borderpatrol199 wrote:And they still think two strokes put out more horsepower
The YZ250 has a 249 cc liquid-cooled two stroke engine. The engine produces a stock 46.8 horsepower.
The YZ250F has a 250 cc liquid cooled four stroke engine. The engine produces a stock 34.5 horsepower.
Uhh no, you implied that four strokes produce more HP. I was simply proving you wrong. You just made it worse by comparing a 250cc two stroke to a 450cc four stroke.
borderpatrol199 wrote:And they still think two strokes put out more horsepower
The YZ250 has a 249 cc liquid-cooled two stroke engine. The engine produces a stock 46.8 horsepower.
The YZ250F has a 250 cc liquid cooled four stroke engine. The engine produces a stock 34.5 horsepower.
Border WTF? Pinit is right on this one. You compare a 250 2T to a 450 because thats what you see in racing. They've done that to give 4-strokes a fair chance, which has kinda taken over everything. In reality, per cc, which is the only real true comparison, 2 strokes make more hp than 4 strokes. 2 strokes are a whole lot less efficient as well, but thats another topic.
Nice job jumping on the Anti-Pinit721 bandwagon brother...
borderpatrol199 wrote:And they still think two strokes put out more horsepower
The YZ250 has a 249 cc liquid-cooled two stroke engine. The engine produces a stock 46.8 horsepower.
The YZ250F has a 250 cc liquid cooled four stroke engine. The engine produces a stock 34.5 horsepower.
how about those torque numbers? thats what does the majority of the work, right?
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
haha
