observations...

[Lemieuxfan]

is it just me or does the new rocket has 163 pounds feet of torque which is the same as previous; for 200 more CC s shouldn't it be more?

i get that its lighter and just by looking at the bike you can see the less weight does have more HP but the rocket is and always will be about the torque and i feel its a miss that they didn't improve on the 163..

 

[atlsrt44]

is it just me or does the new rocket has 163 pounds feet of torque which is the same as previous; for 200 more CC s shouldn't it be more?

i get that its lighter and just by looking at the bike you can see the less weight does have more HP but the rocket is and always will be about the torque and i feel its a miss that they didn't improve on the 163..

Also tighter emissions...

 

[Tripps]

Also built to a price point

 

[ruzzle]

Also built to a price point

We hope...................

 

[Brennus]

They needed to up the engine size just to keep the original power and torque with the euro 5 emissions.
Just means there's more upside after market for us to play with.

 

[Lemieuxfan]

They needed to up the engine size just to keep the original power and torque with the euro 5 emissions.
Just means there's more upside after market for us to play with.

good points everyone; the Triumph Marketing (or lack of thereof) is really trying to do a sales job that the performance is so much better than previous. And to me that is a tough sell.

 

[Claviger]

Don't get confused by the naysers (like me sometimes), the new bike is going to be faster than the old, even when the old has intake/exhaust/tune. Two factors that tell you this:
1 - Weight, obviously.
2 - Higher Torque peak RPM (4,000 new, 2,800 old). Triumph have been doing a lot of work to flatten their torque curves out and give a strong linear feel across the rev range on all their bikes. This translates to more area under the curve on the new engine, even if the peak numbers are the same.

There's also some discussion about valve train going on. Triumph published something (I can't find it but someone else quoted it), about having titanium valves. IF that's true, and IF they used good valve springs instead of limp wristed ones as in the 2.3 rocket 3, and IF they used finger followers or shim under buckets instead of old school shim over (like the 2.3 rocket) then a drop in big cam will be an easy upgrade to bump power way up. IF they constructed the cylinder head in the same manner as the old bike's then there's also a good gain to be had for an investment of an hour with a die grinder and sanding wheel on the intake ports.

Notice there's a lot of IF in that sentence. We simply don't know enough yet, once the parts fiche gets posted, it will all become clear.

 

[Claviger]

Here I put in a little effort and found this telling image of a disassembled R3R/GT engine, lets see what we can see..

Everything looks very familiar...
- The most telling things to me are the valves sitting over there on the left, why would they put those there? My guess is to show off they're indeed titanium (color also suggests their Titanium).
- The head, while turned on it's side, clearly to hide the important info. What I can see looking at it is, there doesn't appear to be space for finger followers, unless they removed them for the pic, so I'm going to predict bucket style tappets. 28.5mm are likely if shim under, stolen from the Speed Triple line.
- Round ports, YAY! This should help making aftermarket headers that much easier, no more oval to round transition required for all the exhaust gurus out there.
- Intake cam appears to have a cam sensor on it, whoop whoop, standalone conversion will be easier.
- Appears to still use a 2 pump dry sump, as the old one does (top of pic).
- Separate cylinders to main case, as many sportbikes have. I personally love this, for a lot of reasons, but the main reason, no more wet liner that's supposed to be resealed every time the head comes off (don't think most people do this anyways).
- 6 holes on the cam gear. Accommodating for different cam options in the future? Time will tell.
- Pistons sure are shiny, and not dished, appearing flat topped with reliefs. Going to go out on a limb and guess 10.5:1 compression. Also appear to be "slipper" pistons, with small half skirts, means high RPM won't be an issue for the pistons. Underside suggests a forged piston, can't say yet though, could be hyperexplosive pistons too.
- Integrated water pump, sweet! Can finally do something to improve flow for super modified bikes now, better wheel, slightly smoothing channels for better flow etc.

If compression is that high, and displacement went up, and the torque peak is the same, I'm betting it's a significantly larger intake cam, set to a much higher centerline than the 2294cc engine, explicitly to flatten and broaden the torque curve. This would raise peak torque RPM, raise peak power (hp), and raise the RPM peak power occurs.

Need better pictures lol.

Overall, it suggests the engine is designed to turn higher RPM than the 2294cc engine. That's really odd considering the 7,000 RPM redline. Are they prepping it for aftermarket mods? Prepping it for a "performance version" that has more RPM and power? Prepping it for Screaming Eagle like upgrade path? Who knows, but, a lot of the steps seem largely unnecessary for only a 7,000 RPM redline, the TFC's peak power is allegedly at 7,000, so redline is likely higher, 7,200 or 7,500.

Piston speed on a 2294 engine at 8200 is the same as piston speed on the 2458 engine at 9000.