10 Quick Reasons Why 4 Strokes Are Rubbish when Compared to 2 Strokes

[westyzkx]

10 Quick Reasons Why 4 Strokes Are Rubbish when Compared to 2 Strokes

1 - cc for cc they are slower and have less power
2 - they dont have a powerband and therefore are thoroughly boring to ride
3 - cost loads more than 2 strokes to maintain
4 - only win in races cos they are allowed 2 x bigger engine size then 2 strokes
5 - heavy and cumbersome
6 - complicated, if it stops working for some reason you will have no idea where to start figuring out whats gone wrong (related to number 3)
7 - fumes smell rubbish
8 - sound like a tractor
9 - stall and wont start again
10 - the whole situation of manufacurers blatently hoodwinking the buying public into believing they are better bikes is so crazy I wouldnt be suprised if next year the big 4 brought out a diesel 4 stroke and started a marketting machine saying they are the new way forward

[JETZcorp]

The only thing I would take issue with is #2.  Four-strokes do have a powerband, as does every internal combustion engine.  Your lawnmower has a powerband.  A generator has a powerband.  The thing with four-strokes is they have a very mellow powerband.  Though I sort-of hate to say it, the steady power is somewhat like an ultimate extension of Maico power delivery.  Super Hunky said the first time he rode a Maico 250, he was a few seconds faster per lap but felt a few seconds slower because the bike was so tame compared to the Husky and CZ he tested that day.  That's why the Big M have always done best in selling open bikes.  It's because that smooth, controllable power curve is so far up in the stratosphere that you'll finally feel the speed.

[westyzkx]

Yeah sorry I should have said 'power valve' instead of 'power band' as in like the super charger / turbo type feel 2 strokes give - a real adrenaline rush & power surge at the screaming high rev mark

[JohnN]

Much of what you both are talking about is a component of tuning. With the right tuner you can modify any bike to be anywhere from tame to explosive, with a multitude of options in between.

Personally I prefer a smoother power delivery. One the pulls very hard from upper mid-range to upper revs. Of course this is with a smaller bore machine.

My experience with some of the big bore machines is that throttle control is the biggest factor.

[metal_miracle]

what i noticed is that the  4 stroke maintenance is almost identical to the 2 stroke

thinking about piston change and oil change

i noticed that when looked in on of the 450 service manuals

[JohnN]

I agree that maintenance is very similar in terms of wear limits, cleaning the air filter, changing the oil, cleaning and adjusting the chain, etc....

For the average home mechanic, adjusting valves that use shims can be a bit beyond most. Not that it's impossible, just a little more challenging.

Where the two engines really differ is when something catastrophic happens. No matter what anyone my claim, two strokes will fail.

The big problem comes when a four-stroke has a major failure. There are just more parts, so in a logical way this makes sense.

The second part of that problem is that it at least appears that more four-stroke owners have experienced these catastrophic failures. And no they are not all linked to poor maintenance.

Maybe it's just because I know a lot of faster racers or something, but the highly modified bikes can blow even when all the proper maintenance is done and high wear parts are replaced on schedule.

On the other hand, if your four-stroke machine is stock and you don't run it against the rev limiter all the time (just watch Justin Barcia for an example of hitting the rev limiter) your bike could last literally for years.

Which points out that the rider and how he (or she) rides is a huge factor in the reliability of the four-strokes.