Stalin's Revenge - May 2009

The article mentions the Ural's "8.6:1 compression pound(s) out 40 raging bhp on 91 octane fuel."

I thought the high octane fuel was only needed to prevent detonation on high compression engines and had no measurable impact on horsepower. Doesn't all gas contain essentially the same amount of energy, with higher octane just slowing the burn? Does the Ural require high octane, and if so why?

BTW, good article. I've considered a Ural as a dead-of-winter vehicle for a few years, but they just don't seem reliable enough to be a commuter vehicle.

Thanks  

How could anyone make any conclusions out of this BS?
It's not an article, it just a digest of 100-years old Internet crap.
Comments on reliability are ridicules.
One just can’t compare crouch-rockets to sidecars in general and Urals particular. Mr. Lewis just didn’t get the whole idea.

If anyone interested to find out what Urals are really about I would recommend read Peter Egan article in Feb’07 Cycle World (short version can be found here http://www.cycleworld.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=258) or visit manufacturer’ website www.imz-ural.com. A lot of good information also on www.advrider.com


Thanks  

I think you are right on the all gas contains the same power thing.  The higher octane just lights off slower.

Combustion chamber shape has something to do with detonation also.  Modern bikes run high comp. and can use low grade fuel-my ZRX runs fine on crap gas.   60 years of progress I guess.

That Ural is a WWII  BMW about 20 generations behind the latest stuff, The commies have it putting out 40HP-it probably made like 15 in the  African desert.

Joe  

Why does Motorcyclist Magazine waste good money for lousey writing by Jack Lewis????  He tries to sound like a know-it-all with big expensive words that don't really relate to the subject.  I have read more than enough of his terrible writings, not only printed by your GREAT magazine, but other GOOD magazines.  Forget spending on Jack Lewis!
 He mentioned a model by Triumph Motorcycles of the 50's and 60's as, "'54 Triumph Tiger Cub 110."  I believe he meant model Thunderbird 110, as the Tiger Cub was a 200cc single cylinder built in the '60's which replaced the Terrier 150cc single cylinder.
Ron  

Mea culpa, Ron.  

The Triumph model referenced should have been the "Tiger 110," which made 42 bhp (claimed) in 1954, a mighty rocket for that era.  My 1954 Chevy 3100 only makes 105 horsepower (again, claimed), and it has four more cylinders.

Not sure how I slipped "Cub" in there.  I regret the oversight.

Cheers,

Jack