Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MLuddyJr

  • Rank
    TT Newbie

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Location
    North Carolina
  • Interests
    Sport bikes, sports cars, loud music, following Christ
  1. I'm aware of why it makes power per displacement and why it burns more fuel than an equivalent four-stroke, but the fact still remains that it makes more power with less displacement, fewer parts, smaller physical size, and lighter overall weight. More power with fewer parts actually does mean mechanical efficiency. The relationship between fuel consumption and power produced only speaks of fuel efficiency. From dictionary.com: ef·fi·cient- Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. Encarta: ef·fi·cient- able to function without waste: capable of achieving the desired result with the minimum use of resources, time, and effort Oxford: efficient- working productively with minimum wasted effort or expense. None of these limit efficient to mean only fuel consumption. They all speak of productivity with minimal effort or waste. In the context of number of moving parts, physical size, weight, or displacement the two-stroke is still more efficient than the four-stroke no matter what you think the word means. In terms of fuel consumption the two-stroke is less efficient.
  2. A lot of guys seem to have taken the word efficient in this quote out of context. Efficiency does not always refer to fuel consumption. Two-strokes need fewer moving parts, less displacement, a smaller physical size, and less weight to produce the same power as a four-stroke engine making them more mechanically efficient even if they are not more fuel efficient.
  3. MLuddyJr

    Make Sure your Petcock is CLEAN!

    Try sending an email to admin (at) ktmtalk.com asking about registration with a hotmail account. I did that and they let me register with my hotmail account so I can lurk for now.