[wingdawg101]

imported post

If the 1500 has 2 carbs how come they didn't put 2 carbs on the "Valkyries" ?:baffled:

 

[exavid]

imported post

wingdawg101 wrote:

If the 1500 has 2 carbs how come they didn't put 2 carbs on the "Valkyries" ?:baffled:

The Valk has more poop, it's kinda Naked Goldwing on Steroids. The 1500 really doesn't have the gumption of the 1200LTD/SEI. I haven't had a chance to compare it with the other 1200s but the fuel injected 4 cylinder bikes had more giddiup. Not that I feel my 1500 is a slouch, but the 86 SEi I had could easily leave it in the dust. Two carbs on the 1500 make it more fuel efficient and simpler to maintain.

 

[wingdawg101]

imported post

Thanks "Exavid" , interesting ?!

 

[johnmac]

imported post

Other than the Valkyre having equal length intake runners for all cylinders, how does 3 carbs per side produce more horsepower than 1? Only 1 cylinder is sucking gas/air thru the carb at a time.

 

[wingdawg101]

imported post

johnmac wrote:

Other than the Valkyre having equal length intake runners for all cylinders, how does 3 carbs per side produce more horsepower than 1? Only 1 cylinder is sucking gas/air thru the carb at a time.

See, that's why you're from "the Show Me State" !:baffled:

 

[exavid]

imported post

johnmac wrote:

Other than the Valkyre having equal length intake runners for all cylinders, how does 3 carbs per side produce more horsepower than 1? Only 1 cylinder is sucking gas/air thru the carb at a time.

With four cylinders that might be true, but with a six you have three cylinders sucking on the carbs each revolution. That means one carb is feeding two and one is feeding one. With six carbs each carb has the same airflow at all times when the carb is pulling mixture. It would appear the airflow through the 1500s carbs has to be varying depending where you were in the cycle. This would mean the carb throat size and jets would have to be more of a compromise, than on a system where each carb had the same amount of air going through it each cycle. That's what I think, could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

 

[johnmac]

imported post

I understand the velocity changes can (will) cause a performance drop, but does a 6 cylinder engine ever have 2 cylinders on their intake stroke at the same time? With the engine divided into 2 groups of 3 cylinders, this futher reduces the chance of 1 carb feeding 2 cylinders.I haven't cracked any books to check on this. So I may be wrong!
Of corse, the Valkyrie has other performance differances like valve timing and final drive gearing.

 

[BRowan]

imported post

I think the camshaft profiles on the Valk are different than the GL1500 as well. Either way the Valk has astonishing acceleration, much more than the GL1500 and itstops much better as well.

I'd say the mein reason for 2 carbs on the GL1500 was lack of available space to fit 6. Even trying to balance 6 carbs would have been a major hassle with all the plastics to be stripped.
Other GL1500factors might be that most of the R&D budget went into the reverse system, teh engine and the more modern bodystyle. The carbs and brakes were cheapskated in my opinion

 

[exavid]

imported post

johnmac wrote:

I understand the velocity changes can (will) cause a performance drop, but does a 6 cylinder engine ever have 2 cylinders on their intake stroke at the same time? With the engine divided into 2 groups of 3 cylinders, this futher reduces the chance of 1 carb feeding 2 cylinders.

I just went out in the shop to take a look at the Honda manual. The crank throws appear to be spaced on 120 degree intervals, not 180 as I was thinking. With that interval it looks like there would be a pretty evenly spaced intake cycle and little variation in carburetor throat air velocity. So it appears Browan might have had it right that it was difficulty squeezing it all in the fairings and or economic factors. All I can say for sure about it is that I'm glad there aren't six of the buggers in there.

 

[DJ]

imported post

The Valk is a different animal to the Wing altogether, you really need to ride one to appreciate the difference. :action:

 

[wingdawg101]

imported post

wings4life wrote:

The Valk is a different animal to the Wing altogether, you really need to ride one to appreciate the difference. :action:

Is that good or bad or what ?:baffled:

 

[philcsand]

imported post

Not to mention that carbs are expensive! Why put 6 on a bike, when 2 will do the job, and at a few hundred dollars savings that don't get passed onto the customer.

 

[Jason]

imported post

6 carbs would have been nice on the 1500, a pig to work on (the 2 already there are hard enouigh to work on as it is) but the extra poke would have been interesting. Probably just as well Honda didn't go down that road though, the brakes can barely handle the available power as it is.

 

[exavid]

imported post

philcsand wrote:

Not to mention that carbs are expensive! Why put 6 on a bike, when 2 will do the job, and at a few hundred dollars savings that don't get passed onto the customer.

There are six carbs on the Valkas much for performance as appearance.It looks brute. It's damn impressive! HD guyshave been known to shrivel up and blow away when they look at six cylinders and six carbs. I guess one could irritate the HD guys (the less astute ones anyway) by telling them a Valk is just a Goldwing with the plastic off. Mostly true.

 

[BenMC]

imported post

Lots of people alread think the Valk is a stripped down Goldwing. It's a pity some Goldwing clubs and groups won't allow Valk owners in.

 

[exavid]

imported post

Just one of the reasons I've never been much of a joiner.

 

[wingdawg101]

imported post

BenMC wrote:

Lots of people alread think the Valk is a stripped down Goldwing. It's a pity some Goldwing clubs and groups won't allow Valk owners in.

The "Valk" was a beefed up Gold Wing, stronger internal parts and Tranny/gears untill 97 when the 97 Wings got the "Valks" internals and gears!

That's why 97 Wings sell for a little more!:clapper: