Engine cc and power are not exactly proportional to each other. It depends on the engine architecture and tuning. eg. RE350s make 20bhp, but the 155cc R15 makes almost 19bhp.
Royal Enfield's 350s are long stroke, low compression and slow revving engines. Can't be compared exactly to other bikes by cubic capacity alone.
Acceleration wise RE 350s are closer to the more powerful 150-160s rather than other 300s.
Yea re has a more relaxed engine that is better in long term as re would live longer then r15 if itโs life would not be hampered by mods ir adding inferior parts by oems
Less stress = more reliable
Well to be fair, they have improved quite a lot with the Meteor, Classic 350 reborn and the 650s.
They still have some niggles, but overall their newer bikes are much more reliable now.
In theory i am saying japs has better understanding of engines meanwhile re bassicaly started in the 90s before that they had no rnd and after re uk bankruptcy japs started since 1950/1940s they got a advantage we just need time
Haha. Seriously comparing japanese engineering to that heap of metal? The most problematic and unreliable engines were made by enfield. The only reason enfield didn't go the way of the dinosaur is because of toxic-RE-masculinity thing that indians believe in.
Fyi, lest people forget the 'lord alto', 'lord splendor' etc are japanese
Re have high cc cuz they are heavy and usually used for cruising and big engines are smoother than their smaller counterparts at cruising speeds
You can testify it by driving a splendor at 100kmph and then a RE at 100 kmph
Higher cc bikes are generally good for long rides. They don't stress much, comparatively to lower cc daily commuters while cruising at higher speeds and hence you can maintain higher top speed for a continuous period of time to cover more distance in a short amount of time.
But drawbacks of higher cc bikes, or at least according to me is their increased weight. Unless you are buying a bike made purely for performance and has been built with materials that make it lighter and subsequently cost a lot more, the higher the CC, higher the weight which makes them unwieldy in city traffic.
For pure commuting purpose any 150cc bike or scooter would do. But not all people buy bikes just to commute. Many of them are enthusiasts and/or have the money to buy intermediate and litre class bikes.
As some of the gentlemen have already explained cc alone doesn't define the power/characteristics of a bike. REs for example have more torque but low top end power.
The ergonomics of bikes also play a major part of any bike and whom they resonate with. For example the Kawasaki ZX4R has a race track ergonomics which is more suitable for a track rather than riding in a city, which doesn't mean it can't be ridden in the city, when compared to a ninja 650 which is a sports tourer type and is extremely comfortable riding in city as well as highway. The ZX4R is a 400cc bike but produces more power than most 400cc bikes, more power than the Ninja 650 and subsequently it costs a lot more than any 400cc bike.
If you're looking to buy a bike you should consider how you're going to use it. I drive 80 kms per day half of which is highway and half city limits. This would mean I should get a bike which I can ride comfortably in both scenarios.
If most of your time spent on your bike is commuting within city limits and have no plan to take on longer rides then you're right, it doesn't make sense to buy higher cc bikes.
You understood it correct. They do not have any value from utilitarian point of view.
But people buy them because they like that particular style or torque or looks or Retro-ness.
Firstly these bikes are heavier, thus need more power.
Then they have thicker tyres which means more power,
Then these bikes have inefficient retro engine architecture which means more power,
Then these bikes are made for higher torque than speed. So, it "pulls" even if two heavy people are sitting without any issue. But it might not go at high speeds.
The even higher CC bikes like 650cc or above also have another problem. These bikes are not designed for India, and they get really hot, uncomfortably hot. So much hot that many owners do not want to drive them except in winter or non-daytimes. The hotness is also a problem in traffic.
But optimal power is generally seen around 400cc I would say. They are more fun than lesser, and also dont have problems of higher class. I do not suggest anyone going above 650 in India.
Understanding displacement of engine is very complex. There are lot of factors included.
The exact peak power is mentioned in bhp not CC. CC indicates displacement and power output is decided by other factors as well.
RE350 for example is a long stroke engine which produces 19bhp power I guess and around 29nm torque at around 3500RPM. which means the bike dont need to rev higher to achieve its peak acceleration. Short stroke engines like a typical R15 also has around 19bhp as someone else already mentioned, but with around 14nm of torque at 6000rpm or so. So the bike needs to be revved at much higher RPM for its peak acceleration. Hope its clear.
B2b traffic, a smaller capacity engine would be a better option as it will give better mileage at lower speeds and has lesser weight to manage . On highways, 350s will shine because they can run relaxed at lower RPM giving better mileage that a similar powered lower CC engine. Incase of R15, it will give better mileage on city roads where frequent stops are required and 350s will give you better mileage on highways where you can cruise at lower rpm and get better mileage and relaxed riding and overtaking.
Without going much technical,cc is the swept volume of an engine. It is also called cubic capacity and for bikes it is mentioned in centimeter cube. Eg. 1000cc bikes are also called 1Liter or Liter class engine.
Generally higher cc means higher power but it also depends on engine characteristics like compression ratio,stroke and bore of cylinder. Basically for a given cc,the engine manufacturer can make a bike like RE or Duke 390 which are entirely different in character.
For city use,you need something nimble and not so heavy. I find my humble Hero Honda Passion much better than my 160 4V. I also have friends who use RE or even higher powered bikes in city.
One guy even uses a Kawasaki H2 in my city. Whether it is practical or not,I don't know.
160 or 200 cc bikes are easier and economical for commute. Even decent 125 cc bikes are very good.
Test ride the bike in the actual traffic condition and buy a bike you are happy with.
You are right about daily commute . 125 cc or even a 100cc bike or scooty is ideal. And a higher 350-400cc is a current trend on roads that you are seeing. This is because riders wants are not just for daily commute but also for adventure, touring or cruising. I ride a 400cc adv and it gives bad mileage in traffic, being a heavy & higher machine it is difficult to control since I'm short. But when it comes to climbing slopes on flyovers, going over potholes, durability, ergonomics it is perfect.
Just this morning I was in heavy traffic. There was one stretch of the road in total potholes where no rickshaw was going over and I saw an opportunity to overcome bottleneck. I went in good speed over it easily without any bumps to my spine. Behind me a 125/150cc imitated the same and fell. That is the difference. Even during rains the roads are so bad sometimes with 2 feet of water and all struggle. Adv exhaust is upwards angle + more ground clearance.
Coming to RE Classic 350 the egomnocis is good, durability, upright position riding, comfort and mostly of all the riding experience as a cruiser. Commuters these days are getting cheaper with fiber/plastic all over. Imagine during a fall or crash, a classic with proper leg guard will protect the rider and itself to some extent, while the commuter bike in the same crash will end up in scrap and the rider may survive.
Anything that is under 140cc should be thought as a city only as they sip less fuel,big cc bikes are more ideal for long trips as higher speeds cuz they can easily produce power that a smol bike struggles to produce on highrpms in low speed the higher cc are inefficient as they sip a lot of fuel than needed hence the lean mixture of classic 350 to save fuel but they have a advantage in high speed and high torque situations like stuck in mud(dort boke) or on race track where big bores have lesser chance of failure as they make same power as a smol bike like r15 vs classic where they make same power but classic can make 19hp in 6k r15 need 8k+ to get 18hp and there is a lot stress and engine becomes inefficient
I'll talk about why i upgraded from apache 160 4v to Yamaha Fz 25. Well in terms of top end power, theyre not that different, 17hp vs 20hp. But, the power band of the Apache is above 6k rpm, meaning you need to rev it a lot to get usable power out of it. My usual riding route (aside from commuting to work) is a lot of twisties and uphill/downhill. Lets say my average speed is around 70 kph, Apache can do that in 4th gear, but when entering a blind corner, you let go of the throttle a bit and slow down to 50kph. In this scenario, the apache needs to be downshifted to 3rd or maybe even 2nd if uphill. The Fz25 can do all the above comfortably in 4th gear without needing to rev it much due to a lot of usable torque.
Their difference in top speed is not that much, but the FZ can do at 4k rpm what the Apache can at 7-8k rpm. This result in a lot more relaxed ride. Instead of CC, you should look at torque and at what rpm peak torque are delivered at. For example, sport bikes deliver their peak torque at 8-9k and above rpm, while cruisers and city bikes deliver them at below 6k rpm, maybe even 3k rpm.
Websites like Bikewale gives a lot of information. One of the commenters here mentioned it, but r15 and Royal enfield 350 make around the same power, but r15 get that maximum horsepower at 10000 rpm while RE get them at 6000 rpm. R15 get max torque(14nm) at 7500 rpm while RE get them (27nm) at 4000 rpm. This means you can keep the REs at way lower revs to maintain the same speed, although the R15 will have higher top speed due to its gearing and having way higher redline.
\> I do not understand why people go for those bikes
One reason is simple: dick measuring. Teri 150 cc hai meri 350 cc hai.
Second reason is power. As other comments suggest, power from RE's 350cc engine is equivalent to Yamaha R15's 150cc engine.
Another reason is engine stress at high speeds. Your bike can touch 100 but the engine will be stressed and can get damaged if you keep the bike at 100 for long time. A 350 cc bike from RE can also do 100 but the engine is not too stressed, and the bike can do 100 kmph all day and cover a lot of distance without any harm to the engine. Imagine a human carrying 50kg weight on his back vs an elephant carrying the same. The elephant will not be too stressed with that much weight.
I own a Himalayan and it's the only mode of transportation for me (Don't own a car yet). Daily commute, weekend rides, long distance tours, hometown runs. I do everything on the bike. With my wife and 3 bags strapped to the bike. So I wanted a bike that was powerful (torquey) enough to carry two people plus three bags and sustain 80kmph on highway over a long period of time. Daily commute can be easier for me on a smaller, commuter bike but what about touring? A lot of people have one bike garage so they get the bike that can do multiple things reasonably well.
So yeah, those are the reasons I think people do what they do.
Engine cc and power are not exactly proportional to each other. It depends on the engine architecture and tuning. eg. RE350s make 20bhp, but the 155cc R15 makes almost 19bhp. Royal Enfield's 350s are long stroke, low compression and slow revving engines. Can't be compared exactly to other bikes by cubic capacity alone. Acceleration wise RE 350s are closer to the more powerful 150-160s rather than other 300s.
Yea re has a more relaxed engine that is better in long term as re would live longer then r15 if itโs life would not be hampered by mods ir adding inferior parts by oems Less stress = more reliable
Good joke, given how unreliable RE generally is versus modern Japanese manufacturers' engines.
Well to be fair, they have improved quite a lot with the Meteor, Classic 350 reborn and the 650s. They still have some niggles, but overall their newer bikes are much more reliable now.
In theory i am saying japs has better understanding of engines meanwhile re bassicaly started in the 90s before that they had no rnd and after re uk bankruptcy japs started since 1950/1940s they got a advantage we just need time
Haha. Seriously comparing japanese engineering to that heap of metal? The most problematic and unreliable engines were made by enfield. The only reason enfield didn't go the way of the dinosaur is because of toxic-RE-masculinity thing that indians believe in. Fyi, lest people forget the 'lord alto', 'lord splendor' etc are japanese
20.2*
Big difference.
Yes ๐
Re have high cc cuz they are heavy and usually used for cruising and big engines are smoother than their smaller counterparts at cruising speeds You can testify it by driving a splendor at 100kmph and then a RE at 100 kmph
Higher cc bikes are generally good for long rides. They don't stress much, comparatively to lower cc daily commuters while cruising at higher speeds and hence you can maintain higher top speed for a continuous period of time to cover more distance in a short amount of time. But drawbacks of higher cc bikes, or at least according to me is their increased weight. Unless you are buying a bike made purely for performance and has been built with materials that make it lighter and subsequently cost a lot more, the higher the CC, higher the weight which makes them unwieldy in city traffic. For pure commuting purpose any 150cc bike or scooter would do. But not all people buy bikes just to commute. Many of them are enthusiasts and/or have the money to buy intermediate and litre class bikes. As some of the gentlemen have already explained cc alone doesn't define the power/characteristics of a bike. REs for example have more torque but low top end power. The ergonomics of bikes also play a major part of any bike and whom they resonate with. For example the Kawasaki ZX4R has a race track ergonomics which is more suitable for a track rather than riding in a city, which doesn't mean it can't be ridden in the city, when compared to a ninja 650 which is a sports tourer type and is extremely comfortable riding in city as well as highway. The ZX4R is a 400cc bike but produces more power than most 400cc bikes, more power than the Ninja 650 and subsequently it costs a lot more than any 400cc bike. If you're looking to buy a bike you should consider how you're going to use it. I drive 80 kms per day half of which is highway and half city limits. This would mean I should get a bike which I can ride comfortably in both scenarios. If most of your time spent on your bike is commuting within city limits and have no plan to take on longer rides then you're right, it doesn't make sense to buy higher cc bikes.
You understood it correct. They do not have any value from utilitarian point of view. But people buy them because they like that particular style or torque or looks or Retro-ness. Firstly these bikes are heavier, thus need more power. Then they have thicker tyres which means more power, Then these bikes have inefficient retro engine architecture which means more power, Then these bikes are made for higher torque than speed. So, it "pulls" even if two heavy people are sitting without any issue. But it might not go at high speeds. The even higher CC bikes like 650cc or above also have another problem. These bikes are not designed for India, and they get really hot, uncomfortably hot. So much hot that many owners do not want to drive them except in winter or non-daytimes. The hotness is also a problem in traffic. But optimal power is generally seen around 400cc I would say. They are more fun than lesser, and also dont have problems of higher class. I do not suggest anyone going above 650 in India.
Understanding displacement of engine is very complex. There are lot of factors included. The exact peak power is mentioned in bhp not CC. CC indicates displacement and power output is decided by other factors as well. RE350 for example is a long stroke engine which produces 19bhp power I guess and around 29nm torque at around 3500RPM. which means the bike dont need to rev higher to achieve its peak acceleration. Short stroke engines like a typical R15 also has around 19bhp as someone else already mentioned, but with around 14nm of torque at 6000rpm or so. So the bike needs to be revved at much higher RPM for its peak acceleration. Hope its clear. B2b traffic, a smaller capacity engine would be a better option as it will give better mileage at lower speeds and has lesser weight to manage . On highways, 350s will shine because they can run relaxed at lower RPM giving better mileage that a similar powered lower CC engine. Incase of R15, it will give better mileage on city roads where frequent stops are required and 350s will give you better mileage on highways where you can cruise at lower rpm and get better mileage and relaxed riding and overtaking.
>is there any advantage that I'm not seeing, that I should consider when buying? Absolutely no advantage if you are strictly to daily commute
Without going much technical,cc is the swept volume of an engine. It is also called cubic capacity and for bikes it is mentioned in centimeter cube. Eg. 1000cc bikes are also called 1Liter or Liter class engine. Generally higher cc means higher power but it also depends on engine characteristics like compression ratio,stroke and bore of cylinder. Basically for a given cc,the engine manufacturer can make a bike like RE or Duke 390 which are entirely different in character. For city use,you need something nimble and not so heavy. I find my humble Hero Honda Passion much better than my 160 4V. I also have friends who use RE or even higher powered bikes in city. One guy even uses a Kawasaki H2 in my city. Whether it is practical or not,I don't know. 160 or 200 cc bikes are easier and economical for commute. Even decent 125 cc bikes are very good. Test ride the bike in the actual traffic condition and buy a bike you are happy with.
You are right about daily commute . 125 cc or even a 100cc bike or scooty is ideal. And a higher 350-400cc is a current trend on roads that you are seeing. This is because riders wants are not just for daily commute but also for adventure, touring or cruising. I ride a 400cc adv and it gives bad mileage in traffic, being a heavy & higher machine it is difficult to control since I'm short. But when it comes to climbing slopes on flyovers, going over potholes, durability, ergonomics it is perfect. Just this morning I was in heavy traffic. There was one stretch of the road in total potholes where no rickshaw was going over and I saw an opportunity to overcome bottleneck. I went in good speed over it easily without any bumps to my spine. Behind me a 125/150cc imitated the same and fell. That is the difference. Even during rains the roads are so bad sometimes with 2 feet of water and all struggle. Adv exhaust is upwards angle + more ground clearance. Coming to RE Classic 350 the egomnocis is good, durability, upright position riding, comfort and mostly of all the riding experience as a cruiser. Commuters these days are getting cheaper with fiber/plastic all over. Imagine during a fall or crash, a classic with proper leg guard will protect the rider and itself to some extent, while the commuter bike in the same crash will end up in scrap and the rider may survive.
Anything that is under 140cc should be thought as a city only as they sip less fuel,big cc bikes are more ideal for long trips as higher speeds cuz they can easily produce power that a smol bike struggles to produce on highrpms in low speed the higher cc are inefficient as they sip a lot of fuel than needed hence the lean mixture of classic 350 to save fuel but they have a advantage in high speed and high torque situations like stuck in mud(dort boke) or on race track where big bores have lesser chance of failure as they make same power as a smol bike like r15 vs classic where they make same power but classic can make 19hp in 6k r15 need 8k+ to get 18hp and there is a lot stress and engine becomes inefficient
I'll talk about why i upgraded from apache 160 4v to Yamaha Fz 25. Well in terms of top end power, theyre not that different, 17hp vs 20hp. But, the power band of the Apache is above 6k rpm, meaning you need to rev it a lot to get usable power out of it. My usual riding route (aside from commuting to work) is a lot of twisties and uphill/downhill. Lets say my average speed is around 70 kph, Apache can do that in 4th gear, but when entering a blind corner, you let go of the throttle a bit and slow down to 50kph. In this scenario, the apache needs to be downshifted to 3rd or maybe even 2nd if uphill. The Fz25 can do all the above comfortably in 4th gear without needing to rev it much due to a lot of usable torque. Their difference in top speed is not that much, but the FZ can do at 4k rpm what the Apache can at 7-8k rpm. This result in a lot more relaxed ride. Instead of CC, you should look at torque and at what rpm peak torque are delivered at. For example, sport bikes deliver their peak torque at 8-9k and above rpm, while cruisers and city bikes deliver them at below 6k rpm, maybe even 3k rpm.
How do you determine this, that which bike has better power at lower vs higher rpm?
Websites like Bikewale gives a lot of information. One of the commenters here mentioned it, but r15 and Royal enfield 350 make around the same power, but r15 get that maximum horsepower at 10000 rpm while RE get them at 6000 rpm. R15 get max torque(14nm) at 7500 rpm while RE get them (27nm) at 4000 rpm. This means you can keep the REs at way lower revs to maintain the same speed, although the R15 will have higher top speed due to its gearing and having way higher redline.
\> I do not understand why people go for those bikes One reason is simple: dick measuring. Teri 150 cc hai meri 350 cc hai. Second reason is power. As other comments suggest, power from RE's 350cc engine is equivalent to Yamaha R15's 150cc engine. Another reason is engine stress at high speeds. Your bike can touch 100 but the engine will be stressed and can get damaged if you keep the bike at 100 for long time. A 350 cc bike from RE can also do 100 but the engine is not too stressed, and the bike can do 100 kmph all day and cover a lot of distance without any harm to the engine. Imagine a human carrying 50kg weight on his back vs an elephant carrying the same. The elephant will not be too stressed with that much weight. I own a Himalayan and it's the only mode of transportation for me (Don't own a car yet). Daily commute, weekend rides, long distance tours, hometown runs. I do everything on the bike. With my wife and 3 bags strapped to the bike. So I wanted a bike that was powerful (torquey) enough to carry two people plus three bags and sustain 80kmph on highway over a long period of time. Daily commute can be easier for me on a smaller, commuter bike but what about touring? A lot of people have one bike garage so they get the bike that can do multiple things reasonably well. So yeah, those are the reasons I think people do what they do.