Air cooled or Water cooled and why???

[wad]

Whats the power differences between a Air cooled 250r and a water cooled
250r ???
Which do you prefer and why???

[RedRider_AK]

The aircooler makes less power stock for stock, but then again, most air-cooled motors are less tuned (looser tolerances) due to the wide range of temperatures that it must operate under.

I like water cooled machines, due to more power, but if I was going to take a machine on a LONG trip, where reliability was key, I'd pick an aircooler. Less stuff to break = more reliable.

[300rman]

an airfooler with work will keep up with most water pumpers. they can be a very potent machine.

[RedRider_AK]

an airfooler with work will keep up with most water pumpers.

The more you "work" a machine, the less reliable it becomes. And that's beside the point. They only way you can compare power differences between 2 engine types is keeping them stock to stock, otherwise it's pointless. It's like comparing a worn out Caterpillar diesel motor to a modded out 502 big block Chevy engine, running supercharger and nitrous.

[Tri-ZNate]

Want MORE? Get a Liquid

Want Cheaper? Get Fooled

[Dammit!]

but if I was going to take a machine on a LONG trip, where reliability was key, I'd pick an aircooler. Less stuff to break = more reliable.

I don't know why on earth you would do that. The water cooled R's are some of the most reliable trikes ever made. The water pumps are dead solid reliable (unlike the tri-z if that's what you're thinking about). I think the water cooled R motors are one of the best Honda has ever made.

Back to the original question. I'd pick the water R any day.

The water R has about ten more HP stock.
Roughly ten mph faster.
Suspension is WAY better.
Eaiser parts availability.
Much more aftermarket support.

You can make a Air R competitive in 300 feet drags or something like that but the liquid versions are better in every category as far as I'm concerned.

[RedRider_AK]

I don't know why on earth you would do that. The water cooled R's are some of the most reliable trikes ever made. The water pumps are dead solid reliable (unlike the tri-z if that's what you're thinking about). I think the water cooled R motors are one of the best Honda has ever made.

I'm just saying generally, if you're taking a long trip in the desert, trails, etc, an air-cooled machine has less parts to break and is inherently more reliable. I'm not saying that the liquid R motor is unreliable, but as a matter of principle, I would take an aircooler. I suppose my example would fit better with an on-road bike or dual-sport, or something like that, but I'm stickin' to my guns. :beer

[stealthduner]

I own both:

I like the Water pumper better for two reasons

1: They are so easy to get parts for, plus the bottom end is nearly indestructable (the two 83R's we have owned have lost 3rd gear)

2: The suspension and handling is alot better on the water pumpers

[Erics350x]

The only problem with water cooled is you get burned like hell when a hose pops.

[Dammit!]

The only problem with water cooled is you get burned like hell when a hose pops.

In 19 years that has never happened to me and I still have the original hoses on it. :beer

[ATC-Eric]

The water pumps are dead solid reliable (unlike the tri-z if that's what you're thinking about). I think the water cooled R motors are one of the best Honda has ever made.


I agree with you here Doug 110%!!!!!!!!

The clutch just went out on my 86, but it was old and tired.

I like my liquid R because it is reliable. I dont want to mod it at all for that reason. Its fun stock, and they are very reliable strong bikes.

There arent that many more parts to a liquid R, then the fooler. All your talkin about really is the cooling system. Has anyone ever had a water pump fail on a liquid R?


If tuned properly, they are great bikes to just get on and ride!

[84honda200s]

I'm just saying generally, if you're taking a long trip in the desert, trails, etc, an air-cooled machine has less parts to break and is inherently more reliable. I'm not saying that the liquid R motor is unreliable, but as a matter of principle, I would take an aircooler. I suppose my example would fit better with an on-road bike or dual-sport, or something like that, but I'm stickin' to my guns. :beer



idk about that bud. maybe in ak a fooler isnt too bad do to its cooler up there. but i do know the air cooled motors have a hard time staying cool for long rides. as a fooler gets hot that piston starts to expand and will eventually start to "melt" down. ive seen it done before. not a good site to see. now the liquid cooled engines are more reliable i the sense you dont have to worry too much about burning up your motor.


at any rate id take the liquid just because the parts are easier to get a hold of and they dont "melt down" like a fooler can. but if i was building a drag bike it would be a fooler. just because it has to be great to see the look on someones face when you beat their craptor with a fooler.

[azjay]

i've been riding my fooler, in the desert for 23 years, since the last top end. i pulled a water pumper in on a rope pres.day weekend (burnt piston), the other pumper with us was concerned about over heating while towing. my fooler fires 1st kick, and is happy trailing in the rocks or blasting in the sand. air cooled works for me, admittedly parts ARE getting scarce. if i was going 250r shopping tomorrow, i'd shop for a pumper, just because the parts are more available, and will be for awhile.

[1upfront]

The air r holds it's own in the desert trust me, both bikes are very reliable and well built nobody can deny that.

[The Goat]

bump to prompt even MORE discussion

[Saul]

bump to prompt even MORE discussion

wow HOMIE, you certainly aint trying to stir nothing up huh? :rolleyes:

[The Goat]

lol....saul, if you bothered to read the discussions above you would see that once again, both bikes have their strengths and weaknesses.

as our good russian buddy was quick to point out, with less parts, an aircooler is inherently MORE RELIABLE.

If you wouldn't go so far as to take every negative comment about an air fooler as a personal insult, things would be A LOT easier to discuss.

I like the airfooler for their looks and simplicity.

I like the pumper for the power. Is that a crime?

as you said, preference...

[Saul]

Do you actually think a pumper is faster cause it's 'a water pumper' ?

Do you think there is that much difference between the two engines? Personally, I think with the same pipe, carb and intake people would be shocked at how much or should I say little HP difference there would be between a Fooler and a pumper.

Anyways...

[The Goat]

saul...there's a 15+hp difference...stock for stock. as stated above, the stock aircooled engine can't be machined to tight tolerances because of the huge temperature ranges it operates at. Drag racers don't see these problems for the most part, as you're very unlikely to overheat in 5 seconds or less.

I've ridden a piped jetted airfooler 250...at no point was it unmanageable. If it isn't scary, I'm wanting more.

a full blown ported, carbed, piped 300 is a completely different story.

a stock air R throws down a whopping 23hp at the crank. dead even with a stock 350x.

[Saul]

saul...there's a 15+hp difference...stock for stock.

and this 15 HP difference (where did the number originally come from) has nothing to do with the fact that the 81 has a 27mm carb and a junk intake and exhaust system compared to the vast improvements made in these areas by 85-86?

You really think the advertised engine HP difference comes from engine design along?

Take a 81 250R engine and an 85 engine - dyno test them with the SAME carb, intake and pipe and there will not be a full 15HP difference between engines.

[The Goat]

it comes from the honda brochures saul.


there will not be a 15hp difference saul, you're correct....HOWEVER you will still see a substantial difference in power.

waterpumper guys chime in, I'm done.

[firefirefire90]

Saul... dude... waterpumper 250R's out accel the aircooled bikes in all of the same categories. This is how it is with almost all model ANYTHINGS. Later model is generally faster/better. I love having my aircooled 250R, but you have to accept what it is. I know for a fact my old 85 was twelve times faster(well it had a 310 kit but anyways), the suspension was better, and it was a lot smoother and the list goes on! They're all different animals. When I was drag racing a lot of waterpumpers, I pulled the holeshot probably 85% of the time... but they instantly caught up! Sometimes you have to accept the fact... there is a reason people switched over to the liquid cooled models when they came out... they were just better

[The Goat]

something I point out, that Bill pointed out to me to make me look like a fool...the 1985 350x is faster than the 86. lol. there, I know you're reading, thought I'd share that info you gave.

I was fairly conservative with the 15hp figure...pumpers were 38 at the crank if I remember right, 85 model...not 86.

[Dammit!]

something I point out, that Bill pointed out to me to make me look like a fool...the 1985 350x is faster than the 86. lol. there, I know you're reading, thought I'd share that info you gave.



Where did he get that info from? I was unaware of any changes from 85 to 86 that would make the 85 350x faster. Is it geared differently?

Some people say the same thing about the 250R but I call BS on it until I see some proof (which is pretty much impossible because we'd need two completely stock and 100% fresh test subjects along with a dyno and radar gun). I think I know why some people THINK the 85 R is faster. I personally think it's just the way the power comes on different between them which is mostly just because of the different carb. HP and speed wise, they should be the same because nothing was changed that would alter the gearing or the peak RPM. The stock dunlop tires in 85 were very, very slightly taller/more rounded potentially netting a mph or so but that's all I can see that might actually have a real, measurable impact.

[The Goat]

possibly softer rubber compound in the tires allowing greater expansion?

got a 300 honda down here that easily does low 60s just because of the swamp lites on it, they expand until the almost touch the fender.

My theory for the 350x is that because of slightly better oiling in the 86, there is more internal resistance on the gears... it's retarded, but if you think that a part with just enough oil on it will function better than a part with way too much oil on it, it does make a little sense.

[Dammit!]

More oil won't cause the engine to rev lower. Not to a degree that will slow it down anyway. If there really is a difference in top speed, it can only come from a difference in gearing (which would include the tire size at speed) or peak rpm.

[The Goat]

Idk...that's just what the man said, and having never ridden or touched an 85, or even heard of that nonsense...I conceded rather than argued.

maybe he meant rev faster? I had a grand am that I ran 20w50 in because I was ALWAYS in the red, it did rev noticablly slower than when it was running 5w20.

That's actually where I got the idea from to make the assumption.

[Dammit!]

If he said rev faster, maybe the flywheel weight is different?

I'm not saying it isn't true. I just never heard it before and wanted to know why. It's with the 250R that I'm confident calling BS on it. The tires are the only thing that I can see really making much of a difference and who the hell runs stock tires? :lol:

[The Goat]

idk, let's keep this up, I have 4 hours left at work...let's debunk some myths.

that would make sense on the flywheel weight, but, I thought the part numbers were the same?

hmm...



Here's another myth...37mm fcr and 41mm fcr both fit on a 350x with a stock gastank...just have to stretch the boot. whoever said they don't...was doing something WIERD

[Dammit!]

I haven't tried a FCR carb on my 350x but I'd like to. I don't like the stocker very much.

Edit: it's a good thing this is an old thread because it's been seriously hijacked. :lol:

[The Goat]

I have the 37mm FCR, you should pm me...I can share something really secretive...and really AWESOME about those.

[Macs]

In 19 years that has never happened to me and I still have the original hoses on it. :beer



Damn, why in the world would someone ride on the original hoses for 19 years?????? Thats almost as bad as running the original oil for 19 years. I would keep that to myself.


Please, if anyone else rides your R let them know the hose can burst at any second and disfigure them for life.

[Dammit!]

It's not that big of a deal. We're not talking about the same temperatures and pressure that a car would be running. I've seen people have rad caps come off in the dunes and it didn't gush out like a car would. I would have replaced them by now if they were available but they're discontinued. I have several sets of used ones laying around but I see no reason to change them. No signs of weakness anywhere. My trikes get thoroughly doused with armor all and wd40 on a regular basis and I never run straight water in the rads so they never have a chance to dry out. :lol:

Actually you know what, I take part of that back. Now that I think about it, 4 years ago I changed three out of the four hoses. The last one was unavailable. I can't remember which one now.