Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'Bike Reviews, Questions and Suggestions' started by powinc1, Oct 14, 2014.
I'm looking at getting a Triumph America, but it's air-cooled. Isn't water cooled better?
It's different, watercooling is a pretty new thing for bikes remember. It's not something I'd consider worth paying much attention to when making a buying decision.
Air cooled gives you a more unrefined feel, which is better on a cruiser.
water cooling wins hands down, it carries the heat away a lot quicker allowing engines to run with higher compression ratios, which means more power, and it also allows engines to run leaner fuel ratios for better fuel economy and emission controls......... but my bike is air cooled because I can't trust myself with all that extra power and lets just say I'm a environmental vandal
Not better in all circumstances, but yes for bikes it is better for performance. However air cooled is lighter, easier to work on and can be more reliable. If a bike is air cooled, it's been designed with that in mind. I wouldn't worry.
I think they've got an oil cooler haven't they?
270kgs, luckily they didnt stick on watercooling to make it heavy or anything.
And 61hp. My xr has that with half the weight.
With the legendary Triumph "reliability" as well.....bahahahaaha
Ah but are you really? All that radiator/pump/coolant/etc. that needs making has an environmental impact of it's own. Surely.
probably but they don't test radiator emissions
Water cooled has better control over engine temp, and so yes you can get more performance. But it also adds complexity, weight and maintenance. When I bought my bike I was tossing up between the GS500 and the CBR500, I chose the GS as it was a fair bit cheaper (part Scottish), and the less complexity, of course as I was LAMS limited back then, power wasn't a huge issue.
I have both types, both are great in different ways. Niether has let me down, 120,000km liquid and 100,000km oil.
There's not as much to go wrong with an air/oil cooled bike. But a liquid cooled bike will usually be quieter and more efficient.
If it was me, I'd just go with the bike I liked more.
None of those things will apply to a cruiser.
I struggled with this issue when deciding on the Hyper. The KTM and Aprilia alternatives both have water cooling, higher redlines, more power and better fuel efficiency. It seemed like such a no-brainer ... until the test-ride. The rest is history.
You don't compare engines, you compare bikes. As @b12mick said, buy the bike that you like.
That said, my thighs sometimes get a bit roasted in summer traffic. And I wish it got better fuel range (shouldn't be a problem with a cruiser's tank). And I sometimes feel like I could do with an extra 2500rpm (not relevant for a cruiser).
Well,l I ended up buying a 2006 Triumph America with 23k on the clock for $9k. Rode it over 300km home it was a delight.
Have a look at harley davidsons latest tourers, they have water cooled heads. In order to maintain the power with the ever tightening emission rules this will probably be on every harley in the future.
That's partly to do with the layout though, vertically mounted 45deg motor means the rear cylinder doesn't get a lot of cool air. Less of a problem with a parallel twin like the America.
The bmw twins are going water cooled as well. They dont have the layout issue.
Triumph are just behind
The bloke asked if watercooling is better, yes it is, fact. I've already stated I ride a air cooled bike so i don't really give a shit if it is.
Enjoy your trumpy OP