#20
Mark W
IH8MUD Lifer
Mark W's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,446
IIRC the shortened the stroke to drop the displacement to skirt below a 4.0+ liter tax penalty.
....................................................................................
certainly not for here as its based on 4,6,8 cylinders not on hp or displacement.
......................................................................................
200 CCs won';t make enough difference to matter. The longer stroke and rod of the 2f will make more torque for any given downward push on the piston from the burning fuel. The lighter rotating assembly and shorter stroke of the 3F will make for greater rpm cpability and a quicker revving motor.
...............................................................................
I am not trying to be arguementive but I have yet to see a 2F that is better running than a 3F, my 2 cents.

Mark W
IH8MUD Lifer
Mark W's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,446
IIRC the shortened the stroke to drop the displacement to skirt below a 4.0+ liter tax penalty.
....................................................................................
certainly not for here as its based on 4,6,8 cylinders not on hp or displacement.
......................................................................................
200 CCs won';t make enough difference to matter. The longer stroke and rod of the 2f will make more torque for any given downward push on the piston from the burning fuel. The lighter rotating assembly and shorter stroke of the 3F will make for greater rpm cpability and a quicker revving motor.
...............................................................................
I am not trying to be arguementive but I have yet to see a 2F that is better running than a 3F, my 2 cents.


