inline 4

imported post

heck just get an inline 6 and put in its place sounds more like it screw the 4 cylinders put a inline 12 or something big

imported post

yeah.. but you know what the inline engines do for that top heavy feeling? I rather keep all 6 of my cylinders low

imported post

triple wankel screw with twin turbo. Small compact and faaassssttt.

imported post

Hold the phone top heavy Honda made a very nimble four cylinder inline and played around with a inline six top heavy you must not rode one.Suzuki made a Rotary engine technology has really came a long way.I had Suzuki GS 750 in 1977 it was not top heavy at all I could sling it around a mountain curve right now as a older man would scare the heck out of me just thinking about it.Inline four and six cylinder engines in auto actually last a very long time also a inline has a lot of low end torque oh Honda is one that really got the Inline four kicked off and still kicking new technology today.So inline four and six and rotary engine would be a change and needs to be brought back.:?

imported post

I had a 1300 KAW B touring in 1980. It was a inline 6. I do not remember top heavy but loads of torque and very fun to ride.

imported post

Honda can't do it now, because it's already been done (but then Honda has never seemed to have a problem copying others designs) but why not an inline triple, ala Triumph Rocket III? Why use 6 cylinders, and all the complication that goes with them, when 3 would be perfect for a touring bike?

imported post

Just get over it and put in a v twin. Seems to be what everybody is asking for. lots of room for feet low saddle and looks like a hog to
Wilf

As you can see Ilike my goldwings just the way they are LOL

imported post

I'm with 88GL1500. Sounds top-heavy.

imported post

Why replace an engine that is perfectly in balance by design and replace it with some other design that has to have balancers and etc. to stop it from shaking. Or just go to a V-twin and let the shaking keep your lady happy.

imported post

If someone wants an upright engined bike, then the Goldwing is perhaps not for them. The whole concept is based on low centre of gravity and super smooth engine, I for one wouldn't want that compromised, I would rather add on cruiser pegs for a change of ride position when going long distance.
Any number of upright two's four's and even six's to satisfy those that want them.
If we are talking design change, then Honda could just modify what they have to give a bit more leg room.

imported post

Jason m wrote:

triple wankel screw with twin turbo. Small compact and faaassssttt.

Click to expand...

I wonder what Wankel bike could be called?

It's sound going thru the gears...
BERT BEERT BEEERT BEEEEEERT BEEEEEEEEEEEERT

I know, call it Bert.

imported post

I have not seen a v-twin or an inline motor that has the amount milage that the good old honda goldwing motor has the history of

imported post

FM wrote:

Jason m wrote:

triple wankel screw with twin turbo. Small compact and faaassssttt.

Click to expand...

I wonder what Wankel bike could be called?

It's sound going thru the gears...
BERT BEERT BEEERT BEEEEEERT BEEEEEEEEEEEERT

I know, call it Bert.

Click to expand...

Suzuki called it "RE5".

imported post

How about a turbine bike. Not a screamer like Leno's with a helicopter turbine on it but just a small package 100 hp one. The drivetrain would be almost nil and the bike would have a great sound.

imported post

wilf wrote:

Just get over it and put in a v twin. Seems to be what everybody is asking for. lots of room for feet low saddle and looks like a hog to
Wilf

As you can see Ilike my goldwings just the way they are LOL

Click to expand...

already been done though Wilf, its a CX/GL500 Silverwing? :applause:

imported post

Iagree with Silverfox. Could more leg roombe accoplished by giving the flat 6 a shorter stroke and then compinsating that with a slightly larger piston?

imported post

can someone explain why a motor with the tranny underneith is less topheavy than one with the tranny behind. I never understood how that could be true when it raises the center of gravity because the motor has to be raised to make room for the tranny. I am not anti-honda by any means but I think bmw had a better idea.

SAMK I dont think the tranny underneath is less top heavy..My Vulcan 2000 V-Twin is way more top heavy than my Wing.. And I have to manhandle the V-Twin in corners..

samk said:

can someone explain why a motor with the tranny underneith is less topheavy than one with the tranny behind. I never understood how that could be true when it raises the center of gravity because the motor has to be raised to make room for the tranny. I am not anti-honda by any means but i think bmw had a better idea.

Click to expand...

=======
The motor is "X" wide and cannot be narrowed. The motor must sit high enough to clear the maximum lean for turns.
There's space wasted under this motor so to keep the bike short, tranny under the motor makes it compact.
Now "IF" the motor was a slight V then it can be lower in the frame and the trans behind, as your wish, BUT the bike will be longer.
It's about trade offs.
:?