Author Topic: The differance between air cooled and watercooled.  (Read 15643 times)

Offline Bob Holland

  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 510
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« on: January 28, 2007, 06:08:37 PM »
When my sons were young we rode dirt bikes, we spent many a weekend at California Cty, Red Rock Canyon, Gorman or Balenger Canyon. The bikes were air cooled 125s and 250s. Two or three times a year I would be replacing the ring and piston on one of the bikes. I bought my oldest son a new 1981 YZ 125 when he was 12, he rode it until he was 18, 6 years and we never had to take the engine apart.
Our 1200 Bandits are air cooled, with an oil cooler to help keep the oil temp down. Every one, even Harley( V-Rod) is going to water cooled engines, thats just the way it is  :motorsmile:
If I didn't have a Suzuki, I would have a Kawasaki

Offline Desolation Angel

  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 1831
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2007, 10:58:51 AM »
It's obviously the best way to go.  I'm surprised bikes lag so far behind cars in certain types of technologies.  For example, why in the world is a carbureted bike still manufactured for street use in 2007?  :duh:   And except for BMW, bikes were years getting into ABS and still aren't all using it.  And there're other things too.  I know they want to keep costs down, but I'd rather bite the bullet and go high tech.

Offline moddedtunnel

  • New user!
  • *
  • Posts: 7
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2007, 11:18:49 AM »
Seems emission reduction is one of the driving forces behind the liquid cooling trend .

The Suzuki Advanced Cooling System was fairly efficient . Hard on the engine oil for sure .

Still today , most if not all road race organizations will not allow the Bandit 1200 to race in the aircooled classes of same cylinder and displacement as they consider it " liquid cooled ". WERA and the CMRA as just two examples .

Times are a changing  :motorsmile:

Offline ZenMan

  • Site Supporters
  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 1148
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2007, 02:29:34 PM »
I agree with all of the above.

The benefits of water-cooling:

1. Longer engine life

2. Cooler operating temperatures

3. More efficient fuel conversion (see #2)

4. Better power (see #3)

Benefits of fuel injection:

1. Precise fuel delivery

2. Exact fuel/air ratio

3. Less moving parts

4. Better fuel mileage

5. Ease of adjustment

6. Higher power (see #1 and #2)

I mean, like DA said, why so long? It's a no-brainer!  :duh:
"Hmmm... near certainty of death with little chance of success... what are we waiting for?"

Offline Red01

  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 8977
  • Are we having fun yet?
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2007, 04:41:38 PM »
To Zen's benefits of water cooling, 1-4 are due to water cooling keeping a more stable operating temperature.Suzuki came up with the air/oil cooled motors to attempt to achieve these same goals, but without as much of a weight penalty as going to water-cooled. The idea was since the engine has to carry oil anyway, add a little more oil, a dual stage oil pump (it pumps high volume, low pressure for cooling duties and low volume, high pressure for rotating parts' bearings), and a bigger oil cooler (racing air-cooled inline 4's were already using coolers anyway) and a few jets to cool things down. This way their bikes would be lighter than the water-cooled competition. This worked for a long time, but eventually, performance parameters needed to stay competitive in racing (and therefore sales) forced a move to water. Now, emissions is forcing it.

As to the benefits of injection, let me be the devil's advocate (I actually like EFI, but it's not all roses) and give some negatives.

To counter #3, there's more electronics. Black boxes, sensors, wires. These aren't always trouble-free and when there's trouble, can be a real headscratcher sometimes - unless you're rich enough to afford shotgun troubleshooting (where you replace anything that might be a problem).

For #4, I don't think there's any difference in fuel economy if the only difference is carbs or a same size & mapped EFI. I've heard reports of it actually going the other way with Harleys.

#5 is debatable, if you're not savy in downloading modified programs and uploading them to your device, but you've been tweaking carbs for decades, carbs may not be as challenging as EFI. OTOH, if you've never tore into a carb and you are well versed in computer technolgy, the reverse is true.

Many carbs can be adjusted with no parts changing, especially for minor changes. If you do jetting yourself (ie, don't buy kits from Ivan, Dale, Dynojet, etc), the cost will be less than tweaking EFI. (I know, cost wasn't mentioned.) EFI will be a matter of swapping a chip (like in old Kawi systems) or simply plugging in a piggyback device like a Power Commander, so that is easier than tearing into carbs to rejet.

To counter #6, that's false. If the carbs are jetted correctly, there's no difference. The caveat is you need to rejet for varying conditions whereas EFI will adjust automatically due to the electronics. An engine is just an air pump. EFI alone will not change how much goes in and how much comes out.

Why so long? That's a good question. It's good to see they're finally doing it though. I do hate to see the finned engines go in naked bikes though. To me, they just look better when they're out there on display with fins. Most water cooled motors look too appliance-like, though there are exceptions where the manufacturer has put fins on their water cooled lumps for stying's sake.
Paul
2001 GSF1200S
(04/2001-03/2012)
2010 Concours 14ABS
(07/2010-current)


Offline ZenMan

  • Site Supporters
  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 1148
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2007, 07:53:22 PM »
Red, all good counterpoints, and all debatable or depending on your experience. You make a very acceptable "Devil's Advocate".  :lol:

As for #6, you are correct. How 'bout if I change that one to:

6. Smoother power.

The instantaneous throttle response, lack of "lag", and even power delivery is a huge difference over carburetion.

OK?  :bigok:  :grin:
"Hmmm... near certainty of death with little chance of success... what are we waiting for?"

Offline JamieK

  • Site Supporters
  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2007, 08:49:34 PM »
Quote from: "ZenMan"

The instantaneous throttle response, lack of "lag", and even power delivery is a huge difference over carburetion.

OK?  :bigok:  :grin:


And to advocate just a bit more...instantaneous throttle response is not always a good thing...many a rider has had a hard time adjusting to an FI equipped bike, especially the ham fisted riders :wink:
Jamie K in Edmonton<br />06 B12S, Full Muzzy, Stage 1 jets, Timing Advancer

Offline ZenMan

  • Site Supporters
  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 1148
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2007, 12:43:29 AM »
Quote from: "Dreadnought"
Quote from: "ZenMan"

The instantaneous throttle response, lack of "lag", and even power delivery is a huge difference over carburetion.

OK?  :bigok:  :grin:


And to advocate just a bit more...instantaneous throttle response is not always a good thing...many a rider has had a hard time adjusting to an FI equipped bike, especially the ham fisted riders :wink:

True enough.  :wink:

Another benefit I forgot to mention... no choke!

Push the start button and instant, smooth idle... ready to ride.  :bigok:
"Hmmm... near certainty of death with little chance of success... what are we waiting for?"

Offline Daytona

  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 1063
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2007, 09:53:32 AM »
What are yawl sayin :duh: U can't beat a Zuki sacs torque monster! :bigok:

Offline ZenMan

  • Site Supporters
  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 1148
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2007, 12:41:59 PM »
Yup. That's what the old die-hards used to say about kick-start, manual spark advance, and rigid frames too.  :motorsmile:
"Hmmm... near certainty of death with little chance of success... what are we waiting for?"

Offline Red01

  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 8977
  • Are we having fun yet?
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2007, 02:28:56 PM »
While a 20+ year old bike may not be priceless, I'm sure it'll be worth keeping. (I've got a 33 year old bike I still ride.)

I guess I'm an old die-hard - at least on the kick starter.
Personally, I still miss having the kick starter there as a back-up, like on my ol' GS750.  
And my dirt bike starts just fine with no battery.  :bigok:

OTOH, in these days of EFI and the rest of the electronics, if the battery is low, it wouldn't start anyway, so having a kicker as a backup is moot.

I recall my ol' RD350 could be "kick" started literally by hand with a quick snap. Used to be a fun way to poke fun at HD or Brit bike riders who had to take care not to get launched over the bars if their big twins ever kicked back.

I'm not old enough to recall if the loss of manual spark advance or the addition of shock absorbers ever caused a fuss though... and I'm happy to have those features!
(Kinda doubt it though.)

As the old Yamaha ad (and Sly & the Family Stone song/album) used to say:
Different strokes for different folks.
Paul
2001 GSF1200S
(04/2001-03/2012)
2010 Concours 14ABS
(07/2010-current)


Offline ZenMan

  • Site Supporters
  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 1148
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2007, 03:28:38 PM »
Yup. I miss my old RD350 track bike. And my old Honda 305 Dream. And my old Norton Commando. And my old Z1 900. They all had kick-starts and carbs, and air-cooled engines.... oops! I forgot, this is the "Water-cooled Technical" forum. Sorry!

Maybe we could have a "Vintage Nostalgia" forum to reminisce about all that great old technology in?  :bigok:
"Hmmm... near certainty of death with little chance of success... what are we waiting for?"

Offline aussiebandit

  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 1872
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2007, 02:13:05 AM »
Difference between air/oil cooled vs Water/liquid cooled????

The biggest differences for me, and why I like the old air/oil cooled engines are,

Cost of maintenance - less things to replace
Reliability - less things to go wrong
Character - sorry but the older air/oil cooled bikes tend to have a soul, and look like they have soul.  A water/liquid cooled engine has no soul and they all look the same.
AUSSIEBANDIT (MICK)
02B12

"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool"

Offline aussiebandit

  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 1872
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #13 on: February 11, 2007, 02:31:32 AM »
As for fuel injection - I really do prefer carburators, why.

Well, besides the fact that if something goes wrong with EFI it's BIG dollars.  I've found all the fuel injected nakeds I test rode before buying the B12 wouldn't 'behave' at low speed/low revs/low throttle openings.  In other words, they worked really well on the open road and when 'playing', but for me a bike has to be able to do the low speed/low rev/low throttle open drudgery of riding round town, just as well as it does the open road stuff.

It'll be a sad sad day when you can't buy a big bore air/oil cooled carby bike.....

And, as for comparing bikes to cars - WTF.   They did a comparison here in Oz between the fastest most expensive Porche and the Suzuki GSXR1000 around a couple of race tracks.  Who won, the Suzuki - even though it's not as technically advanced as the porche - infact for the price of one Porche brake rotor you can buy the Suzuki.  

You say you want technical advancement, but I'm not so sure you'd be so keen when you can't buy fair dinkum, honest, big bore, do anything bike for less the 20 grand....
AUSSIEBANDIT (MICK)
02B12

"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool"

Offline ZenMan

  • Site Supporters
  • Board Homesteader!
  • ***
  • Posts: 1148
The differance between air cooled and watercooled.
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2007, 11:35:38 AM »
Quote from: "aussiebandit"
Difference between air/oil cooled vs Water/liquid cooled????

The biggest differences for me, and why I like the old air/oil cooled engines are,

Cost of maintenance - less things to replace
Reliability - less things to go wrong
Character - sorry but the older air/oil cooled bikes tend to have a soul, and look like they have soul.  A water/liquid cooled engine has no soul and they all look the same.

All good points, all debatable.

1. Cost of maintenance... I disagree. The new water-cooled, fuel-injected engines can go much longer between maintenances, they run at a cooler, more uniform operating temps with less "hot spots". And the longer engine life adds up to less money spent on major engine components in the long run.

2. Reliability... I disagree for the same reasons as #1, and if you base this on the number of moving parts, FI motors actually have fewer parts when it comes to carbs vs. throttle bodies. Ease of adjustment is much easier and precise than taking a bank of carbs off, changing jets, needles, spacers, etc. vs. plugging a box in.

As far as the water pump, you may have a point there, but the air/oil-cooled dual-stage oil pump is more complex than a single stage, it tends to balance out as far as the number of moving parts.

3. Character... Well, this one is just a matter of personal perception. To say that water-cooled engines have no "soul" is a bit unfair. There's plenty of water-coooled bikes and riders out there that would heartily disagree with you.  :roll:

To say the "Character" is different may be more accurate, but I think no matter what bike you ride, if you ride it long enough you will attribute certain "personality" aspects to it, thus the "soul" of the bike usually reflects the soul of the rider.  :wink:

Hey, nothing taken away from the air/carb bikes, they are great, fire-breathing beasts and I hope they will be around for a long time. At the same time, nothing wrong with FI/WC bikes either, and I think they'll be building a great reputation soon enough.  :bigok:
"Hmmm... near certainty of death with little chance of success... what are we waiting for?"