Id be all over a 50hp motor like flies on shit if I could get one as a factory option on something other than a modified 35 platform. Then you could mod your 50 to lets say... 80 or 90
| MudmotorTalk.com http://mudmotortalk.com/mmt_v2/ |
|
| Why not a bigger engine, more cc's http://mudmotortalk.com/mmt_v2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30723 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | onwaterillbe [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
I have been hunting with my brother and his 35 gd surface drive. I've spent some time on this sight and other manufacturers sites. I see many people talk about mods on the mud buddy. I like the gator tail's reverse. My question is why doesn't Briggs make a bigger engine with more cc's and more horsepower? I am not an engine guy. If mods shorten the life of the engine it seems you should buy a bigger engine. The 35 Vanguard is 993 cc. Is that reaching the upper limit of an air cooled 4 stroke engine? Seems like they would sell many more engines if they came out with a 50 hp. |
|
| Author: | vertical_edge_800 [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
Id be all over a 50hp motor like flies on shit if I could get one as a factory option on something other than a modified 35 platform. Then you could mod your 50 to lets say... 80 or 90
|
|
| Author: | dguidry [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
I think power to weight ratio becomes an impediment to efficiency when you increase power by increasing size of the engine. |
|
| Author: | Wilson [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
EPA regulations begin at 1000cc. |
|
| Author: | Ruddyduck [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 5:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
^^^What he said. Can you even emagine how many numbers had to be shaved to keep it in the 990s? How would you like a cat converter hanging off the back of your hunting rig? 
|
|
| Author: | Podcast [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
| Author: | cmiller73 [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
They don't have CAT Converters on motorcycles? So how do they get past EPA? |
|
| Author: | GTB builder [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
Im no mechanic, but ive thought about this for awhile. Briggs makes a diesel engine the same size as the 35 hp. Why not slap that on a frame? Wouldnt it have more torque than the gas engines? And maybe take the place of cams if someone is thinking about putting one? |
|
| Author: | Duckdon [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
How fast do you want to hit something hard? Just my humble opinion. Duckdon |
|
| Author: | MaXXis85 [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
| Author: | Podcast [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
| Author: | vertical_edge_800 [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
| Author: | waterfowl1 [ Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
interesting or dead! water hits back ya know??? |
|
| Author: | cb5331 [ Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
It's a 35 vanguard with BPS internals. |
|
| Author: | odass [ Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
Any body know what cc they are after you add rods and pistons? I know it moves piston up .100 but the pistons are shaved that much too. Just wondering |
|
| Author: | brlcla [ Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
Ummm... do you have any mechanical knowledge... cc's are just the volume of the piston movement. BPS does not bore their motors and they use stock crank so cc's don't change... its still 993 no matter if you have a stock or a HD7000... the horsepower they make is all in the efficiency changes in the motor due to airflow and compression increase |
|
| Author: | SwampSlut [ Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
| Author: | odass [ Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
I figured Cody would chime in on this. I was drinking way to many beers last night lol. |
|
| Author: | brlcla [ Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
Really... are ya highlighting my post in red cause ya think im wrong or something? #cyl*(pi/4*bore^2)*stroke aka the same damn thing 50 said jackasses sometimes yall make me go all engineer when I try to K.I.S.S. it for most of you |
|
| Author: | Quack Stackin [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why not a bigger engine, more cc's |
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|