Total Motorcycle Community Forums

You know what sounds ineffiecient to me? Needing four times the movement range to create the same amount of power. Needing taller heavier engine casings to merely accomodate the required parts for air/fuel mix entrance. Not to mention the fact that all that oil sloshing around under the piston creates a nice level of drag.

With the advent of more modern port designs, piston builds, exhaust design, newer/better oil and carb/fuel injection systems the 2-stroke (where developed) is rapidly growing to meet then fuel efficiency of a 4-stroke.

While a four stroke will be a smoother ride in part due to its much heavier flywheel, and "up n down, up n down take forever" method of producing power in this HP crazed world where the bigger the number the better the bike, it seems to me that a 2-stroke is a better engine.

Why do we hate 2-strokes? Because we can see the results of its polution, that cloud of white smoke coming out the exhaust (we also have reduced smoke oils) bothers environmentalists. Who quickly arranged to have emissions laws passed against them. However, 4-strokes at the time of these laws did not meet the standards either!

To make matters worse, where does all that used up 4-stroke oil go? If you get a good/honest shop it'll get recycled... into what I have no idea. Used to be that 4 liters of oil was just dumped into the ground, back where it came from. Tell me that isn't polution?

Different strokes for different folks. Sorry, not punny, is it. I've never seen any law that outlawed any engine technology, 2-strokes, 4-strokes, or otherwise. Heck, even an external combustion engine would be legal as long as it met the applicable emissions and efficiency standards. Laws dictate levels of emissions and fuel efficiency, nothing more, nothing less.

Anyway, each of us has our own priorities when it comes to motorcycles. I prefer a wide powerband, solid torque, low fuel costs, and long maintenance intervals, and I'm willing to pay a little extra and lug around a little weight to have those benefits. I like to slow down and smell the roses, not burnt oil. Therefore, a 4-stroke is best for me. You want more peak power and lighter weight, and you are willing to put up with a limited powerband, pay more for fuel and oil, and do more repairs and maintenance for those benefits. You like to fly past the roses and outrun the oil smoke. Therefore, a 2-stroke is best for you, even if it does sound like an amplified swarm of angry hornets.

Is one type engine better than the other? No. They are different, and each has it's place.

Sevulturus, if you want a 4-cylinder 2-stroke, try a Yamaha TZ750 for kicks. Those suckers will SCREAM. Unfortunately, they only won very short races or races on very tight tracks where their light weight gave an advantage in the corners, because the 4-strokes would catch up while they were refilling the fuel tank, refilling the fuel tank, refilling the fuel tank, refilling the fuel tank. Same goes for the Kawasaki triples. Well, that's what the 4-strokers wanted to believe. Fact is, a TZ Yamaha won Daytona every year from '74 to '82. My '76, the factory OW31 versions with all the magnesium and titanium parts were taking the banks at 190+mph. I'd LOVE to see a well-tuned TZ750 or H2 in a modern supersport frame. It would be the ultimate canyon weapon. I don't think I'd want to ride it, but I'd love to watch a really good rider on one. Sheer poetry.

2 strokes are making a come-back in dirt bikes. My 300 KTM has the weight of a 250 and the power of a 450. Plus, less maintenance, no valves to worry about, etc.