MOTUS: New Sport Tourer to be built in Alabama

[AZbiker]

Originally Posted by OldPete

If the squish is tight, two valve wedge heads can make prodigious torque as the Motus does.

There was a Chevy based V-twin in the late '70s but i can't remember the name.
It even used a Chevy cam chain cover.

SuperVee.

Here's one:

http://www.ridleysrides.com/supervee.html

[ganze]

Originally Posted by kpt4321

So it will eventually be a great motor because 1.6 liters can make XXX power with boost, based on ratioing it down from larger engines?

There are a million ultra-reliable 1.6 liter engines out there that make great power with boost. They came in every Civic ever made in the 90s. What is so special about this one that makes everybody think it's going to be a magically amazing race motor?

I see no actual evidence that this engine is anything special, especially for an auto application.

There are several differences that make it interesting as a motor. While pushrods are not high tech, they are uber-reliable if built right, even in high rpm applications. With hydraulic lifters, the maintenance is nearly nothing. With a single camshaft, instead of four for a v-twin or two for an i4, the cost for performance goes way down as well.

Civic motors are great, reliable bases for performance too, but a good pushrod design winds up giving nearly as much power, usually more torque and you wind up working on it less due to cam chain or belt changes.

Not a perfect design, but one that many of us gear heads really understand well and love. The auto application is primarily about small race cars and not stock based models. Indy has toyed with changing their formula for a while and this motor was part of the discussion at one time.

It is a unique, durable and desirable design for many people, even if you don't feel that way.

[jfurf]

I said this last year on here, but now that the price tags have come in, I'm even more skeptical of the Motus project.

I think they fundamentally have misunderstood the sport-touring market. These are people who want to ride their machines, not show them off at bike night. Sport-touring guys aren't going to go for a niche, boutique brand with an exotic engine. Sport-touring riders want reliability, durability, a dealer network and functional features that enhance the touring experience.

I never hear sport-touring riders complain about the lack of engine power in today's bikes. Instead, they constantly complain about things like lack of fuel capacity, poor fuel efficiency, windscreens that don't work well, small stators that can't power heated gear, uncomfortable seats, unreliable electronics (cough Kawasaki's keyless system cough), lack of a center-stand, poor engine heat management, etc.

THAT is where the opportunity is. Take an existing engine and chassis, and turn it into a super tourer with good suspension and all the modern touring features built in . I can see that actually working. But spending millions developing a brand new engine and chassis and then deliver something that's really no more feature-rich than a stock BWM K-bike or Concours? That's just insane.

Never have I ever heard anyone go "You know, I really like my new Concours/K1300/VFR12/FJR but it just doesn't have enough juice."

[bross]

Originally Posted by jfurf

Never have I ever heard anyone go "You know, I really like my new Concours/K1300/VFR12/FJR but it just doesn't have enough juice."

How many friends do you have that ride those bikes? I have 2 friends on C14's and one on a ZX14. All three have removed their secondary butterflies, added a freer flowing exhaust, PCIII or V, and removed the restrictions in the lower gears. I just shake my head at these 2 guys and one girl and say, "You already had the fastest, most powerful bike on the freaking planet, and you need MORE!"

Personally not for me, my bikes stay pretty much stock, but lots of people can never have enough.

I like this motor and think it will live a long life given the history of the builders and I really like the hydraulic lifters. Maintenance on this bike will be oil changes, tires and chain/sprockets. What's not to like.

Sure beats doing this once a year...

[gymply]

Originally Posted by bross

Sure beats doing this once a year...

[kpt4321]

Originally Posted by Bueller

Your comments speak quite a lot about your knowledge of engines.

If you want to, we can also make assumptions about volumetric efficieny curves and what engine speed(s) it has Helmholtz resonance tuning. I suspect that, given the output and the application, the design is such that there is a VE tradeoff for increased output at lower engine speeds at the expense of output near redline, thus reducing area under the power curve, which is important for racing applications. I wonder to what extent emissions regulations have impacted ignition timing curves at lower loads, and how badly this may have reduced potential BMEP. I wonder what the ECU used for a load reference for the second map axis; TPS is fairly common, but this can complicate mapping due to the nature of throttle position vs. MAP and VE and their more direct influence on cylinder filling, cylinder pressures, and "actual" load. Do you think they run sequential or batch fuel injection? Wasted spark? What is the rod/stroke ratio, and how does this impact the efficiency at which cylinder pressure is translated into crank torque?

The level of technical discussion in this thread is basically nil, so don't make too many assumptions about someone's knowledge based on it. ;)

I'm not trying to pick on you, but if you think for one second this engine is going to have much more in common with a civic engine than burning gasoline to turn reciprocating motion into circular motion you are not going to understand what sets it apart.

I am (was) simply making the point that saying (as somebody did) that "An X size engine makes Y horsepower, so this engine of Z size should be capable of Z/X*Y horsepower!" Engine's aren't necessarily ratiometric like that, if they were, the same claim would be true for every 1.6 liter engine, such as that out of a civic.

A Civic engine has a lot more in common with a CBR 1000 (which is to say not very much) than it does with the MOTUS V4.

Is having things in common with arguably one of the best sportbikes really that bad? :)

I think that the development of this engine is really, really cool. It's a HUGE effort to build an engine like this from scratch, let alone have it run and work well. I have a ton of respect for people who can pull this off, just figuring out the geometry for coolant and oil passages, packaging a gearbox, and having oil and coolant get everywhere is almost overwhelming, and you haven't even gotten to the combustion part!

I'm simply not convinced that it's an engine destined for (auto) racing success is all.

[ganze]

"I'm simply not convinced that it's an engine destined for (auto) racing success is all."

My opinion about that is based on a few articles I have read that stated the kmv4 was being looked at as a formula engine for a few series. Whether it would be competitive in a broader based sense is beyond me to guess except that usually a quad cam/valve engine usually revs higher and produces more hp than a push-rod two valve engine that tries to utilize torque for a competitive edge. You clearly have a tighter grasp of what makes power than I have and I like that you appreciate the motor as an engineering and manufacturing work. One article I read also coupled the engine with a fairly radical new chassis that had really close together front wheels and radical aerodynamics.

It's a miracle that any manufacturing company is getting to say 3...2...1... Launch in our current economic environment in the us. Gotta love the moxy at least.

[RaY YreKa]

Are the last few posts proof that the MOTUS won't sell?

By which I mean, I'm a rider not a wrencher, and the posts above are all 'petrol head' discussion, perhaps best had in the pub, rather than the open road?

[GB]

Originally Posted by ray_rev

Are the last few posts proof that the MOTUS won't sell?

By which I mean, I'm a rider not a wrencher, and the posts above are all 'petrol head' discussion, perhaps best had in the pub, rather than the open road?

If you're spending $31,000 or $37,000 for this bike, the low cost (or the high cost of maintenance, for that matter) is not a factor in the decision to purchase or not purchase this bike.

[Bueller]

Originally Posted by kpt4321

If you want to, we can also make assumptions about volumetric efficieny curves and what engine speed(s) it has Helmholtz resonance tuning. I suspect that, given the output and the application, the design is such that there is a VE tradeoff for increased output at lower engine speeds at the expense of output near redline, thus reducing area under the power curve, which is important for racing applications. I wonder to what extent emissions regulations have impacted ignition timing curves at lower loads, and how badly this may have reduced potential BMEP. I wonder what the ECU used for a load reference for the second map axis; TPS is fairly common, but this can complicate mapping due to the nature of throttle position vs. MAP and VE and their more direct influence on cylinder filling, cylinder pressures, and "actual" load. Do you think they run sequential or batch fuel injection? Wasted spark? What is the rod/stroke ratio, and how does this impact the efficiency at which cylinder pressure is translated into crank torque?

The level of technical discussion in this thread is basically nil, so don't make too many assumptions about someone's knowledge based on it. ;)

And that's my point exactly.

I didn't spend my career reading and writing about them, designing them in a computer program, or even testing them in a lab. Instead I spent my career diagnosing their problems, working on them after thousands of miles in the hands of the daily user (abuser), and rebuilding them as a result of the failings of those who try to impress others with paragraphs like the one you just wrote. Sure, I can talk that language. But that's not the point. The point was to address your comment:

There are a million ultra-reliable 1.6 liter engines out there that make great power with boost. They came in every Civic ever made in the 90s. What is so special about this one that makes everybody think it's going to be a magically amazing race motor?

If you know so much about the intricacies of engine design, construction, fueling, and tuning, it doesn't seem you'd need to ask the question. Look at the basis of this engine. Look at the design from which it borrowed very heavily. Look at the company who made it. I'm not betting against it.

Originally Posted by kpt4321

I'm simply not convinced that it's an engine destined for (auto) racing success is all.

I'm not convinced either. It depends on so many other factors. But I'd bet it's more than capable.

[Boxer-lust]

Problem with todays SPORT-touring market is that they are really no more real sport-tourers to buy.
You can't call the big upright tourers like K16,C14,FJSTK13 Sport-tourers.
Maybe the R1200RT with it's lower weight and nice easy to maintain engine but it really still is too upright and too heavy to be considered a true Sports-tourer.
There are really only the K1300S and VFR1200 left being true Sports-tourers.But unfortunately Zero with 2 cylinders and lighter weight like the R1100S/R1100RS of former days...
A MOTUS for 37K and chaindrive and heavy weight due to overbuild car based engine technology hardly fits the description of a true sports-tourer either...
More like a eccentric motorcycle for a few guys with deep pockets that want something unique or a conversation piece for a sunday morning ride...

[davevv]

Where can I find this definition of "a true sports tourer"?

[JSharp]

Originally Posted by Boxer-lust

Problem with todays SPORT-touring market is that they are really no more real sport-tourers to buy.
You can't call the big upright tourers like K16,C14,FJSTK13 Sport-tourers.
Maybe the R1200RT with it's lower weight and nice easy to maintain engine but it really still is too upright and too heavy to be considered a true Sports-tourer.
There are really only the K1300S and VFR1200 left being true Sports-tourers.But unfortunately Zero with 2 cylinders and lighter weight like the R1100S/R1100RS of former days...
A MOTUS for 37K and chaindrive and heavy weight due to overbuild car based engine technology hardly fits the description of a true sports-tourer either...
More like a eccentric motorcycle for a few guys with deep pockets that want something unique or a conversation piece for a sunday morning ride...

I must be reading different specs than you. The K1300S and VFR1200 are 570lb+ and the Honda sits on a 60" wheelbase. Those seem sporty to you? Maybe you meant sporty looking-Tourer. The Motus is lighter and makes more HP even with it's 'overbuilt car based engine' and the chassis looks like it easily matches either of those bikes.

I won't really defend the engine though. I honestly don't get all the love for it. It's an engineering marvel in the sense that it took a hell of a lot of talent to produce it. But they built 1/2 of a small block Chevy. With pushrods, 2 valve wedge combustion chambers and all. Not exactly my idea of state of the art in the motorcycle business. Or anywhere else for that matter. Even the Nascar guys would dump that technology in a second if they were allowed.

[Boxer-lust]

A sports-tourer is a sporty bike that can hold a candle and is fun to ride on a track and is also practical and comfortable enough to ride on longer distance for 2 people with gear dry and secure in hard-factory luggage...
A clean low maintenance shaft and easy to adjust valves should be part of the package,too !
Of course K1300S and VFR 1200 should be shorter and lighter but they are still the closest to the definition looking at the new offerings of today.
And I don't think putting the MOTUS on a real world scale it will be any lighter than a K1300S that weighs in at 560lbs wet and for sure won't be as fast in a straight line.
The K13S was faster in roll-on in the last Sport-Rider comparo than even the mighty Hayabusa...
O.K. the new ZZR14 is even faster but has no factory hardbags and is heavier than the K13S despite having no shaftdrive.No real sports-tourer,just a sport-touring wannabe...

[ADVBMR]

I'm no gearhead by any means, but I like to ride and I like to ride long days. I want a comfortable, reliable bike. But for over $30,000,I don't get it. A new GS is $18,400. And why is a Motus worth over $12,000 more than that?

It appears to be a nice bike, but as yet untested in real world conditions. When I first saw it, I thought good for them for building it. But I expected a price point at around $20,000. At these prices the company might make their goal of 300 bikes a year, but they will remain an exclusive bike for a niche market or slowly disappear. Just my two cents' worth.