Is the ST1300 quicker than the ST1100?

dduelin

Tune my heart to sing Thy grace
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
9,681
Location
Jacksonville
Bike
GL1800 R1200RT NC700
2024 Miles
008131
STOC #
6651
All I know is that the engine in the CTX1300 is detuned. How? Don't know. Valve timing, different valves, lower compression . . . not sure. I think it was done for more low-end torque.
Depending on the dyno run the CTX has the same or a little less torque and 35 less hp. The peak torque does shift about 2000 rpm to the left - from about 6200 to 4000.
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2016
Messages
4,780
Location
Northumberland UK
Bike
VStrom 650
Errrrr, they're both naturally aspirated?
Re the 1100 on a calibrated Speedo they would do 131 mph with a slightly taller screen. Fast enough for me.
Upt'North.
 

ibike2havefun

Still above the sod
Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
2,781
Location
Rockville, MD, USA
Bike
Bikeless (9/29/2019)
STOC #
8824
Errrrr, they're both naturally aspirated?
I stole this definition from Wikipedia:

A naturally aspirated engine is an internal combustion engine in which air intake depends solely on atmospheric pressure and which does not rely on forced induction through a turbocharger or a supercharger.
From the Wikipedia article on fuel injection, I find this:

The primary difference between carburetors and fuel injection is that fuel injection atomizes the fuel through a small nozzle under high pressure (emphasis added), while a carburetor relies on suction created by intake air accelerated through a Venturi tube to draw the fuel into the airstream.
So, although an ST1300 does not have either a supercharger or a turbocharger, I think I have to disagree that a fuel injected engine is naturally aspirated. And the ST1300 is definitely fuel injected.

They can each go faster than I ever care to try.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
1,960
Location
near Harrow, Ontario, Canada
Bike
'83 BMW R100RS
STOC #
8870
Yup - "naturally aspirated" has nothing (or at least not all that much in most cases) to do with how the fuel gets into the cylinders - and fuel injection does not necessarily result in more power.

What it does is provide more consistent running and often, cleaner exhaust and better fuel consumption as a result of being able to continuously optimise the mixture in each cylinder by using data from the intake and exhaust conditions.
 
Last edited:

ST Gui

240Robert
Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
9,282
Location
SF-Oakland CA
Bike
ST1300, 2010
ibike2havefun said:
I think I have to disagree that a fuel injected engine is naturally aspirated.
You can but I think throughout the automotive/motorcycle industry you'd be in very small company. We agree that the ST1300 is FI but I don't agree with your chain of logic.

Both definitions (one you apparently disagree with) refer to the induction of air (added emphasis) and not air:fuel which is completely different. I think anyone familiar with ICEs can successful make the argument that the ST1300 is in fact naturally aspirated.

Certainly disagree if you feel so compelled but I don't think that makes your definition correct. In the scheme of things either of our positions on the subject are moot.
 
Last edited:

ibike2havefun

Still above the sod
Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
2,781
Location
Rockville, MD, USA
Bike
Bikeless (9/29/2019)
STOC #
8824
You can but I think throughout the automotive/motorcycle industry you'd be in very small company. We agree that the ST1300 is FI but I don't agree with your chain of logic.

Both definitions (one you apparently disagree with) refer to the induction of air (added emphasis) and not air:fuel which is completely different. I think anyone familiar with ICEs can successful make the argument that the ST1300 is in fact naturally aspirated.

Certainly disagree if you feel so compelled but I don't think that makes your definition correct. In the scheme of things either of our positions on the subject are moot.
You are better informed than I am, so I'll yield the point and accept the lesson. And you are definitely right that whether we agree or not makes not one whit of difference in the grand scheme of the universe. :)
 

wjbertrand

Ventura Highway
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
4,411
Location
Ventura, CA
Magazine tests show the 1300 is a full second quicker in the 1/4 mile and 10+ MPH faster on the top end than the 1100. When I upgraded to the 13 from my 11, the additional power was the first thing I noticed. The 13 has a shorter wheel base and a stiffer frame than the 1100 too, so in my opinion handles better too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

wjbertrand

Ventura Highway
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
4,411
Location
Ventura, CA
It is configured slightly different, a bit more low end torque as I recall. There's a thread around here about the differences. FYI, saying "detuned" can start a fight with the CTX owners. ;)
What CTX owners? I've yet to ever see one outside of a dealer's show room! They didn't just de-tune them, they cut the nuts off of them...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
1,960
Location
near Harrow, Ontario, Canada
Bike
'83 BMW R100RS
STOC #
8870
Yup - just to be clear: the term "naturally aspirated" means that the intake tract is not pressurized but simply uses atmospheric pressure (which is usually around 14.7 psi absolute at sea level) - except of course during a hurricane. :eek:

So - a normally aspirated engine sucks air in, mixes it with a bit of fuel (either using a carburetor or fuel injection) and then the mixture is compressed and ignited. If the ambient air pressure is lower - such as at high altitudes - then the engine sucks in less oxygen and therefore it produces less power. Also - if the engine has a carburetor, it will likely be optimised for the air density at sea level - and so at higher altitudes, the mixture will not be correct and that will also impair power delivery. Fuel injection can automatically compensate for altitude changes by measuring the intake air conditions and chemical composition of the exhaust gases. These adjustments can be made continuously many times per second - and that is why FI vehicles always seem to run "just right".

An engine that is not "normally aspirated" is said to employ "forced induction" which means that the intake tract is pressurized by some means. The basic purpose of forced induction is to increase the amount of air forced into the cylinders which can result in a huge power increase for a given engine displacement. The beauty of forced induction is that when you don't need the increased power, the engine reverts to its "true" size and thus in low power conditions can achieve much better fuel consumption than a larger engine operating at a throttled (low power) setting. This particularly useful for engines that have to work over a wide range of different power levels with rapid responses to throttle setting changes - such as cars and motorcycles. Ships and aircraft generally operate continuously at high power levels for long periods of time - so they are quite different from cars and bikes in that respect.

The different forms of forced induction include:
- a blower driven by the engine through either gears or a belt (this is often called a "supercharger");
- a blower driven by a turbine which in-turn is driven by exhaust gases (aka a "turbo-supercharger");
- there is a new set of developments which use a very high speed brushless electric motor to drive the blower (these are also used in the latest fuel cell developments to force hydrogen gas through the FC membrane) - these are becoming known as "e-chargers" or "e-blowers".

Each of these systems has its own set of pluses and minuses. Mechanical supercharger drives tend to be expensive and heavy and can be troublesome, but turbo-driven superchargers can have a significant delay between an increase in throttle position and the actual desired rise in intake boost pressure. This is called "turbo-lag" and most of the turbo-supercharged bikes built in the 1980s by Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki and Yamaha had lots of turbo-lag, which made them quite difficult to ride smoothly.

The other benefit is that, as noted above, a forced induction engine can produce a great deal more power at a higher altitude where the air is much less dense (and so there is less oxygen available) - which is obviously most important for aircraft. Nearly all WW-II aircraft engines used forced induction. The British, Japanese and German engines normally used mechanically driven superchargers while many US engines used turbo-superchargers (especially the radial engines) which were developed by General Electric in the 1920s. Interestingly, the most successful versions of the famous North American P-51 Mustang fighter used a British-designed Rolls Royce Merlin engine built under license by Packard in Detroit - and it used a mechanically driven supercharger rather than a turbo-supercharger. BTW - most versions of that Merlin supercharger had two stages (i.e. two separate blowers) and also had two different gear ratios in the crankshaft-driven gearbox. This two-stage, two-speed supercharger was a complex piece of gear - but it worked really well and gave planes like the Spitfire, Mosquito and the US Mustang the ability to perform well at a wider range of altitudes. It was fastened to the back of the engine by no fewer than 80 bolts.

Incidentally, the German (and some Italian) engines were nearly all fuel injected while the Allied engines, including the Russians, and the Japanese engines used carburetors. Those carbs were pretty sophisticated though because they could compensate for the huge air density changes from sea level right up to 25-35000 feet where some of these plane operated. Automotive and motorcycle carburetors generally cannot make those types of adjustments while operating.

The other variable is the location of the carburetor or fuel injection nozzle relative to the intake blower. Some systems are "suck-through" wherein the blower is downstream of the carb or FI nozzle and others are "blow-through" where the carb or FI nozzle is sited downstream of the blower.

There are several different types of compressors including centrifugal (the most common - looks like a cooling fan on a weed-whacker motor), Roots, scroll (usually found on larger engines) and very occasionally, an axial compressor which looks much like the big fan on the front of a large aircraft engine. As far as I know, the only modern motorcycle with forced induction from the factory is the Kawasaki Ninja H2 - which has a gear driven two-speed centrifugal supercharger. It is pretty sophisticated and can produce more than 300 HP from a 1 litre engine.

There are other related add-ones including intercoolers which are radiators that cool the compressed intake air (and thus make it more dense) and turbine waste gates which limit the pressure build-up usually to around 6-10 psi, so that the engine doesn't explode.

Finally, any reciprocating piston engine can employ forced induction: a gasoline engine or a diesel, operating on either a four stroke cycle or a two stroke cycle, although few gasoline two strokes are built these days due to emissions concerns (and very few small two stroke gasoline engines have used forced induction). I had a student many years ago who developed an intercooled turbo-supercharged installation for a 650cc two-stroke Skidoo snowmobile engine and it started easily, ran very well and went like an absolute mad fool at Bombardier's test track in Valcourt Quebec just south of Montréal. His work was incredibly well done - so these things are possible. Bombardier was grateful for the work (they paid for all the parts and supplies he used) - but they never marketed the machine because (I think) they felt that it would simply be too much for the consumer market.

Anyhow - all that is aside from the fact that the Honda ST1100 and ST1300 both have naturally aspirated engines - the former with carburetors and the later with closed loop electronic fuel injection.
 
Last edited:

jfheath

John Heath
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
2,824
Age
70
Location
Ilkley, W Yorkshire, UK
Bike
2013 ST1300 A9
2024 Miles
000679
STOC #
2570
I would really have to see a set of dyno curves to believe there is any difference in engine output.
Do you mean between the two versions of the ST1300 to which I referred ? It's only a sample of my own two ST1300s, and I owned both from brand new. The A6 pinked quite a lot from new when hot and under load. When tackling tight uphill bends, it would not pull away from the slow manoeuvre, and the engine would get close to stalling without slipping the clutch. In this respect my 1300A6 was much different from both of my previous ST1100s, and I was disappointed with this aspect of its behaviour. The 1300A9 model (mine was built in 2013) was very different. The engine sounds different, and low speed torque is excellent - I don't feel the need to have my hand covering the clutch lever on the same uphill hairpins on which the A6 struggled. Get the gear right, tip it into the bend and gently power it out - perfectly controlled by the throttle - just as it should be.

I always thought that my A6 ran a tad too lean - and had it checked by the dealer. They said it was spot on. I wondered if Honda, in playing around with the idea of using the ST1300 engine in a lower revving, torquey bagger, discovered an improvement that could be made in the ECM of the ST1300. But that is sheer supposition on my part. Nevertheless, the ECM unit changed in (I think) 2008 models onwards.

For my ST1300s, the difference in usable power at low revs is all too obvious. A friend who also moved from an A6 to an AE made a similar observation.
 

Gerhard

Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
1,884
Location
Ontario
Bike
2012 R1200RT
Non aspirated bike would definitely be the slowest ;)

Gerhard
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ibike2havefun

Still above the sod
Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
2,781
Location
Rockville, MD, USA
Bike
Bikeless (9/29/2019)
STOC #
8824
MaxPete- thanks for the very thorough and lucid explanation. I'm less iggernant and ill-informed as a result. :)
 
Top Bottom