the friction of the suspension inside the track. It's not because of the cvt.
The cvt does rob some power, but not 30-50%. It makes up for it by giving a much wider ratio between low and high gear which keeps the motor much closer to it's peak power output, plus of course, no need to shift it. A snowmobile loses about 1/3 of it's horsepower before it gets to the snow, but that's because of the huge, heavy flat tire (track) it's turning and the friction of the suspension inside the track. It's not because of the cvt.
#27
08-08-2003, 05:27 PM
#28
08-08-2003, 05:45 PM
597cc twin cylinder 2-stroke Rotax!!
We have a 700cc triple in our mini two seater rail. It's well over 110hp and only weighs only 600lbs. Going up a hill feels like a space shuttle launch. Rails are too much fun. We're building a turbo V6 4 seater right now. Gotta love the "sand sled". It gets kinda noisy at 10,000 rpms though.
#30
08-08-2003, 05:51 PM
597cc twin cylinder 2-stroke Rotax!!
Originally posted by: green700
We have a 700cc triple in our mini two seater rail. It's well over 110hp and only weighs only 600lbs. Going up a hill feels like a space shuttle launch. Rails are too much fun. We're building a turbo V6 4 seater right now. Gotta love the "sand sled". It gets kinda noisy at 10,000 rpms though.
We have a 700cc triple in our mini two seater rail. It's well over 110hp and only weighs only 600lbs. Going up a hill feels like a space shuttle launch. Rails are too much fun. We're building a turbo V6 4 seater right now. Gotta love the "sand sled". It gets kinda noisy at 10,000 rpms though.