Is there really a difference in 4 cc 's

[michael whiteman]

With EVERYTHING ELSE being the same, is there really a noticeable difference in the seat of your pants between a 49 cc engine and one having 53 cc's ?? I would like to hear from you if you have experienced this first hand. Everyone has a opinion, but right now I am not interested in theory.

 

[Chainlube]

There would be a big difference if it is a genuine Honda and a knock off.

 

[JerryAssburger]

I guess in theory, it's an 8% increase in displacement, and in theory would net you a 1/6th of a HP over a 2hp motor.
(I'm guessing any little bit helps....)
I think Real World, the 49cc HS is restricted to 6800 rpm through the ignition, whereas the 53cc version supposedly doesn't have the restriction. Since the HP curve probably peaks at or near 6800 rpm, I'm guessing the only real advantage is for those whose gearing requires higher rpm for desired speeds.

As a really, "Let's Apply SCIENCE To This Question!" approach, I punched in the numbers into a pretty accurate Watts/Mph calculator and came up with this: (Assuming 1hp=750 watts)

Bicycle with HS49cc at 2hp/1500 watts... 32.02mph
Bicycle with HS53cc at 2.1632hp/1622 watts... 32.9mph

The calculator I used is at https://www.gribble.org/cycling/power_v_speed.html

I had to tweak the settings for frontal area/drag coefficient to hit known performance from previous builds, and even my Sportster, that was dyno-ed at 55hp and that I was able to hit GPS 105mph (in a racer tuck). You gotta kind of tweak it to known parameters, but after that, it's pretty spot on.

So after all of my usual babbling, the straight answer is, "I don't know. My Butt-Dyno probably couldn't tell the difference."

 

[DAMIEN1307]

"I don't know. My Butt-Dyno probably couldn't tell the difference."

I think i would agree with this statement...graphs, calculators and meters would probably show a slight difference, but in real world application, one may not be able to perceive any real improvement that a 4cc difference would bring to the table in regard to 4 strokes.

I know that Michael is not interested in opinions, but thats what a bunch of volunteer hobbiest helpers that are part of this forum would have to offer based on experience, not so much absolute scientific/mechanica/technical facts.

He could of course ask at his local 2 cycle, 4 cycle, lawnmover/tractor parts, sales and repair center and talk to one of their professional mechanics/technicians though ???...just a thought.

As a side note, i hope Michael, that you are not comparing a 49cc 2 stroke versus a 53cc 4 stroke as they would be two completely different animals to compare in this particular regard...You would not be the first that has thought this way i might add, if that is indeed, the case here.
So im just going to assume your speaking as both are 4 strokes...DAMIEN

 

[JerryAssburger]

I think i would agree with this statement...graphs, calculators and meters would probably show a slight difference, but in real world application, one may not be able to perceive any real improvement that a 4cc difference would bring to the table in regard to 4 strokes.

I know that Michael is not interested in opinions, but thats what a bunch of volunteer hobbiest helpers that are part of this forum would have to offer based on experience, not so much absolute scientific/mechanica/technical facts.

He could of course ask at his local 2 cycle, 4 cycle, lawnmover/tractor parts, sales and repair center and talk to one of their professional mechanics/technicians though ???...just a thought.

As a side note, i hope Michael, that you are not comparing a 49cc 2 stroke versus a 53cc 4 stroke as they would be two completely different animals to compare in this particular regard...You would not be the first that has thought this way i might add, if that is indeed, the case here.
So im just going to assume your speaking as both are 4 strokes...DAMIEN

I think Michael is comparing the 142F and the 144F, but I'm not too sure either. The whole idea behind the 144F has me baffled, too. It's the same physical size, etc. I can't imagine anyone thinking it was worth their time to slightly over-bore the 142F for a new engine, (the 144F), but stranger things have happened...?

 

[darwin]

The 144f has more torque for going up hills and higher speed due to no rev limiter, both of those are facts from experience, not bar graphs or sales brochure. This is assuming everything on the bike is the same using a 142f.

 

[DAMIEN1307]

The 144f has more torque for going up hills and higher speed due to no rev limiter, both of those are facts from experience, not bar graphs or sales brochure. This is assuming everything on the bike is the same using a 142f.

This is good to know for the OPs purposes...Will he, as the rider, actually perceive much difference in real world riding ???

How much difference in cost versus "bang for the buck"???...Is it worth a difference in price ???...DAMIEN

(I know in my present 2 stroke, that the difference from my old Seeutec, (66cc) versus my present Zeda 80, (69.4cc), has a definite, perceivable increase in uphill torque.

 

[darwin]

1. 49cc/Displacement bore & stroke: 41.8 x 35.8mm
2. 53cc/
   

   Bore x stroke

   mm

   43.5*35.8

 

[DAMIEN1307]

1. 49cc/Displacement bore & stroke: 41.8 x 35.8mm
2. 53cc/
   

   Bore x stroke

   mm

   43.5*35.8

I do understand that on paper that this is indeed the case regarding bore and stroke differences...my questions are regarding "real world", "bang for the buck", perceivable differences...How much difference in price etc, in regard to four stroke small engines such as these...DAMIEN

 

[darwin]

Grubee 144f/$220 plus $25 gas tank plus $25 ship. 142f/$185 plus $20 ship. 144f is worth it to me if you have hills when we're talking 2hp bikes. Do it right the 1st time and be done with it. Only downside is to not over rev the 144f.