1.6 makes 300hp and our rockets 2.3 make 150~ LOL

Yes, cars ultimately, suck by comparison!
 
The Japanese have usually been pretty good at wringing the most out of engines. My normally aspirated 1973 240Z (2.4L) (149CI) made right at that 150hp. 1 CI = 1 HP, It took a while for most American cars to get there. In 1973 the Corvette with a 454 could be had with a whopping 275hp.

bob
 
Last edited:
But Pa, It has four wheels. Apples to Oranges. When a four wheeler can split heavy traffic for miles and miles I'm in! I do get what you're saying though.
If lane splittingnwas legal in CO I would still not do it.
I play the "try not to die" game as much as i can.
I'd split lanes with my ninja if i had a gun to my head but the big rocket or for that matter any big bike... no.. "just pull the trigger" I'd say!

Also rain and AC play a big factor of " am I willing to sit in traffic"
 

1.6L @ 26psi = 2.9L @ 14.5psi i.e. NA?
As in (1.6 / 14.5psi) x 26psi = 2.9L
Curious as to where the 2.7L comes from.

But anyway isn't 26psi the boost the Toyota runs, so it is really 40.5psi absolute?
So then the 1.6L @ 26psi boost will process the same volume of air per cycle as a 4.5L NA engine?
Whereas the TTS Rocket, if using 14.5psi boost, is only 29psi absolute. If it also ran 26psi boost, it would produce 559hp or 224hp/L.

It doesn't matter what size engine it is, if it was made for a motorbike, then it is a motorbike engine (typically the one block contains the engine and transmission).
A car engine is one that was made for a car (typically trans is separate unit but mated to engine).
I think you mean 2.3 or 2.5 is a car "sized" engine, maybe?


I believe TTS' Rocket at 342hp is wheel hp, so engine will be about 400hp assuming similar transmission loss as the older Rocket III.
That's about 160hp/L. And 275 ft lb at wheel so maybe 324 ft lb at the engine.
GR Corolla at 300 engine hp and 1.6L displacement is about 188hp/L. It makes 273 ft lb at engine.
Impressive indeed, although it has traded a lot of torque to gain that hp, but note well that the Toyota engine was designed to be a forced induction engine. The Triumph Rocket was not.
I would wager Toyota reliability might win hands down though vs the modified Triumph.

Anyway.... the Mitsubishi Evo 8 FQ-400 beats the sh1t out of Toyota, 20 years ago it was producing 202hp/L.
 

yea, not stock though.
my TDI was a AHU 1.9 with a lot of stuff 320 at the wheels still got 55mpg when i wanted

but none of these are 3 bangers! thats kinda the fun point!
Funny, my Trailblazer is a 3 cylinder Turbo, it's a lot of fun on mountain roads, but only half the size of the Rocket motor, 1.3 liters, makes around 150 hp, if I remember, plenty for passing and fun. Man, back in the day, if you could get 1 hp/cubic inch, you really had something, technology has come a long way. My Carpenter engine approaches 2hp/cid.
And no, I would never lanesplit either, seems crazy unless traffic was stopped and was creeping by at 10 or 15 mph. Too many factors completely out of your control.
 
1.6/15... since we all round up

true all you said.
 
I get it. Splitting traffic isn't for everyone. I do it so I can actually get somewhere. Traffic is horrible in ALL of California. I feel safe and confident in my skills to anticipate most things but aren't we all just moving targets out there? I split at a safe speed unlike some knobs out here. Anyway, Cheers.
 
it each their own!
Splitting lanes was a law passed so cops on bikes didnt overheat. have you or anyone who lane splits now taken a cop motorcycle training course... NO, i did not think so
even for back in the early days when the law was passed, people did not rage out and also drive like idiots.
If things were different, say like in germany, yea i would , as Jay leno said, never get on a bike if you have to look at a clock or get somewhere on time.