Superstroker1
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 29
The Phazer 500cc twin is capable of producing 81 hp in stock form.
Therefore:
2- 500cc Phazer motors would equate to 1000ccs
A 1000cc Phazer 4-cylinder would produce 162 HP in stock form
A 2007 Genesis 1000 is producing ~148.
The Phazer is actually powered by a much more advanced 4-stroke engine vs the Apex.
The Genesis 1000 has some "catching up" to do to match the potential to produce power, cc for cc compared to the Phazer.
Yamaha...
Very nice little motor!
Therefore:
2- 500cc Phazer motors would equate to 1000ccs
A 1000cc Phazer 4-cylinder would produce 162 HP in stock form
A 2007 Genesis 1000 is producing ~148.
The Phazer is actually powered by a much more advanced 4-stroke engine vs the Apex.
The Genesis 1000 has some "catching up" to do to match the potential to produce power, cc for cc compared to the Phazer.
Yamaha...
Very nice little motor!
I think the 1000FI is alot more tammed then the 500
the 1000FI has alot more potential to make more power while the 500 is probably already pushing the limits
the 1000FI has alot more potential to make more power while the 500 is probably already pushing the limits
Superstroker1 said:
Sorry bud but I dont agree with this kind of logic. What are the advanced technologies you talk about? The genesis has been known to be turbocharged to over 300 hp which is over half of its stock form. The 500cc I doubt would make 170hp in comparison.
I thought they where saying 170 to 180 hp for a boosted phazer. So maybe they can get there. I even heard someone say 200 on a turbo phazer. Now that would be a fun ride. Maxdlx
alaskanbowtie
Expert
Superstroker1 said:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
I think your partially right, Yamaha has held the bag on the 150..... I think they'll give it a tune up and have it making 170-ish in the next year or so but I don't think either is superior in technology. I think they just pushed the little one to the max right out the box and didn't do that with the 150.......just like one of the others was saying. I think Yamaha should pump the 150 up to 175 and pump the triple up to 140 that will leave room for the Exciter at 120h.p. in the Phazer chassis........... just my .02
Superstroker1
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 29
Auskins said:
I agree.
But don't think the 500 is pushing any limits...closer to the limit for potential peak HP but not limited.
In fact, the potential for peak HP production goes to the 4-cylinder.
For example, a 4 cylinder 500 has a higher VE (volumetric efficiency) than a 2-cylinder 500cc, simply by virtu of its additional cylinders and its capability for higher revs before geometric limitations, such as those present in a 180deg twin, limit its upper rev potential...firing at any interval.
The Genesis 1000 could (not without extreme expense and a very high level of engineering) be built to turn 14,000 RPM. Actually, with hydro/servo valve actuation (no cams) 17,000 RPM is possible, with service longevity (extremely expensive technology that will never be used in a snowmobile).
14,000 RPM= 220 plus hp
17,000 RPM= 250 plus hp
*Both normally aspirated but acheiving almost theoretical VE.
welterracer
TY 4 Stroke God
as long as you still have to push those engines over 8500 rpms, will will still need gear reduction to use clutches, therefore you will still have engine breaking..
Something i would love to see the 4 strokes get rid of!
The little phazer spins much harder than the apex does..
Something i would love to see the 4 strokes get rid of!
The little phazer spins much harder than the apex does..
Superstroker1
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 29
alaskanbowtie said:Superstroker1 said:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
I think your partially right, Yamaha has held the bag on the 150..... I think they'll give it a tune up and have it making 170-ish in the next year or so but I don't think either is superior in technology. I think they just pushed the little one to the max right out the box and didn't do that with the 150.......just like one of the others was saying. I think Yamaha should pump the 150 up to 175 and pump the triple up to 140 that will leave room for the Exciter at 120h.p. in the Phazer chassis........... just my .02
I disagree...
It takes an extremely high level of engineering technology to build a 2-cylinder 180deg engine (which fires at any interval), that first...is capable of spinning 12,000 RPM without shaking itself apart and to acheive a 0.16 hp/cc output, while being sold to the public with a WARRANTY!
Folks...ITS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE by any manufacturer!
Genesis 1000 output= 0.14 HP/CC
Phazer 500 output= 0.16 HP/CC
Superstroker1
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 29
welterracer said:
Why?
Because the clutch shaft decelerates slower and allows force to hold the belt engaged?
I know how to fix that on the Apex but frankly, I don't see it as a problem on the Phazer.
Lobby your friends at Yamaha Motor Company to deliver the 4 post clutch...and watch engine breaking dissappear.
Why?
Because force is equal to the square of the rotational speed of the clutch shaft for a given mass and has nothing to do with the crank speed...only the rotational speed of the clutch itself.
Sooo...
Lets say hypothetically, that to harness the power being produced by your Apex, you require 200 grams of total weight to hold 10,400 rpm.
In a three cam clutch, this means each arm weighs 66.66 grams.
In a 4 cam clutch, each arm would be 50 grams (actually, based on experience with 4 cam clutches and the reduced bind during up-shift from having more even loading...the total weight of each arm would probably end up being around 47 grams in this example).
By virtu of the CG of the heavier cam arm and the mass concentration along its moment (where the bulk of the mass must be located), coupled with the excessive 66 gram weights...
Belt dis-engagement when you lift off of the throttle becomes extremely sluggish (slow) and perpuates what you call "engine breaking"
In the case for the 4 lighter weight cam arms...although the total weight is the same, each arm is lighter and responds to deceleration of rotation much more quickly and coupled with a higher tension pressure spring, belt disengagement and primary clutch back shift become quick and more crisp to respond during re-acceleration.
Engine breaking can be all but eliminated.
Capiche?