v-four vs v-twin

[TCMJim]

Howdy folks,

Just a point of curiosity here. Why would Yamaha use smaller cc v-4 engine on their Venture as opposed to using the larger engine they use on their next level down models? What is so different about the V-4? Does the v-4 configuration make up for a loss of 560cc. Is it a smoother engine? More torgue? What are the differences in performance?

Thanks

[racinfan101]

I have not researched it allot but it has always been my understanding that V-4 engines were smoother and could make more power and torque with less displacement. I remember reading a road test of a Royal Star Tour Deluxe with a 1300cc engine and it's roll on power at hwy speed trumped the bigger V-Twins If it were not for Harley setting the standard of a V-Twin for cruiser style motorcycles I wonder if the Asian manufacturers would bother with a V-Twin.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by racinfan101

I have not researched it allot but it has always been my understanding that V-4 engines were smoother and could make more power and torque with less displacement. I remember reading a road test of a Royal Star Tour Deluxe with a 1300cc engine and it's roll on power at hwy speed trumped the bigger V-Twins If it were not for Harley setting the standard of a V-Twin for cruiser style motorcycles I wonder if the Asian manufacturers would bother with a V-Twin.

I just like the looks and sound of the v twins, my starter bike has a v twin, lot of folks think it is larger then a 250...I think it's personnel choice but some of the other configurations look dated..

[DachshundUberAlles]

The V4 is a wonderful configuration. It is smooth and provides not only good torque but can also produce awesome top end power in a narrow platform that lends itself to good handling. It's "problem" was always the high mounting of the intake system brought about some packaging "issues".
In the eighties, Honda felt that the V4 would be the wave of the future, displacing the I4 configuration and brought out three complete lines of bike to try and make that transition. Sadly, the public did not warm up to the concept and there are but a scarce few current bikes running the V4 engine. My little V30 (500cc) Magna is a rolling testimony to the far thinking brilliance of the Honda engineers. Turning 28 years old this year it is smooth, quiet, oil tight, fuel efficient (averages 49mpg) and will comfortably cruise at 70 mph all day long if you please.
Both the V2 and V4 have proven themselves more than competent in a variety of tasks but in the end, the buying public has the ultimate say and have demonstrated most clearly with their cash they they are far more comfortable with the more familiar V2 and I4 configurations.

[Badlands-4-2]

Originally Posted by TCMJim

Howdy folks,

Just a point of curiosity here. Why would Yamaha use smaller cc v-4 engine on their Venture as opposed to using the larger engine they use on their next level down models? What is so different about the V-4? Does the v-4 configuration make up for a loss of 560cc. Is it a smoother engine? More torgue? What are the differences in performance?

Thanks

I have had the V-4 Venture and a V-twin Harley. The smaller V-4 is a heck of a lot smoother and faster motor. Not as much torque as the Harley, but it revved faster and could really scream. Downside is that it made for a very wide, heavy bike. I had a difficult time with the thing slow speeds and at stops.

[Cool The Kid]

To me the V4 is the perfect engine

You get the smoothness + valve area of an inline 4 without the generic sound, and a power delivery that enables more aggressive throttle input out of corners, in a package much smaller than an inline 4 (aerodynamically- much narrower)

Only disadvantages, two heads (more cost), and sometimes packaging can be an issue. And obviously, folks who buy bikes are generally too scared to get anything that isn't a Gixxer, Harley or Airhead Bimmer

[Badlands-4-2]

Originally Posted by Cool The Kid

To me the V4 is the perfect engine

You get the smoothness + valve area of an inline 4 without the generic sound, and a power delivery that enables more aggressive throttle input out of corners, in a package much smaller than an inline 4 (aerodynamically- much narrower)

Only disadvantages, two heads (more cost), and sometimes packaging can be an issue. And obviously, folks who buy bikes are generally too scared to get anything that isn't a Gixxer, Harley or Airhead Bimmer

Buy packaging you mean that there is a engine that is twice as wide as a vtwin to deal with. At least with a inline 4 you can move it forward far enough to get out of your way.

[Cool The Kid]

Originally Posted by Badlands-4-2

Buy packaging you mean that there is a engine that is twice as wide as a vtwin to deal with. At least with a inline 4 you can move it forward far enough to get out of your way.

Well the width kind of cancels out because the pistons in the V4 will be half the size of the V2. So instead of 2 big pistons you have 4 little ones. But you are right about not being able to tilt the engine one way or another. Ducati had a big problem with packaging the V4 in their MotoGP bike for that very reason. It was narrower, but too long, making their wheelbase uncompetitive compared to their competition.

[Midnightrider]

Originally Posted by Badlands-4-2

I have had the V-4 Venture and a V-twin Harley. The smaller V-4 is a heck of a lot smoother and faster motor. Not as much torque as the Harley, but it revved faster and could really scream. Downside is that it made for a very wide, heavy bike. I had a difficult time with the thing slow speeds and at stops.

what badlands said...... the bike is short & top heavy & is not easy to do a turn around on a 2 lane road. BUT the gitty up & go is unreal. I know venture owners that have close to 200k miles on them and never did any major work. They are so good Yamaha has not changed them since going to the V4.....

[FLBandit]

Odd that this is the first post I read today. I just went to a Demo Days at my local dealer yesterday, and one of the bikes I rode was the Royal Star Deluxe. I loved it! My current ride is a Boulevard C50 so I was curious about the V4 as well. I also rode the Yamaha Raider with a 113 V-Twin so I had some good comparison points. First think I noticed on the Royal was how smooth it was, especially at idle. Next thing I noticed was a seemingly lower torque down low. It didn't seem to jump off the line like my C50 or the Raider. It kind of reminded me of my last bike which was a 1200 Suzuki Bandit. Once out on the road though, the Royal moved just fine. It cornered well, and kept up with the other bikes without a problem. If it was my bike I'm sure it get used to the revvier engine in no time. My two favorites of the day were the Royal Star and the Raider. Going into the rides I had expected to be blown away by the Raider, and the Royal was not even on the list of bikes I wanted to ride. However, at the end of the day, I can't shake the impression the Royal Star left on me. I wonder if my wife will let me have two bikes!

[AikinutNY]

FL Bandit, those two bikes are not even close except they both have two wheels. One is a touring bike and the other is around town and very short runs. One you and your wife can ride for hours and be comfortable and carry a lot with you the other maybe an hour and you will be stopping or asked to stop sooner.

One is 113 cu in/1860 cc, the other is 79 cu in/ 1300 cc and the weight 730 lbs vs 844 lbs.

Did you look at the passenger seat? It was the first thing out of my wife's mouth during the first ride. "What the heck happened to the back seat?"

[distantThunder]

what you'll miss - if you don't get a big V-twin - is that popping sound on decel (quick throttle down).
Music to my ears :-)

dT

[FLBandit]

Yeah the bikes are very different, and I liked both for different reasons. I found it interesting that the V4 had such a different character than the V-Twins. Not better or worse just different. I ran out of time before I got in the last bike I wanted to try. They also had a Stratoliner S that combined the bags and windshield with the 113 V-Twin motor. I thought it's be interesting to try out also.

[TCMJim]

Howdy folks,

Good input by all, thanks. My first bike was a 1982 Honda V 45 Sabre which was a v-4. For such a small bike I thought it had a lot of get-up-and-go. I currently ride a 2001 Roadstar and like it just fine. When it is time to bid adieu to my current ride I will most likely move up to a touring bike from either Yamaha, Kawasaki, or Victory.

[markk53]

Originally Posted by racinfan101

I have not researched it allot but it has always been my understanding that V-4 engines were smoother and could make more power and torque with less displacement. I remember reading a road test of a Royal Star Tour Deluxe with a 1300cc engine and it's roll on power at hwy speed trumped the bigger V-Twins If it were not for Harley setting the standard of a V-Twin for cruiser style motorcycles I wonder if the Asian manufacturers would bother with a V-Twin.

Entirely possibly not. Honda obviously likes multi-cylinder machines as demonstrated by the first Gold Wing flat fours and their early full on custom cruiser Magna V-4s. The more cylinders usually the smoother the engine is. In tourers that is a primary desire, a smooth ride with smooth strong power delivery. The Wings and the Ventures (as early as 83) have had fours and the Wing obviously progressed to a six. Smoothness a twin can seldom approach.

They did dabble with the V twin CXs, but a different set up. I think they were trying to work around the fringe of the customs without doing the V twin Harley look until it became quite obvious that was what a lot of riders wanted. If you don't make what is wanted you don't sell much, so once they really figured it out (Yamaha knew first with the Viragos, then Honda followed with their Shadows) and started building what was in demand, eventually figuring out not to change it up every single year, the cruiser market exploded.

Yes for some the only one is Harley, but for others it's just the look and lower tone of the V-twin, regardless of who made it.

By the way there was a great tech letter answer in either Motorcyclist or Cycle World that defined why similar size singles don't make as much power as similar sized twins and the twins don't do as well as the similar sized multis. Had to do with more cylinders having more surface area and other stuff versus sheer displacement. It was in a May/June issue I think.

By the way, you see the exact opposite bias in sportbikes. Those riders prefer the 4s, usually in-line. Even though a similar size twin might work as well on the street with a wider easier to use power spread. Won't be as fast, but a great ride.

[markk53]

Originally Posted by sanford

I just like the looks and sound of the v twins, my starter bike has a v twin, lot of folks think it is larger then a 250...I think it's personnel choice but some of the other configurations look dated..

Lemme think here...

A majority of the bikes of any brand were either singles or V-twins from about 1910 on, with the occasional in-line four (not to be confused with the later more modern design transverse in-line four) like the Indians, Hendersons and all.

I do understand what you're saying on "dated" though. The early-mid 80s Japanese customs using both twins and transverse in-line fours do have a specific kind of odd look that has become known as "Japanese custom look" to those of us who sold the bikes back when. They do have a dated look. Same is true of sportbikes, mostly relating to frame/wheel/bodywork in their case. The engine has nothing to do with the sportbikes when looking dated. I'd venture to say the same is true with cruisers if they did something other than V-twins. One that did and had a fair look was the last of the Magna series with the V-4. Another that has it is the newest V-Max. It has a serious progressive custom cruiser look.

But again, your starter bike V-twin, if it is a V-Star (Yamaha), probably looks more like a small version of a 1983 Harley Sportster... or maybe more like a Yamaha Route 66 introduced in 1988... a mid 80s Japanese custom and one of the first few to look like a Harley. It's not about a dated look, since the Sportster has had a very similar look since 1957, it's about looking like a Harley, because people like that look. If it was about a dated look, you wouldn't own what you do, it's quite dated in appearance.