For years riders have been going back and forth on which bike is better. Some say two strokes and some say four strokes. We’ve laid out the facts in this graphic below so you can choose your side!
Thanks to Motocross Gear for the illustration.
Recent Related Posts
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
RSS
Sounds like it was written by the AMA. The statement about pollutants is plain wrong.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Two_stroke_engines_pollute_the_air_more_than_four_stroke_engines
Lets make it more fair and run CC per CC!
Interesting, I thought glow plugs were only used on diesels…
@2T4me then it wouldn’t be fair at all!
The torque figure for the 2 stroke is wrong. That is for a 125.
250′s make over 30ft/lb’s.
Hahaha they compared a 125 to a 450…. thats not biased at all….
2 strokes are just a better machine for motocross no 2 ways about it. harder to ride, cheaper to rebuild and quieter. That spells AWESOME SUPERCROSS RACE to me!
Thumpers… I call them Dumpers they’re always dumping one engine part or another. Its only because they rev extremely high. A four stroke revving in the 3-5 thousands will last for AGES! Assuming its a good quality machine… XRs last forever for example.
The four stroke machine WILL kill motocross. Making the sport easier and simpler is stupid and wrong. They’re far too expensive to run thats all there is to it
Torque and horsepower are waaaaaay wrong. It would be nice for those who don’t know or for “the followers” to see the actual comparable numbers. And glow plug?
One thing the masses don’t know and no one who’s in defense of 4 strokes will tell anyone ( especially the 4 stroke crowd ) is that the 4 stroke racers in mx/sx and now GP racing are bikes are to the Nth degree of their lives, literally. Meaning their life for racing purposes is very, very short. One can see evidence of this in the big 4′s smaller street bikes that use the same engine design. The engines that are used for the street bikes make about 1/2 the horsepower and torque of their racing cousins. If their engines were the same as the racers, the rider would as one magazine put it “have to rebuild his engine every other weekend if he had an mx engine”. Does anyone see where I am going with this?
My point is, we compare 4 strokes and 2 strokes and no one ever realizes that we are comparing top of the line racing 4 strokes, the kind of engine that will only last a short time, against the mellow 2 stroke. This is why the 2 stroke mx/sx bikes we have and race will last so long. If we put the mellow 4 stroke engines in the racers and then compared these mellow 4 strokes ( the engines used in the co’s street bikes ) against the mellow 2 strokes, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation or these arguments. I mean come on, let’s pit the real racers against the other real racers, their best 4 strokes against our best 2 strokes. The last MotoGP 125 2 stroke racer made ( ready for this ) almost 60 horse at the wheel. The torque was a staggering 43 ft lbs. The last 250 2 stroke GP racer made ( another shocker ) almost 120 horsepower and 84 ft lbs. of torque. Granted, the racing 2 strokes shelf life was a short one ( a little longer than the 4 strokes and so much cheaper to rebuild ) but they should be compared in these lights.
Keep these numbers in mind the next time some follower spouts off about the extra 2 horsepower and 3 ft lbs of torque that their 4 stroke makes over the much smaller 2 stroke engine.
They can enchain me but, they cannot break my will, my faith, my belief or my countenance. The 2 stroke is so much better and those who look to kill them off, know it, it is just the followers who don’t. We cannot change the followers, they are way too lost. Somehow we need to get the 4 strokes to compete fairly and the results will stand for themselves.
The above 4 stroke engine is a non overhead cam engine that is much more simple than a modern 4 stroke. Where are the cams, chains and overhead valves that are the complicated parts?
Id be more concerned that in the top diagram that differentiated between the engines, the two stroke is a SOHC four stroke hahaha
article lost all credit when I saw that, and that was before they called KTM a small manufacturer.
This didn’t cover cost of ownership over a season. It also didn’t cover competitive lifespan of design…can one go more than a season with a specific mill before becoming uncompetitive (anecdotally, I recall being able to go far longer between new models on 2T as compared to what I see with 4T).
Torque and horsepower are waaaaaay wrong. It would be nice for those who don’t know or for “the followers” to see the actual comparable numbers. And glow plug?
One thing the masses don’t know and no one who’s in defense of 4 strokes will tell anyone ( especially the 4 stroke crowd ) is that the 4 stroke racers in mx/sx and now GP racing are bikes are to the Nth degree of their lives, literally. Meaning their life for racing purposes is very, very short. One can see evidence of this in the big 4?s smaller street bikes that use the same engine design. The engines that are used for the street bikes make about 1/2 the horsepower and torque of their racing cousins. If their engines were the same as the racers, the rider would as one magazine put it “have to rebuild his engine every other weekend if he had an mx engine”. Does anyone see where I am going with this?
My point is, we compare 4 strokes and 2 strokes and no one ever realizes that we are comparing top of the line racing 4 strokes, the kind of engine that will only last a short time, against the mellow 2 stroke. This is why the 2 stroke mx/sx bikes we have and race will last so long. If we put the mellow 4 stroke engines in the racers and then compared these mellow 4 strokes ( the engines used in the co’s street bikes ) against the mellow 2 strokes, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation or these arguments. I mean come on, let’s pit the real racers against the other real racers, their best 4 strokes against our best 2 strokes. The last MotoGP 125 2 stroke racer made ( ready for this ) almost 60 horse at the wheel. The torque was a staggering 43 ft lbs. The last 250 2 stroke GP racer made ( another shocker ) almost 120 horsepower and 84 ft lbs. of torque. Granted, the racing 2 strokes shelf life was a short one ( a little longer than the 4 strokes and so much cheaper to rebuild ) but they should be compared in these lights.
Keep these numbers in mind the next time some follower spouts off about the extra 2 horsepower and 3 ft lbs of torque that their 4 stroke makes over the much smaller 2 stroke engine.
They can enchain me but, they cannot break my will, my faith, my belief or my countenance. The 2 stroke is so much better and those who look to kill them off, know it, it is just the followers who don’t. We cannot change the followers, they are way too lost. Somehow we need to get the 4 strokes to compete fairly and the results will stand for themselves.
@andy, The type of pollution is different. Smoke = particulates. There are way more particulates that come out of a two stroke.
This is an abstract for a scientific journal, peer reviewed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16499150
They also generate more unburned hydrocarbons (incomplete combustion) carbon monoxide (also incomplete combustion) and NOx emissions.
Also, I really can’t can’t take seriously a source with such awesome pieces of fact like this one
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_you_add_oil_in_two_stroke_not_in_four_stroke_engine
There is just soo much wrong with this article. Glow plugs are only used on RC cars. The picture behind the 2-stroke is a SOHC 4-stroke. Why does the 4-stroke have cooling fins? Where is the camshaft(s) and cam chain? The 2-stroke is super old piston port. Modern 250 2-strokes make at least 50hp and 30lb-ft of torque. A good 250 should weigh 215lbs, not 227.
When you are comparing current carb 2-strokes to 4-strokes, the 4-strokes DO have a few advantages. Traction in slick conditions can make up for lack of power, they get much better fuel mileage and they have much better emissions. But, fuel economy and emissions mean nothing in motocross. For most situations, the more powerful, lower weight, and more reliable 2-strokes are faster and cheaper to race. People often forget the flexibility of 2-stroke engines. When there is that track that is slick, a 2-stroke can be ported and piped to have a much more mellow powerband, making it much easier to hook up and get the power to the ground. A ported 250 2-stroke will STILL make at least 5hp more than a 250F.
When you add modern DI to teh equation, the powerbands of 2-strokes can come much closer to that of 4-strokes, as well as fuel mileage and emissions, while keeping all the benefits of power, weight and (increased)reliability.
I actually think this article kind of sucked. It almost leaves one with the impression that is was written to promote 4 strokes.
Whether or not it is intentional in the writing, the whole thing is basted in a sort of shrugging apathy. Stupid false information from foopercross magazines is warmed over and served up for a second, third, or fourth time. The scources are indexed, but the value of some of the info has obviously not been examined at all.
This is BS. They said KTM was a “smaller” company. As far as I can tell, they are kicking ASS in sells. The are in fact number one in sells. This article is very informative but riddled with mistakes and deceptions.
Kind of funny how they forgot to mention that KTM is number one in offroad sales and that they have an extensive 2T lineup.
@ 2 strokes,
not sure if Id agree with you statement about the GP two strokes having a slightly longer life than the four strokes.
the last generations of the 125/250GP bikes had pistons which required changing after each racing session. They were so light weight that the piston crown would start to cave in under the high compression and heat.
but they are very reliable if this maintenance schedule is adhered to, and these light weight pistons are only 80 euros each.
Cheers
Jeram
@Jeram, while you are correct, I would say that in regards to the shelf life of a super high output racing ( GP ) 2 stroke, replacing pistons does not constitute major engine work, nor does it mean rebuilding. To replace a piston, is only maintenance, not major engine surgery. The 4 stroke racers, must have the same maintenance done AND much more. Valves, cams and in many cases, cylinder heads and or cylinders need to be changed or the end result is catastrophic.
It translates in simllar fashion to both modern day 2 and 4 stroke mxer’s. On the smokers, an occasional piston, and on the 4 strokes, major top end work done at regular intervals or pay for the catastrophic work when it detonates!
But as we all say/ask and with constant rhetoric, what do we have to do to get the truth out to the mainstream followers?
@Ren Schmdt
Yes true, it has been a long time since Iv seen a late model 125/250 engine fail on the racetrack… whether Moto3 can match that only time will tell.
as for the truth? its getting out… its just slower than expected,
sales are u
new models are emerging due to increased demand etc
starting to make it back into the mainstream (magazines, advertisements, internet discussions)
but just like knowing smoking is bad for you, and so is eating too much fast food people choose to ignore the warning signs for reasons which are too numerous to list…
Then the more adaptive of the population might stop smoking itself diagnosed with lung cancer or might stop eating Mcdonnalds 5 times a week if they have a heart attack at 35 years old.
But still then, many will keep smoking and keep gourging away like nothing has changed.
Same simple rules apply here…
Times are changing very slowly, perhaps too slow to make a full comeback with the introduction of the electric motorcycle.
It will be a race to the finish line two stroke (emmisions, power and reliability) vs Electric bike (cost, power, range, infrastructure) to see which innevitably topples the four stroke.
So Iv stopped thinking about it like its a big conspiracy or that Ive been wrongly done by… just enjoy being one of the smart ones who made the right choice!
alot of two stroke fanatics really struggle to do that.
Wow, is it just me, or does that “two stroke” look like it’s got valves in it’s head?
the 2012 ktm250sx makes 50 hp and 31 foot pounds of torque
Torque and horsepower are waaaaaay wrong. It would be nice for those who don’t know or for “the followers” to see the actual comparable numbers. And glow plug?
One thing the masses don’t know and no one who’s in defense of 4 strokes will tell anyone ( especially the 4 stroke crowd ) is that the 4 stroke racers in mx/sx and now GP racing are bikes are to the Nth degree of their lives, literally. Meaning their life for racing purposes is very, very short. One can see evidence of this in the big 4?s smaller street bikes that use the same engine design. The engines that are used for the street bikes make about 1/2 the horsepower and torque of their racing cousins. If their engines were the same as the racers, the rider would as one magazine put it “have to rebuild his engine every other weekend if he had an mx engine”. Does anyone see where I am going with this?
My point is, we compare 4 strokes and 2 strokes and no one ever realizes that we are comparing top of the line racing 4 strokes, the kind of engine that will only last a short time, against the mellow 2 stroke. This is why the 2 stroke mx/sx bikes we have and race will last so long. If we put the mellow 4 stroke engines in the racers and then compared these mellow 4 strokes ( the engines used in the co’s street bikes ) against the mellow 2 strokes, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation or these arguments. I mean come on, let’s pit the real racers against the other real racers, their best 4 strokes against our best 2 strokes. The last MotoGP 125 2 stroke racer made ( ready for this ) almost 60 horse at the wheel. The torque was a staggering 43 ft lbs. The last 250 2 stroke GP racer made ( another shocker ) almost 120 horsepower and 84 ft lbs. of torque. Granted, the racing 2 strokes shelf life was a short one ( a little longer than the 4 strokes and so much cheaper to rebuild ) but they should be compared in these lights.
Keep these numbers in mind the next time some follower spouts off about the extra 2 horsepower and 3 ft lbs of torque that their 4 stroke makes over the much smaller 2 stroke engine.
They can enchain me but, they cannot break my will, my faith, my belief or my countenance. The 2 stroke is so much better and those who look to kill them off, know it, it is just the followers who don’t. We cannot change the followers, they are way too lost. Somehow we need to get the 4 strokes to compete fairly and the results will stand for themselves.
It will once again be a lighter/simplier machine that kills the 4 strokeagain “Electro Moto”
For the mean time why is it Off Road, freestyle, trials and a few other aspects of motorcycling like to use 2 strokes? If the AMA likes to run 4 strokes in MX then so be it. We need another organization to support racing 2 strokes!
Torque and horsepower are waaaaaay wrong. It would be nice for those who don’t know or for “the followers” to see the actual comparable numbers. And glow plug?
One thing the masses don’t know and no one who’s in defense of 4 strokes will tell anyone ( especially the 4 stroke crowd ) is that the 4 stroke racers in mx/sx and now GP racing are bikes are to the Nth degree of their lives, literally. Meaning their life for racing purposes is very, very short. One can see evidence of this in the big 4?s smaller street bikes that use the same engine design. The engines that are used for the street bikes make about 1/2 the horsepower and torque of their racing cousins. If their engines were the same as the racers, the rider would as one magazine put it “have to rebuild his engine every other weekend if he had an mx engine”. Does anyone see where I am going with this?
My point is, we compare 4 strokes and 2 strokes and no one ever realizes that we are comparing top of the line racing 4 strokes, the kind of engine that will only last a short time, against the mellow 2 stroke. This is why the 2 stroke mx/sx bikes we have and race will last so long. If we put the mellow 4 stroke engines in the racers and then compared these mellow 4 strokes ( the engines used in the co’s street bikes ) against the mellow 2 strokes, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation or these arguments. I mean come on, let’s pit the real racers against the other real racers, their best 4 strokes against our best 2 strokes. The last MotoGP 125 2 stroke racer made ( ready for this ) almost 60 horse at the wheel. The torque was a staggering 43 ft lbs. The last 250 2 stroke GP racer made ( another shocker ) almost 120 horsepower and 84 ft lbs. of torque. Granted, the racing 2 strokes shelf life was a short one ( a little longer than the 4 strokes and so much cheaper to rebuild ) but they should be compared in these lights.
Keep these numbers in mind the next time some follower spouts off about the extra 2 horsepower and 3 ft lbs of torque that their 4 stroke makes over the much smaller 2 stroke engine.
They can enchain me but, they cannot break my will, my faith, my belief or my countenance. The 2 stroke is so much better and those who look to kill them off, know it, it is just the followers who don’t. We cannot change the followers, they are way too lost. Somehow we need to get the 4 strokes to compete fairly and the results will stand for themselves.
i have only ever ridden a 2 stroke so they are heaps easier to ride than a 4 stroke and a lot more fun to muck around on
Same Cm3, a 250 2 strokes and a 250 4 strokes, and see the diference.
or the mitic RD 500 2 strokes against, like, the 2009 R1 hahahaha. you have videos on youtube
I think that 2 stroke engines used for now is not pollutant.. because makers decided that they add new items from 2 strokes so that two stroke engines dont smoke…
I think only..
We have really got to stop getting caught up in the whole “cc vs cc” debate. Engine displacement is a terrible method of classifying classes and is guaranteed to leave one side feeling short changed. If the rules were changed to allow 250 2 strokes to race against 250 four strokes, then four stroke supporters would have a valid complaint, ie that their machine was being forced to race against a machine with much more power that it. Displacement rules should be scrapped altogether and classes should be based solely on engine power output. For instance the 450/250 class could be capped at 55 horsepower, and the 250/125 class could be capped at around 30-35 horsepower (correct these numbers if you think they are inaccurate). This would mean motorcycles of any engine displacement, and of any type (2 stroke, four stroke, hell, even rotary!) could compete together FAIRLY, and no-one would be in any position to complain that their engine type was not given a fair go.
Interesting.
How would this be enforced? Dyno at every race? What if a bike makes 56HP, because the temperature drops later in the day and denser air = higher hp?
Are we going to go down the restrictor road?
Displacement is a great way to classify racing classes. The only way IMO.
A 250 2t and a 250 4t would compete and the 4t riders wouldn’t complain for long because they’d all switch over to the 2t and reap the benefits of increased power, lighter weight and reduced maintenance costs.