XS650 Single

Go to 650 Central.com and scroll all the way down on the main page and click on the Big Bang dyno run ,the torque output doubles:yikes: If I were wanting a kick ass single it would be hands down a CR500 not an over weighted XS650

I'm sure the CR500 would be great but I'm building from what I've got in house.
 
No disrespect to Jack or MMM, but I can not see how a normally aspirated 650 (or even 750) can make 90 foot-pounds on any kind of pump fuel. It may be possible on gas or nitro....

Maximum torque is determined by a few factors only; engine capacity and BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressure), and engine type (2 or 4 stroke) There will be a limit to how high the BMEP can be pushed before running into reliability problems.

Number of cylinders, bore/stroke ratio, crankshaft layout, cylinder head layout, firing order has no influence whatsoever on maximum torque. But obviously on other engine characteristics like powerband, vibration characteristics, max rpm (and max power, as power is basically torque multiplied by rpm)

Torque and power are in a set relationship to each other, and if we consider an imaginary engine with 80 hp @ 9000 rpm, the resulting torque would be approx 46 foot-pounds. Max torque would be higher, perhaps 50-55 foot-pounds.

My conclusion: XS 650/750 on pump gas, giving 90 foot-pounds-NOT POSSIBLE!

If any of you still believe torque would double by firing both cylinders at the same time, good luck! (Why haven't all F1 teams, Nascar teams, Moto GP et. al done this????)
 
A friend emailed me adler reading this thread and seeing that I mentioned building one of these motors. He explained that these twingles were outlawed for flat track use because they hooked up better, and created more torque. However the major downfall is the cam chain. It is being forced to open and close twice as many valves at the same time.

I'm working on a solution for a stronger chain, but still plan on building one for shits and giggles. Not to mention I have about a dozen motors laying around..... That is once I actually find the time...... so who knows.... By the way things have been going it should be done by 2035....
 
No disrespect to Jack or MMM, but I can not see how a normally aspirated 650 (or even 750) can make 90 foot-pounds on any kind of pump fuel. It may be possible on gas or nitro....

Maximum torque is determined by a few factors only; engine capacity and BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressure), and engine type (2 or 4 stroke) There will be a limit to how high the BMEP can be pushed before running into reliability problems.

Number of cylinders, bore/stroke ratio, crankshaft layout, cylinder head layout, firing order has no influence whatsoever on maximum torque. But obviously on other engine characteristics like powerband, vibration characteristics, max rpm (and max power, as power is basically torque multiplied by rpm)

Torque and power are in a set relationship to each other, and if we consider an imaginary engine with 80 hp @ 9000 rpm, the resulting torque would be approx 46 foot-pounds. Max torque would be higher, perhaps 50-55 foot-pounds.

My conclusion: XS 650/750 on pump gas, giving 90 foot-pounds-NOT POSSIBLE!

If any of you still believe torque would double by firing both cylinders at the same time, good luck! (Why haven't all F1 teams, Nascar teams, Moto GP et. al done this????)

I don't think torque would double but big bore singles usually have higher torque numbers than twins, V-twins or in-lines of the same displacement running at the same RPM. I think what actually happens is that the big bang engine, aka twingle, makes maximum torque at a lower RPM than mufti-cylnder engines.

Look at how engine specs are often written. A hypothetical example: A single might show max torque at 3-5000 RPM while a 4 cylinder might share the same maximum torque at 10,000 RPM. Both engines might have the same gross torque and BHP numbers but the single would have a lower top end unless gearing was changed to taller ratios.

On the down side, the twingle will probably have a lower red line and more vibration.

As for F1 teams, Nascar teams, Moto GP et. al-- regulations limit what teams are allowed to modify. As someone else mentioned, twingles were outlawed in AMA flat track racing, I presume to slow certain motorcycles.
 
A friend emailed me adler reading this thread and seeing that I mentioned building one of these motors. He explained that these twingles were outlawed for flat track use because they hooked up better, and created more torque. However the major downfall is the cam chain. It is being forced to open and close twice as many valves at the same time.

I'm working on a solution for a stronger chain, but still plan on building one for shits and giggles. Not to mention I have about a dozen motors laying around..... That is once I actually find the time...... so who knows.... By the way things have been going it should be done by 2035....

Let us know what you find out on stronger chains.

Like you, I have several and might get this done by 2036. That is, if I quit wasting so much time keeping the one I'm riding in one piece. :bike:
 
I'm still thinking I want to do this. To make it work and work right I think I'll need/want a high ratio primary http://www.xs650.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20073 and probably a belt drive secondary. Or at least a cush drive rear sprocket as suggested by gggGary.

Honestly, while a belt drive is my first choice, the cush sprocket is probably a better all around choice. With new chain technology, the only real advantage of the belt is that its cleaner.

A tougher clutch will be needed. I have Hugh's hydraulic set-up here in my office still in the box.

I'll probably want to lighten the pistons and rods, perhaps a big bore kit as some of those are lighter than stock. (Run cooler too!) Lighter moving parts reduce vibrations caused by weight moving up and down in the bore. Wouldn't want it popping wheelies every time the pistons come up to top dead center, would I?

I might need to add some weight to the heavy side of the flywheels. Or perhaps a harmonic balancer of some sorts. Probably not, considering that I'm building what will be a low RPM street engine that might never see more than 5000 RPM vibration might not be that much of a problem. I'm looking for guts and tall gearing, gas mileage and simplicity built mostly from what I've accumulated thus far.

I'll probably lower the compression for longevity sake.

Patches mentioned above that "the major downfall is the cam chain. It is being forced to open and close twice as many valves at the same time." While he ponders that stronger chain I think I'll be saved by the fact that my RPM limit will be far lower than any of those old flat track XS Big Bang engines that were banned years ago.

Timing will need to be changed. I'm really big on using as much off the shelf automotive parts as possible. Makes getting home easier and cheaper.

Defiantly have Hugh weld the crank.

Overdrive 5th gear (In my toolbox.)

I'd like to go with a single intake manifold and a Toyota throttle body I've got in the shop along with a 2-1 header I took off my first XS. I'm still trying to figure out the electronics for the EFI.

Porsche Elephant valve lifters. (What I would give for hydraulic lifters-- set 'em once and forget 'em.)

As for the bike I'm putting this dream engine in. I started modifying the frame so that it bolts together in the middle with slip joints to keep everything lined up. Makes engine R&R so much easier. It's kind of a hybrid of sorts, modified stock swingarm frame, cast XS wheels, rare drum rear, disc front, tubeless tires, old tracker bars, fat 3.9 gallon K1 450 Honda gas tank and headlight, plastic XT200 Yamaha rear fender, spray can paint, homemade seat, oversized battery sticking out the left side... you know, a piece of crap daily driver that only its builder could love.

But right now it's just a pile of parts.

After I finish that build I'm going to sell my other XSs and buy an Ironhead and something much smaller. After all, 3 is probably enough... for a while.
 
It sure would be a lot easier to change the sprockets on a stock one. Power is power. Sure you can rejigger the engine to make more torque at low rpm, but the cost is less torque at high rpm. Odds are you'll end up with lower peak power and power is all that matters. Power is transformed by the gearing into any amount of torque you want so if a stock bike makes 50 HP and yours makes 40 after this the stocker will be able to put more torque to the ground at any speed because it has more power to divide down into torque.
 
It sure would be a lot easier to change the sprockets on a stock one. Power is power. Sure you can rejigger the engine to make more torque at low rpm, but the cost is less torque at high rpm. Odds are you'll end up with lower peak power and power is all that matters. Power is transformed by the gearing into any amount of torque you want so if a stock bike makes 50 HP and yours makes 40 after this the stocker will be able to put more torque to the ground at any speed because it has more power to divide down into torque.

I think you're missing the point altogether. You're right that I will lose torque on top but I'm not trying to make more power. I'm trying to lower the speed at where the most power is made so that I can run taller gearing for better mileage and longer engine life.

Besides, when it comes to power, these big bang engines were banned from racing in the 1970s because they made too much power.

PS. Already done the sprocket thing.
 
Last edited:
Alright, well I'm certainly not one to stand between a man and his dream. Just saying there's no such thing as a free lunch. Conservation of energy is one of the more annoying rules of the universe. You can certainly make an engine have more torque at lower rpm if that's what you want to do. That doesn't make the bike as a whole have more rear wheel torque but it should have a pretty cool sound and would be interesting to ride.
 
Bill, can you expand a little on the "big bang" engines from the 70's? Were these twingles? I could see how they would maybe break the tires loose coming out of a corner back then.
 
You go Bill, it's all about doing what "can't be done, won't work. At least to try it for street use I don't see it as that big of deal. Why mess with the bottom end? Rephase the cam, done.
 
You go Bill, it's all about doing what "can't be done, won't work. At least to try it for street use I don't see it as that big of deal. Why mess with the bottom end? Rephase the cam, done.

Really, you think I can get out that easy? You know these bikes better than I ever will. Any recommendations on where to set the base line timing?
 
No opinion on the twingle, but do have a hydraulic lifter idea: Mazda and Isuzu both had a tiny hydraulic lash adjuster in the tip of the rocker arms on some of their engines. They are tiny; maybe 10mm OD x about 18mm long.

ALAMA-12_detail_1.jpg


It would mean CNC'ing some rocker arms, adding a hard wear pad to the cam side of those arms, then supplying pressurized oil to the rocker shafts. Not easy, but not impossible.
 
I are no expert on HyPo 650s of any sort. but the timing should be the same as stock also, 1 set of points or pamco firing a dual output coil.
 
No opinion on the twingle, but do have a hydraulic lifter idea: Mazda and Isuzu both had a tiny hydraulic lash adjuster in the tip of the rocker arms on some of their engines. They are tiny; maybe 10mm OD x about 18mm long.

ALAMA-12_detail_1.jpg


It would mean CNC'ing some rocker arms, adding a hard wear pad to the cam side of those arms, then supplying pressurized oil to the rocker shafts. Not easy, but not impossible.

I don't know if I could pull it off but I like the way you think. What about rollers for the cam followers?
 
Rollers are possible, but here's the deal: the roller's face is very hard. If the roller is run on a conventional cast cam face, it will 'brinnel' them in short order. The solution is either a steel billet cam (big $$$ custom made) or there's a type of iron that Ford etc use for their roller cams, but again we are talking custom made and big $$$.

EDIT: About a stronger cam chain, a Morse Hy-Vo chain would probably do it. Some late model dirt bike engines use them so it's possible to find some ready made sprockets. That would beat hell out of trying to have some custom made.

Morse type chain for a Honda CRF450:
41UDfTUf4TL._SL500_AA300_.jpg


CRF's cam chain layout, notice the bolt on sprocket:

06crf450camchain.jpg
 
Back
Top