TOPIC:

newOld_kz1000 wrote:

[ I just picked up a 135hp '86 gsxr1100 tricked out for..............$1000. Polished frame. Reversed forks, hotrodded motor, 15,000 miles, excellent paint, custom swingarm and Fox shock, all original bodywork, $1000. Tells ya something.

now i want to see pictures

I just put in over the Summer, 10.5 to 1 High domes in my 78 KZ1000, and I was wondering the same thing.They are a tad smaller, and After 1st startup, wand like a two stroke for about a Mile, then has settled down for some outrageous acceleration...I love it...Gets better as compression goes up during the seat process.....Kevin

I would like to see a kz under 1300cc with over 13:1 compression ratio, running 91 octane pump gas run a full race season and run over 150 mph and in the 8s with no power adders and no bars.

yeah, the old bikes run a long time, but my 12 would run 5 times as long if it was de tuned to that level with the new technology. I know a guy with a stock 12 with over 115000km on his bike. motor has never been rebuilt, running strong.... argue if you want, but show me the time slips from an old street bike that come close to that of a new bike

Apples and oranges.

My old instructor's favorite saying.

"You can't compare apples to oranges."

This is a Vintage bike forum.

I love to bench race.

Our old bikes were on the leading edge of technology when they were built.

One of my favorite laughs were the chevy guys with 350 c.i. engines beating down ford guys with 302 c.i. engines.

Went on for years( I hope this post doesn't)

I sat here for quite a while before I decided to post. Some of the opinions on new vrs. old are just that, opinions. As for the duribility, For me it's yet to be seen. With the amount of newer models differing so much compared to what was available back when the Z1 came out is staggering. The Z1 has been the focus of many an ideas of what a bike should be, sport, sport touring, cruiser, dresser. Now you can buy a bike for just that single purpose. So when I see a busa or 14 crusing around I know for all intents and purposes that thing was bought to flog on and a vulcan was bought to cruise on. The old kaws had to do both. This newer stuff just flat impresses me. These things fly and stop. I also believe we have become a "throw away" society and I also believe that generations have grown up on different technoligies. Carbs are easy for me and injection is a learning curve but for guys 20+ yrs younger than me it's the oppisite. To the point, does this make the new lightweight short skirt pistons bad, or short stroke high reving engines unreliable? I don't think so. But it is necessary to attain the desired goals in which these bikes are purchased for at some sacrifice. Look at it this way, think the guy riding a triump bonneville had any thing good to say the first time a Z1 waxed his butt. I'll bet you he seen or at least had friends that had seen a Z1 broke and bet they decided it were poorly designed and wouldn't be around in 30 yrs or even hold up to 30,000 miles without a major rebuild.
Back to the question, The short skirt is part of an overall design package. The bore to stroke and rod ratio designates what is capable and what isn't. An old kaw would be no happier with a short skirt light piston in it stock form no more than a new disign would be with a heavy long skirted piston.
Now, for the bashers, I have lost all respect for you!
The rest of you, enjoy and have a nice day, with my respect!

I thought that this forum was started to answer a relatively simple question.
Why are our pistons so tall? Not quite sure why it became this silly vintage vs. white lightning comparison. That is exactly what it has become. You are comparing a bottle of aged Kentucky Bourbon to a bottle of White Lightning. They will both get you drunk and the White lightning will do it faster for that matter. But after it is all said and done which would you have rather enjoyed and have been proud to have shared with your best friend? WARNING: Be careful at how you answer. This will totally determine your Character and the real person you are.

les holt wrote:

I sat here for quite a while before I decided to post. Some of the opinions on new vrs. old are just that, opinions. As for the duribility, For me it's yet to be seen. With the amount of newer models differing so much compared to what was available back when the Z1 came out is staggering. The Z1 has been the focus of many an ideas of what a bike should be, sport, sport touring, cruiser, dresser. Now you can buy a bike for just that single purpose. So when I see a busa or 14 crusing around I know for all intents and purposes that thing was bought to flog on and a vulcan was bought to cruise on. The old kaws had to do both. This newer stuff just flat impresses me. These things fly and stop. I also believe we have become a "throw away" society and I also believe that generations have grown up on different technoligies. Carbs are easy for me and injection is a learning curve but for guys 20+ yrs younger than me it's the oppisite. To the point, does this make the new lightweight short skirt pistons bad, or short stroke high reving engines unreliable? I don't think so. But it is necessary to attain the desired goals in which these bikes are purchased for at some sacrifice. Look at it this way, think the guy riding a triump bonneville had any thing good to say the first time a Z1 waxed his butt. I'll bet you he seen or at least had friends that had seen a Z1 broke and bet they decided it were poorly designed and wouldn't be around in 30 yrs or even hold up to 30,000 miles without a major rebuild.
Back to the question, The short skirt is part of an overall design package. The bore to stroke and rod ratio designates what is capable and what isn't. An old kaw would be no happier with a short skirt light piston in it stock form no more than a new disign would be with a heavy long skirted piston.
Now, for the bashers, I have lost all respect for you!
The rest of you, enjoy and have a nice day, with my respect!

Please refer to this previous post and you are 100% correct in your statement.

Re:Why are our pistons so tall? 1 Day, 13 Hours ago
otakar wrote:
I did not want to read the whole thread, because about half way threw the first page things started to get a bit PISSY. This than could have been already covered. In the old bikes our engines were almost SQUARE. When the 900 was square and the Z2 which was the original concept was a long stroke. As the engine progressed it did not change much threw the J motor. Because these engines had a relatively long stroke to bore ratio, the pistons could have long skirts because there was enough room. The new engines are so over square, that there is not enough room to support the long skirt for clearance and piston mass. The cranks got lighter to support the high RPM and the pistons had to reflect the mass differential also. Where can you remove mass? Well it sure cant be from the crown, so the skirt starts to disappear. So in a short explanation; when you have a grossly over square engine which has a light crank shaft you have no choice than to remove material from the piston skirt. It must be realized that these new bikes turn 16K or more.

The End

Here is a good article that will explain quite a bit.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke_ratio#Square_engine_examples

You are right, I apoligize for drifting off topic, I hope I didn't offend you otakar. I contemplated long before posting, I try to conduct myself in a better manner believing I am a representation of my family and their values. I try to post each time as though my mother would be reading it.
Again, I apoligize for off topic and belittling of anyone.

les holt wrote:

You are right, I apoligize for drifting off topic, I hope I didn't offend you otakar. I contemplated long before posting, I try to conduct myself in a better manner believing I am a representation of my family and their values. I try to post each time as though my mother would be reading it.
Again, I apoligize for off topic and belittling of anyone.

On the contrary. You are one of the very few who stayed ON Topic. I just wish more people would. I am agreeing with you. I by no means am offended, because there is no cause to be. I posted that to bring the thread BACK TO THE TOPIC.

Hi Folks,

I deleted and edited this thread from 108 to 80 posts. It took that much to get rid of the Asparagus fights. This is a good thread please do your best to leave the Asparagus' zipped up.

Back to your regularly scheduled, slightly drifted, topic.

KZCSI

KZCSI wrote:

Hi Folks,

I deleted and edited this thread from 108 to 80 posts. It took that much to get rid of the Asparagus fights. This is a good thread please do your best to leave the Asparagus' zipped up.

Back to your regularly scheduled, slightly drifted, topic.

KZCSI

"Slightly Drifted" Boy you have a flare for the understatement.
It is really worth to read the Wikipedia page to explain this subject quite well.

This thread sounds more like a old vs. new thread. The modern bikes have great performance, and as to whether they are reliable or not, I don't know. I do know that I don't like them. They feel uncomfortable to me any way. I don't like they way they look. If I ever did get a modern bike it would be an overpriced Harley. At least those bikes maintain their overpriced value over time.

IMO, the 70s / early 80s KZ bikes just have better styling to them. I really doubt in 30 years we are going to see people trying to restore these modern jap bikes. But we all have different tastes, so just buy whatever makes you happy I guess.