I was talking with a guy I know who is a Factory backed Yamaha racer with an RX1 and I asked him about it. He said it is heavier than everyone is saying, makes less horsepower than claimed and can't get out of its own way. I'm sure it is a descent sled (but so is a MXZ 380 fan) but it is not anything I want.
Some people are saying that it is going to save our sport from the tree-huggers. I say if that is the future of snowmobiling, I am not interested.
Manufacturers left the triples of the early and mid 90's for lighter twins and are doing all they can to build a lighter sled. Now they want to go back to a heavy slug? They don't have to. Drop the 4-stroke joke and give me a 2-stroke w/ less smoke.
Ski-Doo's new SDI is heading in the direction I want to go - huge increase in fuel economy, huge decrease in harmful emmissions, no decrease in power, minimal weight increase.

C'mon......its not that bad :D Wait untill all the after market guys have one of these sleds for more than a day and you might be eating your words. SWRules

I believe that this industry will have a mixture of both types. I think they will both succeed in their own respect. I sure hope that the big 4 start SERIOUSLY developing some SERIOUSLY clean 2 stroke technology to keep weight down and power high. If they don't focus on reducing 2 stroke emissions and just cater to the greenies, we may be mostly 4 stroke before too long.

Theres no substitute for a piped 800 triple. To me the noise and the smell is all part of the experience. Theres nothing like comgin home from a weekend of sledding and still smelling the exgaust on your jacket for days after.

in todays market there is basically a machine for everyone,its the people who are bashing the rx-1 and comparing it to the rev and the firecat that are getting old,if you dont want an rx-1 because its heavy then dont buy one,buy what you want to ride,but also on the other sites the yammie guys dont help because they are gloating about how it will be the ultimate beat everything machine,i like the way skidoo is going with the sdi,that is a sled for me in the future,the rx-1 is nice,buts its just not for me

I will not knock the RX1, its seems to be a good first attempt at the 4 stroke tech. None of us really know, it has not been run on the snow by the consumer yet. I know it is to heavy for my segment of the sport (mountains), but it will be good for the lakes. I do believe our future has already been determined, DFI will keep s on two strokes. Most are not aware that a DFI equiped two stroke won the emissions competition this year against the 4 strokes.


RIDE SAFE

:withstupid: It is alot of talk i guess for something none of us have ridden. Weight or not we could all handle a sled of that size given the claimed benefits of 4 strokes. All i know is that for now i will stick with my two strokes

I seen a new rx-1 and tried to pick up the front end, WOW!! For the guys who have to turn them around, good luck.
I will stick to mt tripple 800. SWRules

This is how i view the whole thing.

4 strokes are the least efficient engine design. They fire only half the time.

2 strokes are a reciprocating engine that fires all the time and is a much more efficient engine design.

The most efficient is a rotary engine which might make an appearance but not likely.

The only advantage of the 4 stroke was cleaner emissions, and smokeless. well now that 2 stroke technology can not only meet but beat the 4 stokes in every category I don’t see a reason to keep 4 strokes around in sleds, atv, cars, and so on.

Yes it seems outrageous for me to say cars. But just think of all the time and development put into 4 strokes and yet they cant match the power of a comparable sized 2 stroke, they have no where near the efficiency of a 2 stroke and they no longer possess any emission advantages.

Not only that but the CVT trannys that are in sleds, atv, and starting to come out in cars are a perfect match for 2 strokes.

Then you have the people that say 2 strokes don’t make any torque, Well have you ever been in a boat powered by a 300hp 2 stroke and experienced how fast this one motor can send 2000+lbs boats right out of the water and over 80mph.

Honda rants and raves about there engines making 1hp per CI of displacement. HAHAHAHA any 2 stroke sled engine will kill that number.

Now you may think that 2 strokes are getting the same amount of research as 4 strokes but there not. There not because companies like Suzuki, rotax, Yamaha are all trying to keep the costs down because they will be using these motors for recreational vehicles and they have to save money.

Now Rotax/bombardier is the clear leader in 2 stroke technology having bought the rights to Fitch, Orbital, and there own RFI. They now possess the 2 best methods of direct injection systems and they will definitely move on from there. SDI is semi direct. It is not fully direct. When a fully direct system comes out it will offer more power then carbs, better emissions the sdi, and more appeal to everyone.

The advantages are there, the choice is clear.

2 stroke have a future and IMO will make a comeback and send the heavy, less efficient 4 strokes packing. When i turn the key or pull the rope on my sled. The feeling of having a 2 stroke reciprocating motor that is light and powerful is one that cant be replaced by something like the RX-1.

Sure the RX-1 may be fast, It may look good, but how much money went into making that engine, then getting it converted to run in a sled, and after all that it makes less hp then a 800 triple and weighs more then any other sled. And to top it of will make more emissions and use the same amount of fuel as the SDI motors in the legends.

So to sum things up I think what you have to look at is what you look for when sledding. Some like to ride to look at the trees and wildlife, some like to ride fast and aggressive, and there are some like me who love engines and technology and love the smell of 2 stroke and the concept of one. And for me a 2stroke is a part of sledding and if they ever get canceled out a part of sledding for me will die. This is why I march on and hope that my sport carries on the way I love it..


:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

Mach, pretty close to what I'm thinking. Nicely said. Rick. :)

Sure will be nice when the spell check is on line. :doh:

I wouldn't say that its doing either.

I would say, its making it exciting. Adding more options for us to look at when we purchase a sled.

Will two strokes die - I doubt it, with the advances they are making.
Will 4 strokes stay - absolutely.
Will I buy a 4 stroke - not today. not this year, but down the road, could happen.

I really don't understand the fear some people have for change. I really don't see it limiting our options, just adding to them. Technology will continue to improve, and we will be the ones benefiting.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. The manufactures will build, what the public will buy. Thats the basic concept of business.

FishHog

I'd have to agree with you Mach.. to a point. The advantages of a 2 stroke are clear but I will argue any day about your point about torque and 2 strokes. They do make torgue but it is in such a narrow power band that at times it can be hard to use that torque. This is why at times we are scratching our heads trying to figure out the best clutch set up for the day. The RX-1 with it 4 stroke will be less affected by changing snow conditions because of that torque. It runs fairly clean and will in the future have efi which will make it cleaner. Personally my-self I like 2 strokes but if the right 4 stroke came around I just might go for it.
I don't much care for CVT on anything but a sled right now though. I owned 2 atv's with CVT's and I was very happy to get rid of them. Junk. I could never pull much with them and if the belt got wet... well that's enough talk about atv's on this site. I'm just gettin bitchy 'cause there's no snow here yet. Got words of encouragement though the other day. An old native trapper told me that this winter will be mild with lots of snow because the beavers have not made there hut's that thick this fall. Lord I hope he's correct.

Well said fish hog.I personally am more interested in sdi 2-strokes
but that is me so i'm not gonna try and ram it down someones throat.
In my opinion all the luxury cruising/touring sleds should and will be
4-strokes in the near future ;)

Fishhog the same could be said about the triples when the twins came out in force. The magazines beat the triples to death with useless facts and info.

This site is a good surveying tool. How come American snowmobiler and other mags constantly say the triple market is dead when there are a ton of people on this site that would be very excited to buy a triple zx.

What you will see if the 4 strokes gain ground is manufactures spending all there R&D money on them, trying to make them lighter, more powerful, cheaper to build. Meanwhile ignoring the 2 stroke just like they ignored the Mach Z and left it unchanged in the CK3 for so many years.

The commercials, New Chassis, magazines, Greenies, and such will all point us into buying the new 4 stroke, Or we could get an out of date 2 stroke in an out of date chassis that magazines give poor reviews to and there are no commercials for, face it nobody wants a dying sled.

My point is there isn’t room enough for both. Manufactures wont put the time into 2 strokes to make them better, they will put the time and money into 4 stroke to try and make them comparable to 2 strokes.

This does not excite me. Why go to a less efficient motor and spend money to try and bring it to the level at which we are at right now.

And judging by the poll results at the current time there are a lot of sledders that would like to see 2 strokes have a good future as top dog.

I dont have a problem with 4 strokes. If the manufactors could make both of them work then im all for it. However i dont see this happeing just look at seadoo, It goes one way or the other..

I agree lay off the 4 stroke campaign trying to make somthing out of it that will never be " i dont think" and start working on a cleaner two stroke. If they are going to keep making four strokes, put them in touring sleds because thats all they should be for, but for guys like us who want performance sleds, the two stroke is the ticket, lightweight HP and torque, and like Powderboy said the sound and smell is part of the experience of owning a performance sled, and i for one am not willing to give that up.

My thoughts would appear to be in a minority here. I have no strong feelings for either the ground pounding triple/triples or a solution providing the same performance in a 4 stroke. To speculate now regarding who will be supreme at the tracks 5 years in the future would seem to require a crystal ball. I say give them a chance with whatever new idea they think will work. After that, it's up to us. We'll like it and it will be a success, or we won't, and they'll try again...

'Til I find something better, that I can afford, triples will dominate my riding
preferences.

AL

I realize that someone might want the RX1. But I think the only real reason someone would get it is for emissions/fuel economy. But if you can get that with a 2-stroke that makes more power and weighs less then why build a 4-stroke? Oh yeah, for the torque. Hmmm...if the sled didn't weigh so much it wouldn't need the torque. And I am fed up with everyone building it up to be something that so far it hasn't proven to be.
For those of you who say "if you don't want it, don't buy it", I am just afraid that one day that is all I will be able to buy.
Also, for you who say "the manufacturers will build what the consumer wants", I think you are wrong. They tend to build what the magazines push. I WANT A TRIPLE/TRIPLE IN A LIGHT CHASSIS. Than can do it but they don't because the stupid editors say a MXZ is for the trails (they claim an 800 twin should be enough - well it is until I get onto an open road or lake) and a Mach Z is for the lakes. Why can't I take that power into the trails. Granted I am not going to use it in the turns or down a tight trail, but when go to the lake I want to open it up.

This part is sappy but...
What this is all about is that I want my grand kids to be able to enjoy snowmobiling more than I do (softer rides, better handling, more power, etc. from technology gains). I also want them to have a season just as long as mine. I don't want global warming to make it so they can only ride in late Jan to early Feb. Finally, the less oil we import the better off we all are. I am not an extremist, I mean I have a V-8 in my truck, but if you can give me an engine capable of helping the causes listed above I am for it. The clean 2-strokes do this without compromising power or weight.

I agree with most of what your saying, and as for the future, I'm as sappy as the rest.

but, realistically, how many years have the manufactures been improving on 2 stroke technology in sleds to get where they are today. It may be true the some 2 stokes being made this year (not before) can match the emissions of a 4 stroke.

But who's to say what they will be able to do with a 4 stroke after as many years of tweaking. Maybe nothing, maybe lots. Either way, I think the challenge to the manufactures will continue to put out new and exciting products for us to play with.

I for one, have seen too many things become possible in the last decade, that I would never have though would; to make a prediction on whats going to happen in the future, with the little bit of information we have today.

And if the magazines are calling the shots, maybe we should be telling the magazines what we really want.

FishHog

P.S. I like my 2 stroke triple also, but I won't say I may never ride a 4 stroke in the future.

I am in favour of them developing both 2 and 4 stroke engines for our sport and it should result in better benefits to us the consumer.

Do I want a 4 stroke right now. No way, they are too new to our sport.

Would I buy one in the future. Quite possibly, if it was what I needed at the time and was better than the 2 stroke.

One area not mentioned is the longer life of a 4 stroke. It is my belief that a 4 stroke would last much longer than a 2 stroke. I would definitely be interested in a sled that I could expect to get 100,000 miles out of rather than 20,000. Most of us wouldn't even consider buying a used sled with more than 10,000 miles on it.

Torque can be made with a 2 stroke. It all depends on how the engine is built and what its designed to do. Look at 2 stroke desiels like the ones in train engine and look at outboard boat motors.

As for long life, This is a hurdle that can be overcome. There is no reason why a 4 stroke should last longer. Infact it should not last as long due to the fact that it has more moving parts and are much more complex.

IMO 2 strokes are still built the sameway they were back in the 70s. Now they have better carbs and computers to aid them, but the design is the same. The rotary valved Rotax was a great improvment but it was tossed. for weight issues. I think that if they put some money into the motor we would see 2 strokes take over. At least I hope they do. Just think how a 5.7L 2 stroke V8 would feel in your truck when you hit the gas. LOL. Now thats wishfull but them sticking around in sleds is not.

THis topic is getting great opinions and views, keep it up.

I wouldn't consider the RX-1 as a sport saviour but I certainly wouldn't say that it makes the sport any worse. It is just another step technology evolution. Some will like it, some will resist it for being different, and some will just plain hate it.

I think the political pressure is going to be a huge governing factor. That's the only reason for the 4-strokes we have now. Sure they've always been in development but I doubt Cat (and later) Polaris would have released what they did if it weren't for the Yellowstone debate.

I think 4-stokes have shut up the greanie polution argument but they'll dream up another angle with more junk science and lies to agrue about.

What I don't like is the idea of a politician, manufacturer marketing plan, or even a magazine author telling me what I like and don't like or what I should ride. I can think for myself.

I would like to see development of both technologies and give us a choice. I doubt that will happen though.

There are lots of things that make a four-stroke better than a two-stroke. In fact if you really want to break it down the only advantage to a two-stroke is the power to weight ratio that can be achieved. Don't get me wrong that is a great thing and will probably keep them alive but thats all there is.
Four strokes have the potential to be much more reliable, and they are much more consistant. As far as torque and two strokes goes. The analogy that MachZ made with the boats is far off. I own a 2.5 litre 200 horse motor on a Hydrostream Valero. Yes it has tons of torque but its also 2500cc's.
Ford, Honda, GM, and Toyota all did R and D work on two-strokes. It was in the late 90's when they were all aparently considering putting a two stroke in a car. The new technology in two-strokes had proven that two-strokes can be clean so they decided if they can meet the greenies standards why not go for it. They all came to the same conclusions from the testing. They found that two-strokes are too peaky, far from reliable, and not consistant enough in their performance to be compared to a four-stroke and thats why we don't have any two-stroke cars.
The RX-1 motor has been around and there is no question about the numbers. 145 horses is 145 horses, its getting it to the ground that creates a problem. A four stroke is very different from a two stroke and that makes clutching this thing a mystery. Its just a matter of time til they figure it out. My question is...how long?

There are lots of things that make a four-stroke better than a two-stroke. In fact if you really want to break it down the only advantage to a two-stroke is the power to weight ratio that can be achieved. Don't get me wrong that is a great thing and will probably keep them alive but thats all there is.
Four strokes have the potential to be much more reliable, and they are much more consistant. As far as torque and two strokes goes. The analogy that MachZ made with the boats is far off. I own a 2.5 litre 200 horse motor on a Hydrostream Valero. Yes it has tons of torque but its also 2500cc's.
Ford, Honda, GM, and Toyota all did R and D work on two-strokes. It was in the late 90's when they were all aparently considering putting a two stroke in a car. The new technology in two-strokes had proven that two-strokes can be clean so they decided if they can meet the greenies standards why not go for it. They all came to the same conclusions from the testing. They found that two-strokes are too peaky, far from reliable, and not consistant enough in their performance to be compared to a four-stroke and thats why we don't have any two-stroke cars.
The RX-1 motor has been around and there is no question about the numbers. 145 horses is 145 horses, its getting it to the ground that creates a problem. A four stroke is very different from a two stroke and that makes clutching this thing a mystery. Its just a matter of time til they figure it out. My question is...how long? In the long run it will be a great sled but it will have its draw backs, and so will the two stroke. Its all a matter of preference.

When the automakers tried to develope 2 strokes the ran into problems, Money. They ran out of it because they made a huge mistake. They desided to start from scratch not start where other 2 stroke engine builders left of. They simply ran out of time and money. However suburu had a 2 stroke car and it ran reliable for many years. And chrysler is toying with the idea of making a 2 stroke car for europe. The technology is there, the reliablity is there, and CVT trannys take care of the peaky powerband. Plus with DI technology that rought idle is gone.

You also said my facts about the outboards are off. Well i take it you never saw a outboard engine put into a small car. Well I did, a guy used a merc 3.1L and put it into a civic. The smoke show and time he sat left every 4 stroke owner emmbarrissed.

I have not read all of the posts in this thread, but the simple truth here is that you will see a Ficht Direct Injection Ski-doo in late 2004 or early 2005 and it will be instantly successful.

Snowmobilers want light, tightly packaged snowmobiles (DI) OR they want a fuel efficient, long living and smooth riding trail machine (4 stroke).

In a few years, the Sport category will be dominated by the DI mills, the trail turds will go nuts for the 4-stroke, mostly for its lifetime advantages.

Think of the packaging advantages of removing the carbs completely. Think of how close to the bulkhead the engines could be in this configuration and the weight savings therein.

Ski-doo has clearly announced their intentions of developing DI. They didn't buy Ficht technology so that they could license it to others; they bought it to use it. Their "test" SDI 800 engine further proves that they are testing market acceptance of such technology.

2005 will see a fully developed DI sled from Ski-doo, probably in a REV chassis and probably on their top models, like their biggest twin and a 600-class sled.

-Rob

Ok, we've figured this up on another site. How much money does the RX1 save a year? I figured it for 3000 miles. We had a ZR800 getting 14 mpg and amsnow reported the RX1 is getting 16-18 so we used the average.

100 miles per a ride
ZR800
7.2g @ $1.75 = $12.60
1q @ $3.75 = $3.75
x 30 rides = $490.50

RX1
5.9 @ $1.75 = $10.33
x 30 rides = $309.90
+8q @ $2 = $16
+2 filters @ $4 = $8
Total = $333.90

Difference of $156.60 for 3000 miles :doh:
For me I will stay with my 2 strokes!! After the RX1 came with the cheap shocks in back you will need that to upgrade.

I'm kindof the blacksheep of the group with 4 stroke technology. I like the idea of doing a fall maintenance service and forgetting about it. I like the idea of being able to run cheap gas in the thing. I'm primarily a trail rider, so I want the thing to be quiet, nor do I particularly want to smell it. Yes, I REALLY like the idea of the sled lasting several years. It makes the justification of owning one a bit more viable with where I live. I also want the environazies off of my back as well. My favorite places to ride are those that they want to kick us out of.

Public perception is another matter. Regardless of how clean DFI SDI and all of the other up and coming two stroke technologies are, the public perception is two stroke engines are a nasty, smelly, smoky, noisy, crude engine. I'm really for all technologies that make improvements in emissions on what we ride.

Oh ya, for those who have put 20,000 miles on a sled. Did you chassis hold up or did it have to be rebuilt?

[quote]the public perception is two stroke engines are a nasty, smelly, smoky, noisy, crude engine[quote]

That sums up the 2-stroke. The non-informed public has been filled with biased, fictitious garbage that 2-strokes are killing them and the environazies don't want to hear anything to the contrary.

I just got done reading a really good article in Snowtech. Its about the development of direct injection. They say that it also has benifits in four-strokes. It sounds to me like Yamaha was just trying to keep up with the RX-1. The article says that Yamaha has worked with some form of direct injection but couldn't because of economic problems in Japan to use it. They instead converted an engine they already had to fit in a sled. I'm not ready for a four stroke but if they can equal a two stroke I'll give it a chance. For now I think DI on a two stroke is the best possibility.

One more thing everyone keeps saying how 4 strokes will be quiter. Have these people heard an RX-1. When I heard the one run at the indoor snow cross in fargo last winter it made the open-mod sleds sound quite.

good points fellas

"give me 2-stroke or give me death"

The concept of DFI was developed my a company called orbital. They took these ideas and tried to sell them to auto manufacturers around the world. The auto manufacturers didn't run out of money or start off on the wrong foot. They were working with orbital and the most high tech two strokes out there. Chrysler is still considering putting out a two stroke car but it will be a cheap economy car that will cost half as much and last half as long as anything else out there.
Eventually orbital found a buyer for its two-stroke concepts...OMC...but OMC got off on the wrong foot and had too many problems. Now ski-doo has the rights and is listening to the engineers at orbital and getting off on the right foot. The DFI will be a success but it still won't be as reliable. As for the car comparison...I saw the same thing in an RX-7 but the guy doesn't run it anymore because he was sick of rebuilding it and it wasn't even a daily driver.
Yamaha is not having any problems with their two stroke development, they have built two-stroke prototypes that meet the same power and emitions standards as the DFI two strokes. I think they are just trying to open up another end of the market thats all. If it fails then they have plenty of ammo in the two stroke field to bounce back. As for me the only reason why I own a Yamaha is because I like the SRX, now that its gone my next sled will be either a polaris or a doo depending on when I end up buying...oh...and it will definately be a two stroke :inlove:

there has to be more chainsaws, lawnmowers, weed trimmers and other 2 strokes than sleds.

Orbital has sold its rights to bombardier not OMC. OMC ownes the rights to FICHT Direct injection which bombardier aquired when they bought OMC.

Bombardier owns both rights to orbital and Ficht.

And yes chrysler is toying with the idea of coming out with a 2 stroke car.

All I have to say is that Rome was not built in a day, give the 4 stroke a few years and I bet they will be much improved. After all do you think you can compare the industries first 2 strokes and the ones we are buying today.

As for myself I will stick with the 2 stroke at least until I see some results worth purchasing.

Yeah but 4 strokes are not new. With there use in Automobiles, Motorcycles, ATVs, Outboards, PWC, Lawnmowers and so on. They really have a advantage over 2 strokes when it comes to R&D time.

I say we give 2 strokes a real chance and bring out some serious technology.

If you can get a 2-stroke as clean as a 4, then I can't see why anyone would want a 4-stroke.

Well not only can you get them as clean, you can get them cleaner with Zero performance loss. Acually Di motors have better perfromance and a improved low end. With a silky smooth idle.

Originally posted by TNT Racing@Oct 3 2002, 06:26 PM
If you can get a 2-stroke as clean as a 4, then I can't see why anyone would want a 4-stroke.
Remember, a four stroke has the longevity advantage and the clean image to start with.

For a long distance and high mileage trail rider, the longevity advantage of the four stroke certainly holds water.

Myself, I'd take the DI two-stroke, but I'm not a high-mileage trail grampy....er rider....either.

-Rob

Originally posted by Machzzzz1@Oct 3 2002, 04:14 AM
Orbital has sold its rights to bombardier not OMC. OMC ownes the rights to FICHT Direct injection which bombardier aquired when they bought OMC.

Bombardier owns both rights to orbital and Ficht.

And yes chrysler is toying with the idea of coming out with a 2 stroke car.
Thank you for clarifying that point, it was needed.

Ive seen sleds go past 25000KM on 583 two stroke and on some 500s with no engine rebuild. I dont really want to keep a sled past 10000km anyways becasue more things ware out besides the engine.

Sort of like a guy trying to sell a lawnmower good for 300years. I dont really care. I want a new sled every few years anyway.

All I have to say is that Rome was not built in a day, give the 4 stroke a few years and I bet they will be much improved. After all do you think you can compare the industries first 2 strokes and the ones we are buying today.


Now lets compare apples to apples. At the time 2 stroke started in sleds they were better then what was being used, 4 strokes. The technology is out there for 4 strokes. Here is an article from a magazine with some interesting info:

BMW’S VALVETRAIN VOODOO

While most manufacturers are still arguing whether double overhead camshafts are indeed superior to the single-cam variety, BMW recently unveiled technology that does away with the traditional valvetrain entirely. That means the demise of the camshaft, cambucket, rocker arm, even the camchain and its attendant tensioning blades.

The traditional camshaft has one severe limitation: The timing of the opening and closing of the exhaust valves is fixed, and therefore optimized for a relatively narrow powerband. Although variable valve timing is now common on cars (and has been tried on some Japanese domestic model 400s), it’s only a temporary solution. Typically, current systems can only alter intake timing by 40 degrees, so volumetric efficiency is optimized for just a few thousand revs and compromised everywhere else.

Radical even compared with the pneumatic valves exclusive to Formula One cars, BMW’s new electromagnetic system uses magnets and a computer to open both intake and exhaust valves with continuously variable lift and duration. Tested on one of BMW’s big inline-Six car engines, the new system controls each valve individually via its own electromagnet. Monitored by the same computer that meters fuel injection, the valves can be opened and closed for any period desired. At idle, valve timing is very short with the intake valve open just a few degrees of duration. At peak rpm, the valves can be kept open for much longer than with a conventional camshaft.

BMW’s motivation for this wizardry is to eliminate the throttle butterfly and control engine output by continuously modifying the lift and duration of the intake valve. Reportedly, the aerodynamic disruption of the partially closed butterfly causes significant fuel economy losses-as much as 18 percent at idle. Eliminating the obstruction allows a clearer path for the incoming mixture from the airbox to the intake valve. That, along with the more rapid opening and closing of the valves, also generates 5 percent more power.

In terms of motorcycling, large displacement single and twins are currently the only possible benefactors of this technology since the electromagnets controlling the valves are redlined at 7000 rpm. As well, these engines’ large inlet tracks and throttle plates would benefit the most from the improved intake efficiency.

In the meantime, BMW still has to overcome such obstacles as the heavy power demand of the electromagnets, as well as packaging their heft and bulk. Though production versions of electromagnetic valves are not expected before the beginning of the new millennium, the company has working models, so it may not be long before the magic of grinding cams is a lost art.—David Booth

This article was printed in 1997 or 1998, I believe in Cycle World magazine.

I haven’t heard anything new from BMW about this but a diesel engine manufacturer is playing around with this design and already has an engine in production that is setup to run electromagnetic valves.

That is neat stuff but it still doesnt give you the advantage of a 2 stoke being that it fires on every stroke.

M10,
My neightbor's son is a Ford engineer, thats where I have been getting all of this information. He came to visit this summer and we had a long talk. He is an R and D guy and spends a lot of time in New Mexico testing. He says that the manufacturers all keep a close eye on each other and thats how he knows what he knows. He told me that the problem with the two stroke was not only reliability but that its a dead end route for manufacturers. According to him there isn't much in the future of two strokes after DFI (and related concepts) compared to what the future holds for four strokes. Granted DFI will take us a long way but where do they go after that? That stuff you posted about BMW must be part of what he was talking about. He said the future holds far more for four cycle engines than it does four two cycles. As of now there is more in store for the four stroke fans than the two stroke fans the question is how long will it take for the technology to roll out. I think us snowmobile gurus are clueless to what the future really holds.

Sounds like a 100 years ago around here. "dog-gannit I ain't trading my horse n cart in for no dog-gone automobile"

I like 2-strokes, powerbands. but face it, the gas mileage sucks. everytime the piston comes up, it is, no matter what you say, it is spitting out raw fuel through the exhaust.

YEah but with Di you get zero fuel blow by.

And Engine technology will never hit a dead end. Both engines have so much more you can do to them to make them better.

Exactly! There is lots of room to improve on both.

So lets just sit back and enjoy the improvements. Its only going to get better for us, which ever technology you prefer.

The way I see it, its win, win for us.

Not if they keep jacking the price up on the friggin things every
year like they have been :angry:

Originally posted by Machzzzz1@Oct 4 2002, 12:44 PM
YEah but with Di you get zero fuel blow by.

And Engine technology will never hit a dead end. Both engines have so much more you can do to them to make them better.
What about the lube oil?

Technology is an evolutionary thing. Both the two stroke motors and the 4 stroke motors are built with old technology. It does not mater what is bolted to them to make them burn cleaner or produce more h.p.. The fact is the internal workings of the motors have been the same since day one. 2 stroke motors are almost at there peak of engineering with the current materials and resources that are in existance. The 4 strokes do have more potential do be something but as stated in many of the other posts the money to research it does not justify the cost at this point in time. (nuff said about that.)

I have not seen in the other posts (unless I overlooked something) The cost to maintain and repair a 4 stroke. I am sure that alot of the people that have ever rebuilt a 15 or 20 horse Kohler or any small 4 stroke motor for that mater will agree that this is not a cheap and easy thing to do. In addition the weight factor and heat produced by 4 strokes is a big issue. The fact that the motor will need electric start all the time is another. I sure would not want to pull over a 1000cc or better 4 stroke. So on and so forth.
The industry needs to make some real honast improvements to eqipement instead of just putting a band aid on the industry. I for one do not think that a 4 stroke motor from a bike put into a sled and clutched for a sled is high technology. ;)

paul,
[quote]the gas mileage sucks. everytime the piston comes up, it is, no matter what you say, it is spitting out raw fuel through the exhaust[quote]
That is true of current 2-strokes, but Doo's SDI reduces it alot. And a DI 2-stroke would waste no fuel out the exhaust port. The fuel is injected when the piston closes the port.

They sure are expensive. I see Doo has a higher list price for the touring 800sdi than a darn REV or Gade800.That's nuts!!! And it lists for alot more,not some small amount. I for one wouldn't pay that much extra for the SDI engine.
caleb

its always the consumer that pays,my friend just got a quote for a 600 h.o gade with rer and electric start $11700 tax included,we demand technology,but its not cheap

Don't pay that much Pantera one. Well tel your female friend not to pay that. Permafrost said his dealer is elling the 800 rer gades for less than that. Do some checking around. I've called about 10 dealers so far.
Caleb

pm me any places you might think are cheaper,it has to have rer and electric start,dealer took $700 off list then added the 2 features to the price

PM permafrost for dealers to check out up in Canada. I get out the phone book and trader mags and call dealers till I geta price I like from a dealer I knoe is good to deal with.
Caleb

tHE DEALER i GOT MY QUOTE FROM FOR 7482 WAS FOR THE '03 800 RER GADE W/OUT ELECTRIC START. tO MUCH WEIGHT. iT WAS NICHOLSON'S HONDA,YAMAHA,ARCTIC CAT,POLARIS,KAWASAKI IN ANN ARBOR,MI. i CAN GET YOU THE NUMBER IF YOU WANT IT. i'D HELP DELIVER IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE TAX'S BRINGING IT BACK.
CALEB

Originally posted by TaxiCat@Oct 4 2002, 06:14 PM
Technology is an evolutionary thing. Both the two stroke motors and the 4 stroke motors are built with old technology. It does not mater what is bolted to them to make them burn cleaner or produce more h.p.. The fact is the internal workings of the motors have been the same since day one. 2 stroke motors are almost at there peak of engineering with the current materials and resources that are in existance. The 4 strokes do have more potential do be something but as stated in many of the other posts the money to research it does not justify the cost at this point in time. (nuff said about that.)

I have not seen in the other posts (unless I overlooked something) The cost to maintain and repair a 4 stroke. I am sure that alot of the people that have ever rebuilt a 15 or 20 horse Kohler or any small 4 stroke motor for that mater will agree that this is not a cheap and easy thing to do. In addition the weight factor and heat produced by 4 strokes is a big issue. The fact that the motor will need electric start all the time is another. I sure would not want to pull over a 1000cc or better 4 stroke. So on and so forth.
The industry needs to make some real honast improvements to eqipement instead of just putting a band aid on the industry. I for one do not think that a 4 stroke motor from a bike put into a sled and clutched for a sled is high technology. ;)
There are tricks to spinning up a large displacement engine by hand withou killing yourself. My diesel tractor can be pull started if need be. All I need to do is wrap a rope around the front pulley, push down on the compression release lever, and then pull hard, releasing the compression release lever as soon as I'm done pulling.

Hey Sled Dogg, did you factor in the currency exchange? according to this website, (http://www.x-rates.com) one US dollar equals 1.5943 Canadian so you multiply 7482 by 1.5943 and you get 11928.55 Canadian,

for 200 dollars more, you get an 800. Seems like a good deal.

Funny how all the DFI fans talk so highly about how it does this and that but can't explain it. DFI does do a lot to prevent raw fuel from dumping through the exhaust. It breaks up the fuel much better so it all burns and so you have no raw fuel being emitted out the exhaust. Just thought I would add that in :D

There are many ways DFI systems work. One way is to have a air compressor that charges the injectors so that it can inject the fuel at super high pressure into the combustion chamber (Orbital, Ficht). It needs to atomize the fuel but it cant atomize it to small because if the mist is to thin it wont cool down the top of the piston. SDI is injecting the fuel into the intake ports. SKidoos goal was to inject the fuel so that non would go out the exhaust port. To do this they needed a second injector so that when the engine is reving up to the max rpm both injectors fire the fuel in at the last moment and by the time it makes it to the other side the exhaust ports are closed up.

As for lube oil. New synthetic oils such as amsol are cleaner and burn almost 100% as long as your engine is adjusted right. THe SDI motors and DI motors will be adjusted perfectly. They are also biodegradable so there really isnt that much harm.

Also in a DI motor or SDI motor no oil is mixed with the gas period. The oil tank injects fuel thru to injectors inside the crank aimed at the components that need oiling such as crank bearings. Unlike current 2 stokes no gas will pass thru the crank only air. So the oil injected will go a lot farther then the system now where its just being blown thru.

A SDI or DI engine will differ from current 2 strokes in many ways.

1. THey will be silky smooth at idle, Not like the current two strokes that miss and idle rought.

2. THey will be silky smooth throughout the powerband and will have perfect fuel and air mix at all RPM.

3. THey will be slightly faster reving and will have more bottom end becasue now the engine is not missing at low RPMS.

4. THey will use much less gas and oil.

5. They will last much longer due to having perfect oil and fuel/air mix. No longer will the engine carbon up (which wears rings and such) And no longer will your engine suffer from lean conditions. Engine will also have a detonation sensor so Pre ignition and bad gas wont kill you engine.


And one comment made above about 2 strokes being at there developmental limit. Nothing is at there limit. There is no limit. And 4 stroke have a lot more time and money invested in them with no advantages over 4 stokes.

So what if you need to rebuild after 15000km (And probably a lot higher with the DI motors). With a 2 stroke its cheap, Fast, and easy with not a lot of wait. With a 4 stroke it opposite and somthing that would probably justify selling or trading the whole sled for a new one.

Machzzzz1, If the oil is not mixing with the gas, where is it going? out the tailpipe raw? I don't think so. I agree with you the Doo engine you mention will save more fuel and burn cleaner, but it still burns oil. and that oil will mix with the gas and burn. And the engine will carbon up. I could careless which way they go. The Manufactures are going to make what they want and you will buy it. Thats the bottom line. If you want a new machine, what else are you going to get?? They are all basically the same.

after 10 years of all the companies making advances in shedding weight,all of a sudden we have a near 600lbs dry weight sled thats to be all the rage?and everyone saying its heavy but they dont mind,yes it might be fast but in a straight line,i think skidoo is actually far ahead of yamaha with the sdi by maintaing a lightweight nimble machine,when you start carving down a twisty trail or 2-3foot chopped up trails ill take a sled thats 100-130 lbs lighter,yes the rx1 will outlast a sdi motor but like machzzz1 said the 2 stroke is so easy to work on,and who is going to keep a sled until 80000-100000 kms?not too many!it boils down to buying what you want,its the yamaha guys that keep gloating about this super beat all sled and that yamaha has so much technology everyone else is behind....well not skidoo :D :D

In a Sdi motor no oil is mixed with gas. This is becasue the gas does not travel thru the crank. It gets injected straite into the combustion chamber. If they did mix the oil with gas it would not go into the crank and do its job.

The oil does enter the combustion chamber along with the air that came thru the throttle bodies. All im saying is that oil injection on these engines are much more persise and much less waste full and not as much oil is required to feed the engine becasue now you have aimed injectors that shoot oil to the spots that need lubing and cooling.

I am not going to read all the posts here so this may be repetative but look at the Outboard Motor industry. They ran into this argument several years before. Two strokes are now EFI, DFI SDI as well as four strokes. Four stroke will not replace 2 stroke and vise versa.
In the outboard industry they both have there pluses and minuses. Out of the hole? - 2 stoke, Quitness? - 4 stroke, Fuel efficiency? - equal, emissions? - equal, Smoke? - equal, Oil consumption? - equal (one burns oil and the other you have to change) WOL db? - equal, but a different tone for the 4 stroke. Neither will leave but companies will share technology for cleaner more effiecient engines over the long run. How do I know? Go to your local boat dealer and look at Mercury's new 225 four stroke......It is a Yamaha with a black hood. They are performing a joint venture in shareing technology. :) I sell both Yamaha and Mercury outboards on our boat lines. The sledding industry will follow their lead. Bombardier is already doing this with their new Envinrudes/ Johnsons outboards and PWC.

Doo

Accually in emmitions, fuel and noise 2 stroke wins according to a study between evinrude Ficht 2 strokes and yamaha 4 stroke outboard.[img]http://www.evinrude.com/evinrude/media/221_tx_cleaner1.gif' border='0' width='400' height='159.32203389831' alt='user posted image'>
[img]http://www.evinrude.com/evinrude/media/221_tx_cleaner3.gif' border='0' width='400' height='159.32203389831' alt='user posted image'>

And of course the 2 stroke is lighter and makes more power.

Your post Machzzzzzzz1 does not impress me. It looks as it was done by evinrude which makes it biased. and if 2 strokes are so much cleaner, than why are they banning them from California lakes? There are many places in California that you are not allowed to run 2 stroke outboards due to oil burning emissions which pollute the water. In the 80's I used to have a Kawasaki 750 triple 2 stoke that I rode at the street races and on the track, ported, carbed exhaust, Yes it was a screaming rocket, but by 1985 the Suzuki GS1150 stock, would take it. I go to NHRA races every year. They now run Bikes, You don't see any 2 strokes. all big bore 1350cc.

Yes I ride a Yamaha. I bought one because it is dependable. I don't care if its the fastest, sleakest or whatever. I ride into the sierra's and don't want to be stuck 40 miles out in the middle of nowhere. I am not going to mention other brands, but I have been riding with lots of them and the one sled that don't get towed back to the trailer is MINE OR ANOTHER YAMAHA
To me you just love to bash this RX-1 or Yamaha in general, you can see by your signature. Let it go, get some therapy, it will be all right in the morning. Do you ever see me bashing a Ski-Doo?? Just sit back and have a beer if your old enough. Just my 2 cents.

Accually paul. The lake Tahoe police department desided to use 2 stroke evinrudes because they were convinced that they were the cleanest running out boards. There is more then one test that proves that they are cleaner. So im sorry if this is bad news for you but thats just the way it is.

As for me and my sig. Its just a joke i got going with mxz900 it has nothing to do with yamaha. Go look in the yamaha fourm and read the RX-1 bumper post and the srx detonation post. Tell me if thats bashing.

But just by reading your above post I realize you share the opinions of most yamaha owners. ""Dont want to be stuck 40mi out in the middle of nowhere." Do you really think your that much better off then the rest of us with your yamaha. All makes have reliablility. You have to buy what you feel is the best sled working.

Like I said before it seems like most yamaha owners are high strung or somthing. Learn to take a joke and to ignore things that you absolutly cant stand. Im not gonna get into an other flame war with you guys...

Maybe those graphs are biased, maybe they aren't. Four stroke technology is doing great things for two strokes. Why? It's forcing designers to build a better cleaner product. If you don't, then you die in the marketplace. It's called competition. The reality IS that two stroke engines can be made much cleaner. A two stroke beat a four stroke last winter in the clean snowmobile challenge. More power to 'em. I personally like four stroke engines as all I have to worry about on the trails is keeping the fuel tank full. I can do my service in a warm garage, or in my case, in the relative warmth of southern winters before hauling my equipment north into the cold and snow.

Yamaha has an awesome sled in the RX-1 no doubt. Ski-doo, Arctic Cat, and Polaris aren't about to sit on the sidelines. This is all good, despite how many times the spark plug fires when the engine runs.