Today's new cars are way overpowered...

[dfkrug]

A '77 Yamaha RD400 two-stroke twin.

I bought a '76 RD400 for a friend back in about 78, and I rode it many times. Weight was
maybe 350#. It was impossible to keep the front wheel on the ground under hard
accelleration. Kick start only. WAY quicker than my Honda.

Did you really get a sub 12s quarter mile ET?

 

[MossRoad]

I bought a '76 RD400 for a friend back in about 78, and I rode it many times. Weight was
maybe 350#. It was impossible to keep the front wheel on the ground under hard
accelleration. Kick start only. WAY quicker than my Honda.

Did you really get a sub 12s quarter mile ET?

Yep. Consistent 12 second with many 11.99's. The 11.98 was on a nice, cool day. But that was not stock. Stock was about 14.

Here's what I think I did to it, best as I can recall.... :confused3: its been 25-30 years...

- Bored out for larger pistons.
- Shaved the head down for higher compression.
- Scalloped piston tops to alter the port opening times.
- Smoothed out the ports.
- Removed oil injection pump (it ran off the end of the crank, robbing power) and mixed oil w/gas directly in an external can.
- Removed all covers, cases, oil tank, fenders, etc... to save weight.
- MUCH larger carbs from Specialist II.
- MUCH lighter reed valves (I think they were from a TZ250?) from Specialist II.
- Expansion chambers from Specialist II.
- Lowered handle bars.
- Wind fairing.
- Two teeth off the front sprocket.
- Wheelie bars.
- But the main thing I did was I only weighed about 135# at the time. :laughing:

Only other things I could have done, but never did, was have the crankshaft packed with aluminum, air shifter, and a cold-can to cool the fuel. Then I'd have to start looking at lighter frames, rear footpeg setbacks, etc.... but I wanted to keep it streetable. As it was, the thing was a dead dog under 5000rpm. The power came on instantly about 6500-7000 and it cranked to around 11,500-12000 in all 6 gears.

I've seen a few sub-10 RD400's. Insane!

I still have the bike in many pieces. After we got married and had kids, and several close calls with cars on the street, and my uncontrollable need for speed, I took it apart so I wouldn't die on it.

 

[dfkrug]

I took it apart so I wouldn't die on it.

Well THAT's an interesting strategy.

My old 2-stroke dirtbike was crazy-quick and peaky, too. Got hurt on it over 30 y ago. Once
you have owned a quick m/c, cars just don't seem that quick.

 

[toppop52]

I have a saying that refers to those who want to drive a 500-700 horsepower car:

"More horsepower than common sense...."

I have a saying also, "Freedom of choice." If there's a demand, the manufacturers will build it. It's still our right to own what we want as long as it passes safety standards. It's no different than owning a gun that has the potential to kill.

 

[Kyle_in_Tex]

Just read the latest issue of Car and Driver, they did a report on the 2016 Chevy Malibu Premier...get this: 250 hp 2 liter four cylinder turbo charged and intercooled, they said it will do a standing quarter mile in 14.7 seconds and has a top speed of 156 mph (drag limited) but only delivers 20 mpg overall.

Well...my 2004 Saturn L-300 has only 180 hp from a 3.0 liter V6 yet it will do a standing quarter mile in 14.9 seconds, and deliver 23 mpg in mainly city driving. I have never checked the top speed for obvious reasons.

What is the purpose of building a 250 horsepower car that will go 156 mph yet only gets 20 mpg overall? Simply inane...

BTW, the Malibu C&D tested weighed 3307 pounds...my Saturn with a full tank of fuel weighs 3357 pounds

Here's what they really reported:

Car and Driver
Model: 2016 Chevrolet Malibu
MPG: 22 city / 33 highway
MSRP: From $30,920
Horsepower: 250 HP
Wheel size: 19″ diameter, 8.5″ width
Engine: 2.0L 4-cylinder
Towing capacity: 1,000 lbs
Warranty: 3 yr/36,000 mi basic, 5 yr/60,000 mi powertrain

So 22 City/ 33 Highway is NOT 20 mpg. I'm not saying I'd go and buy one right now, but I might say you better stomp on it or someone driving one of these "over powered" cars might get the last good honey glazed ham at the best place.....All because they had more power than you.

 

[Kyle_in_Tex]

Yep. Consistent 12 second with many 11.99's. The 11.98 was on a nice, cool day. But that was not stock. Stock was about 14.

Here's what I think I did to it, best as I can recall.... :confused3: its been 25-30 years...

- Bored out for larger pistons.
- Shaved the head down for higher compression.
- Scalloped piston tops to alter the port opening times.
- Smoothed out the ports.
- Removed oil injection pump (it ran off the end of the crank, robbing power) and mixed oil w/gas directly in an external can.
- Removed all covers, cases, oil tank, fenders, etc... to save weight.
- MUCH larger carbs from Specialist II.
- MUCH lighter reed valves (I think they were from a TZ250?) from Specialist II.
- Expansion chambers from Specialist II.
- Lowered handle bars.
- Wind fairing.
- Two teeth off the front sprocket.
- Wheelie bars.
- But the main thing I did was I only weighed about 135# at the time. :laughing:

Only other things I could have done, but never did, was have the crankshaft packed with aluminum, air shifter, and a cold-can to cool the fuel. Then I'd have to start looking at lighter frames, rear footpeg setbacks, etc.... but I wanted to keep it streetable. As it was, the thing was a dead dog under 5000rpm. The power came on instantly about 6500-7000 and it cranked to around 11,500-12000 in all 6 gears.

I've seen a few sub-10 RD400's. Insane!

I still have the bike in many pieces. After we got married and had kids, and several close calls with cars on the street, and my uncontrollable need for speed, I took it apart so I wouldn't die on it.

I bought the first RD400C 1976 that came to our Yamaha shop when I was 16, after reading a great article on them in the magazine. My first bike, a 72 Honda SL125 was a real turd in comparison. Everyone in my town was riding either a Honda SL350 or a Yamaha XT/TT 500. I could blow them all in the weeds except for 1 highly hopped up XT 500. My bike was mostly stock. I put some expansion chambers on it but could not afford the good carbs (which were jetted properly) and so my bike would foul plugs if you babied it with the jetting I put in. Too rich mains. Needed better needles for the pipes.

In '84 I bought an RZ350 and did a bit of roadracing on it. Man I sure wish I still had that bike. Toomey pipes and a few other goodies. It used to pizz off my Harley buddies because I could literally start it by hand (kick start) and it could out accelerate and blow past them.

I also bought the first Yamaha R1 in 1998 in Austin Texas. It was highly coveted, and numerous times guys would turn around and chase me down just to look at one in person.

 

[toppop52]

2016 Chevrolet Malibu 4 cyl, 2.0 L, Automatic (S8), Regular Gasoline
City Combined HWY
Compare2016 Chevrolet Malibu 22 26 33
City

This is what EPA says. Gas Mileage of 2016 Chevrolet Malibu

 

[toppop52]

My brother had a 400 triple, that thing would scream, easily outrun my CL 450 twin and our cousins CB 350 four cyl. My oldest brother had a CB 550 that in a straight line would stay with it pretty well. Then I bought my V 45 Magna.

 

[Retiredguy2]

Here's what they really reported:

Car and Driver
Model: 2016 Chevrolet Malibu
MPG: 22 city / 33 highway
MSRP: From $30,920
Horsepower: 250 HP
Wheel size: 19″ diameter, 8.5″ width
Engine: 2.0L 4-cylinder
Towing capacity: 1,000 lbs
Warranty: 3 yr/36,000 mi basic, 5 yr/60,000 mi powertrain

So 22 City/ 33 Highway is NOT 20 mpg. I'm not saying I'd go and buy one right now, but I might say you better stomp on it or someone driving one of these "over powered" cars might get the last good honey glazed ham at the best place.....All because they had more power than you.

Guess what? My magazine is right in front of me for reference, and in that review there is NO MENTION AT ALL of the towing capacity of the Malibu. NONE.

Secondly, they quote in the body of the review: "Our test average of 20 mpg..." and in the specs it says "C/D Observed....20 mpg"....

Thirdly, they did not report wheel width of the tested car, they did say it had 19 inch rims and that lesser models are available with 16,17, and 18 inch rims. Not one word about width.

Where did you get your information? And as far as EPA mileage figures go, they can make up any numbers they want. Real world mileage is what actually counts and that 20 mpg was what C/D reported as I noted in the OP.

 

[Retiredguy2]

This is what EPA says. Gas Mileage of 2016 Chevrolet Malibu

C/D reported 20 mpg in overall driving. EPA figures are always wildly optimistic.