More Photos of the Turbo-Powered Suzuki Recursion

11/27/2013 @ 11:33 am, by Jensen Beeler40 COMMENTS

More Photos of the Turbo Powered Suzuki Recursion Suzuki Recursion Turbo Concept 01 635x449

Forced-induction was the trend du jour at the Tokyo Motor Show, with Kawasaki showing off a supercharged four-cylinder engine and with Suzuki debuting its turbocharged Recursion concept.

While Team Green is being tightlipped with what exactly its up to (all we know is that the supercharged motorcycle engine has been developed completely in-house), Suzuki is more keen with teasing its machine.

Releasing some more photos of the Suzuki Recursion, this bike is looking like a winner to us, with its water-cooled 588cc twin-cylinder engine that features an intercooled turbocharger.

Suzuki says the engine package is just shy of 100hp at 8,000 rpm, with peak torque coming in at 74 lbs•ft at 4,500 rpm. The Suzuki Recursion is also quoted as being 384 lbs dry.

This means the Recursion is both a lightweight and powerful motorcycle for its class, and Suzuki’s design appears to be spot-on as well from a visual standpoint. Who wouldn’t rock this bike, right?

Hopefully the Japanese OEM will follow-through with this concept and make it a production model — and hopefully this time it will also be sure to keep the most important feature, the turbocharged power plant, as a part of the finsihed machine…cough…B-King…cough.

More Photos of the Turbo Powered Suzuki Recursion Suzuki Recursion Turbo Concept 02 635x423

More Photos of the Turbo Powered Suzuki Recursion Suzuki Recursion Turbo Concept 03

More Photos of the Turbo Powered Suzuki Recursion Suzuki Recursion Turbo Concept 04 635x478

More Photos of the Turbo Powered Suzuki Recursion Suzuki Recursion Turbo Concept 05

More Photos of the Turbo Powered Suzuki Recursion Suzuki Recursion Turbo Concept 06

More Photos of the Turbo Powered Suzuki Recursion Suzuki Recursion Turbo Concept 07

More Photos of the Turbo Powered Suzuki Recursion Suzuki Recursion Turbo Concept 09

More Photos of the Turbo Powered Suzuki Recursion Suzuki Recursion Turbo Concept 10

More Photos of the Turbo Powered Suzuki Recursion Suzuki Recursion Turbo Concept 08 635x425

Source: Suzuki

Comment:

  1. Mikeyboy says:

    Where’s the dotted line Suzuki? I’ll sign on it as long as the price is right! Stunning looking machine. Good to see Suzuki getting back into the mix with new designs.

  2. Ian John says:

    Would have been good if they named it the new RGV.
    Likened to the 2 stoke days of old, this twin cylinder and the “powerband” boost form the turbo very nice.
    wonder if tuners will be adding a turbo sneeze valve, WAAAAP…..CHOOOOO…..WAAAP!

    Looks like it would be a hoot, Bring it Suzuki!

  3. Fearnow says:

    I’m seeing a tasty hint of the Muth Katana in this. and This Is Good.

    Would the US be able to handle it, though? One can hope.

  4. RL says:

    If they can get it to pull an honest 100hp and weigh 350lbs for $10,000 this thing will sell! Even if they miss any of these marks it is a very cool idea in a neat looking package

  5. Jeram says:

    Ian,

    It would be a terrible mistake to compare this bike to the RG and RGV lineage.

    For starters, the RG’s are a line of two strokes and secondly the recursion eginine is not in the V configuration.

    Then you look at the ‘low’ 185kg curb weight. Im not sure what everyones definition of light weight is. heck my 14 year old yamaha R6 has a lower dry weight and similar hp!

    For me, light weight is a sub-150kg bike. Such as the RGV250, Aprilias RS250, etc.

    Still it will be a fun bike!

  6. Sentinel says:

    Give me an optional passenger accommodating seat and some optional hardbags and Id’ be interested!

  7. Gonzo says:

    Could this be the bike that knocks the Hyabusa off the Ugliness throne? Stay Tuned!!!

  8. Thunderbug says:

    I like the idea, but … Back in 1983 all the Japanese manufacturers produced a turbo bike. I’ve had a ’83 Honda CX650T Turbo for 30 years now which, I think, was the best of the bunch. It is a 650, fuel-injected V-twin turbo with about 85 horsepower and shaft drive. It is tuned for boost in the mid-range and a roll-on from 60 mph on the freeway is still a joyous experience to this day. I love the bike, but it’s fairly heavy even for the early ’80s at ~550lbs. Part of the problem is that no matter how small displacement of the engine may be, it still takes ‘x’ amount of material to handle ‘y’ amount of power. If this Suzuki makes 99 horsepower, the con rods, crankshaft, etc., will still need to be sized to handle the power. The chassis will need to be sized for power as well. Theoretically, the engine can be a bit more compact due to smaller displacement, but you still have to add in the turbine unit weight and complexity. I wish Suzuki the best, but it’s hard to beat a light weight, normally aspirated engine in a motorcycle. Now if you add fuel mileage as a criteria the equation changes a bit — my Turbo gets about 50 mpg during normal riding — but most people don’t by sport motorcycles for their fuel economy. I will watch this with interest.

  9. MrWiggles says:

    I owned an XN85 Turbo back in the day and even though it was the slowest of the turbos, it sure handled and looked awesome. Legend has it that Suzuki shunned the XN they had built, shoving it aside and ignoring its place in their history. I’m thrilled Suzuki is taking another kick at the can with turbos and I can see some cosmetic similarities to the XN85. I think this bike will come to market, the engine and other bits look too production for it not to. I’d buy this bike in a heartbeat.

  10. BBQdog says:

    Really nice design. A bit classic and not daring but I like it !

  11. Norm G. says:

    re: “Where’s the dotted line Suzuki? I’ll sign on it as long as the price is right!”

    i’ll sign as long as the price is whatever. no caveats, dealbreakers, or get out of jail free clauses over this way Suzuki. quick, hand me a pen.

  12. Norm G. says:

    re: “Legend has it that Suzuki shunned the XN they had built, shoving it aside and ignoring its place in their history. ”

    they prolly all did to various degrees. and rightly so, the only thing turbos had going for them back then was novelty, the technology was “gahbige”. twas one of those ideas ahead of it’s time…

    not’nee more.

  13. paulus says:

    — and hopefully this time it will also be sure to keep the most important feature, the turbocharged power plant, as a part of the finsihed machine…cough…B-King…cough.

    As the owner of a B-King, I still live in hope that Suzuki will mail me my missing part :(

    Doesn’t this remind anybody else of the RSD BMW (9T)?
    It has similar lines and that same retro/updated feel to it.

  14. jet says:

    It look’s like fun.Sure would like to have that turbo system on my duck……..lol

  15. MrWiggles says:

    “they prolly all did to various degrees. and rightly so, the only thing turbos had going for them back then was novelty, the technology was “gahbige”. twas one of those ideas ahead of it’s time…”

    Yes, it was a novelty, but I wouldn’t call the technology garbage. If its garbage, why are they bringing a turbo back now? The problem with the ’80′s bikes was the weight – extra plumbing put into already heavy bikes. Heavy steel frames, excessive bodywork, silly 16 inch front wheels, extra anti-dive components that didn’t work, etc . With this latest Suzuki they now have the tech to create a lightweight bike and add the turbo – score!

  16. Jimbo says:

    Think Kawasaki may be onto the better idea. Superchargers are mechanically linked to the engine so the power boost they provide is constant – just like having a bigger engine. Turbos (and i am not starting an argument about turbo lag times here) by their nature only come onto song once the turbine has spooled up meaning you get a delay. So the risk is you could have the power delivered in a suprising and potentially crash inducing lump, as opposed to the consistant power delivery of the supercharger.

  17. Very nice concept and I appreciate the daring thrust into previously challenging technology. Frankly though I wish manufactures would ‘go all the way’ Have a list of options a mile long. Like a centerstand, functional fenders, hard luggage closely fitted, at least 220 mile fuel range. I love the handlebar arrangement on this-keep it Suzuki!

  18. Oh, and of course a comfortable saddle, not immediately narrowing to the front. Thigh support is a forgotten concept. If people complain the seat is too high provide a lower option.

  19. Gildas says:

    With a modern turbo engine, as soon as you have flow above idle, the turbine is spooling. But it will be negative until it pumps enough to cover internal friction losses and won’t produce any extra noticeable boost until the it goes above the losses created by all the piping (2500 rpm?).
    But you do want the turbo actually boosting at medium, low loads, because that’s where it affects fuel economy in a positive way (and increases your pleasure) by affecting fill rates (using the engine as air pump to recover lost energy).
    On the bad side, while this greatly increases your mid range and efficiency, things ain’t free: a setup tuned like this will not have the “mad turbo rush” at the top end, because the max flow rate is simply too low.
    On a car or a boat this can be solved with tandem/inline turbos, turbo comp or vanos that probably add too much weight/cost to a bike.

    I really like this bike, classic yet modern with clean finished lines and no “Transformers” cowdung.

  20. starmag says:

    Most 600 supersports weight the same , have more power, and allow a passenger (sort of). What’s the advantage again? Lower revs? More complexity? Slightly higher handlebars? Worse brakes? Techno-bragging rights? Novelty?

  21. Gildas says:

    Why have 600 supersport when a Norton Commando is a perfectly capable bike?

    Because we ain’t all bean counters.
    This is how tech evolves.
    Because difference.

  22. starmag says:

    Gildas says:
    November 29, 2013 at 12:17 PM

    Why have 600 supersport when a Norton Commando is a perfectly capable bike?

    If by “perfectly capable” do you mean that you don’t mind walking when you go for a ride? I’ve owned a 850 Commando.

    “Because we ain’t all bean counters.”

    Judging by the sniveling about specs by non buyers in the comments sections I read, you could have fooled me.

    “This is how tech evolves.”

    It doesn’t seem much different motor tech wise than a 30 year old xn85

    “Because difference.”

    Novelty it is then. What are you willing to pay for that?

  23. Norm G. says:

    re: “Yes, it was a novelty, but I wouldn’t call the technology garbage. If its garbage, why are they bringing a turbo back now?”

    the execution was garbage, the execution. we were like kids who’d found their dad’s loaded gun. fast forward 2 decades and a generous application of supercomputers/modeling software and our understanding of the scale aerodynamics is ten fold. 20 years ago “figuring it out” meant throwing darts, in contrast, today’s turbo is effectively a laser guided, GPS enabled “smart compressor”.

  24. Gildas says:

    The commando’s an example, I could have said a CB750 with modern brake pads and tires.

    A friend has a Xn85 in Nice, rode pillion 15years ago: It had upgraded light chassis and swing arm from Japan with all the semi legal engine mods etc etc. But I did not like it. The fueling was very crude, fast yes, but not my cup of tea. Suzuki would be beyond idiotic to make that bike in a new frock. And if so, I’m not a costumer.

    I don’t have as much experience as you, but I don’t want to own a 600 supersport, even the CB600F does not rock my boat. I want a fun bike, that runs everyday, light, quiet exhaust, cheap on fuel and styling that does not look like some fanboy of bad scifi had an orgasm designing it.

    Right now, in my contradictory brain, this bike and the Ninja300 are on top of my list for different reasons – I’ll be getting a bike as soon as I get this pesky degree done.

    Price, that will depend on how much Suzuki charges; if the price is stupid, I won’t be.

  25. Norm G. says:

    re: “Think Kawasaki may be onto the better idea. Superchargers are mechanically linked to the engine so the power boost they provide is constant…”

    …as is the drag/power consumption.

    re: “Superchargers are mechanically linked to the engine so the power boost they provide is constant”

    depends.

    Q: depends on what Norm G…?

    A: depends on if it’s the classic Mad Max, “Big Daddy Don Garlits” positive displacement (ie. blowers) we all know and love. what kawi uses is a decidedly cheaper centrifugal compressor wheel who’s boost level is still a function of RPM same as any gas turbine.

  26. Norm G. says:

    re: “i am not starting an argument about turbo lag times here, by their nature only come onto song once the turbine has spooled up meaning you get a delay.”

    no worries, nothing to argue. “you are correct sir” (Ed McMahon voice).

    the breakthrough however came in understanding WHY that was happening. all spinning objects have Inertia, specifically a Moment of Inertia, be it a turbo assembly rotating at 120,000 rpm…? or a wheel on a Conestoga wagon. we were simply bolting on turbo chargers that were TOO LARGE for the application. why…? ’cause that’s all we friggin’ had.

    turbo chargers in the correct trims, A/R ratios, and radial wheels with maps we understood simply DID NOT EXIST. in turbo world, blindly following the mantra “well it’s bigger…? so it must be better…?” (cleatus voice) will IMMEDIATELY lead you down the wrong path.

    fast forward to future year 2013 and we have an all new generation of small frame turbos (I call ‘em “peanuts”). turbos with 5-axis machined compressors (as opposed to dumb castings) with turbines properly matched to drive them. add to that VGT, ceramic ball bearings, etc. fully synthetic oil alone has all but eliminated the coking problem seen back in the 90′s.

    right then, how do you like your peanuts…? salted or unsalted…?

    http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h112/shamarone/399a93d6-737a-4f16-ad06-49e77c7f88b0_zps07213087.jpg

    http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h112/shamarone/158_zpsbd0a0855.jpg

    shown are 1/2 the turbos from ford’s 3.5 liter bi-turbo V6. that means the tiny size you see is all that’s required (real world) for a 1.7 liter triple. that’s considerably more displacement than either a Zed14 or Busa.

  27. Norm G. says:

    re: “things ain’t free: a setup tuned like this will not have the “mad turbo rush” at the top end”

    progressive rather than linear power delivery. little did we know that was our first clue about an improperly matched turbine.

  28. Major Tom says:

    Someone is comparing this to a 600 supersport, like performance wise they would be comparable? Isn’t this bike a twin? I don’t think you’ll have to wait to develop power with this twin! It should boot you up to passing speed right quick, no messing around with those pesky down shifts. And I think fuel mileage would also be a bragging point. I whupped your ass and I get better fuel mileage. Make a practical version of this, center stand, reasonable fuel tank and leave the swoopy details alone and I would sell three of my bikes for it.

  29. Jason says:

    74 lb-ft of torque is NOT 600 supersport power. That is literbike power! It just won’t have top end horsepower of a superbike when revved. But when you consider this power curve in real world riding situations, this bike should be incredibly fun on the street and blasting up my favorite canyon highways. I don’t keep my engine above 10,000 rpm on long canyon rides, I run it in the midrange. That is where this engine shines.

    It looks awesome too. Like someone mentioned before, kinda the updated retro look of the BMW R9T.

    I love it. Build it. Sell it to me.

  30. MikeD says:

    I can’t be the only one thinking they are trying to hide the cold side of the Turbo.

    They are not even trying to show the intercooler below the seat behind the engine, the induction piping and routing (left hand side), how are they cooling said intercooler (liquid to air, air to air ?).

    The Tokyo show came and went and i have to say i didn’t hear any SIGNIFICANT noise about this . . . not by a long shot as much as i was expecting . . . i was guessing this bike was going to be the MT-09 of Suzuki for next year ?

    @RL: HP is very easy, weight reduction ? Hardly happening.

    @Gonzo: I agree she ain’t pretty but certainly NOT Hayabusa level ugly. That’s a whole other class all to herself.

    @Paulus: YUP, i thought the same when i saw it the first time, all swoopy like the Bimmer concept.

    @StarMag: I see your point but at this point i want to see something “new” coming from Suzuki. Let it be. LOL.

    @MajorTom: +1.

  31. starmag says:

    My point is the XN85 didn’t sell well because all it offered was novelty. It had the same 80ish HP and 550 lbs as Suzuji’s own GS1000 and cost more. Suzuki almost bit it back then because of their ill-advised huge investment in the disasterous RE5 ( sold poorly because all it offered was novelty ) and what saved their bacon was the GS1000 because it didn’t have polarizing styling and was the lightest, cheapest and most versatile open-class bike of the time. Suzuki doesn’t seem to be doing too well in these “economic recovery” times and I’d like to see them stay in business. If this thing was sold at a price substantially below a 600 supersport, then I guess that would make some sense.

  32. meatspin says:

    when I see the word Turbo on the side of a bike it needs to strike a little fear in me. With those specs, it really doesnt. I still like the lines of it, but it does seem rather tame.

  33. Norm G. says:

    re: “I can’t be the only one thinking they are trying to hide the cold side of the Turbo.”

    noticed that too huh…? however, I was looking at some shots of the original XN and Suzuki did a masterful job with the routing (sans intercooler). IC’s another one of those modern constructs. it doesn’t absolutely/positively have to have one, just not able to maximize the set-up. but then again what are we talking…? 500cc’s of fire breathing parallel twin…? or 28 liters of V71 Detroit…?

  34. Norm G. says:

    re: “74 lb-ft of torque is NOT 600 supersport power. That is literbike power!”

    Zed10, superbike WORL’ CHAMPEEN, 74.5lb-ft @ 11,000rpm.

    source: Sport Rider Magazine 2012 Dyno Shootout.

  35. MikeD says:

    @Normstradamus:

    Honestly, i’m just really curious about the routing, plumbing and packaging of the whole thing.
    After all, is not like they have a hood and acres of real state to do as they please and if anything looks a bit on the ugly side have it hidden under said hood.
    As we all know motorcycles “usually” strive to combine cool technical advances and good looks.
    I want to see how good (or bad) of a job they have done trying to achieve such tedious task.
    So far i’m liking the HOT side of the equation.

  36. Norm G. says:

    re: “i’m just really curious about the routing, plumbing and packaging of the whole thing.”

    no worries, they’ve actually shown us 98% of the system. referenced from the bottom, pictures 10, 9, and 8 allow us to see all that we need. the only other item would be the plenum (ie. metal airbox) to hold the “charge” of pressurized air against the throttle bodies/back sides of the intake valves (under the tank).

    maybe for safety they might include a blow off valve on said plenum. this way it’s hidden out of view instead of being down on the turbo perhaps making it more difficult to shroud. no point in putting an intercooler right there under one’s “junk” either. hiding it from the air flow defeats the purpose. note, there’s no VGT on that turbo so they’re clearly using the KISS method. (no reference to Gene Simmons)

    conceptually, turbos are rather simple on the back end. not unlike a jet engine (see catch all for broader category of Turbo Machinery) the FRONT END is where all the problems begin with sorting the engineering, fluid-D, thermo-D, and the cost of manufacturing “blisks” and the like with refractory metals. this ain’t the sort of stuff, you were ever going to see Mikey and Paul Junior magically whipping together on an episode of American Chopper.

  37. MrWiggles says:

    “the execution was garbage, the execution.”

    ” I was looking at some shots of the original XN and Suzuki did a masterful job with the routing (sans intercooler)”

  38. Norm G. says:

    re: “the execution was garbage, the execution.”

    fluid-dynamics, thermo-dynamics, bearing systems, thrust rings, oil clearance, running clearance, turbine matching, A/R ratio, compressor map, full blade, splitter blade, partial backwall, full backwall, tip height, tip width, inducer bleed, surge, ported shroud, inducer diameter, exducer diameter, split diffuser, open diffuser, vane diffuser, frame size, assembly balance. trim, waste gates, blow off valves, etc.

    you asked.

  39. MrWiggles says:

    “fluid-dynamics, thermo-dynamics, bearing systems, thrust rings, oil clearance, running clearance, turbine matching, A/R ratio, compressor map, full blade, splitter blade, partial backwall, full backwall, tip height, tip width, inducer bleed, surge, ported shroud, inducer diameter, exducer diameter, split diffuser, open diffuser, vane diffuser, frame size, assembly balance. trim, waste gates, blow off valves, etc. ”

    Jesus, get a life. Just like everyone’s got an asshole, everyone’s got an opinion. It’s just yours appears to be a lot bigger than everyone else’s on this forum.

  40. Norm G. says:

    re: “Jesus, get a life. Just like everyone’s got an asshole, everyone’s got an opinion. It’s just yours appears to be a lot bigger than everyone else’s on this forum.”

    you asked.