– Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

FGR Midalu 2500 V6

Tired of that boring, slow Hayabusa or ZX-14?  Want to own a bike with some real engine displacement and midrange punch?  If you wait a year, you may be in luck.  The MGR Midalu has been in development for several years in the Czech Republic, and is expected to go into production next year.  Featuring a 2442cc v-6 developing more than 240 hp and 160 lb/ft of torque, the Midalu is expected to weigh approximately 600 pounds and feature top shelf componentry (check out the billet swingarm). 

Of course, production looks to be quite limited, and whether you will ever see one of these on the street in the United States is questionable.  Nevertheless, the development is real, and largely financed with state subsidies.  The engine design is complete, and the look of the bike is the result of the work of a winner of a design competition that included dozens of designers.  Prototype testing will be completed this year.


  1. falcodoug says:

    Very nice indeed! With that much H.P. style is only lightly needed. A+

  2. oldbiker says:

    it looks a beautiful nibble /gunty bike with just a tad of the right power to get you ouy of trouble …… while i,m at it and being a motorcycle builder for select clients,,, a supercharger off a australian vy v6 commodore would bolt straight on with a little bit of fiddling…,,, and then WOH!!!!!!!!!!!and nobody would even see the supercharger unless trying to steal itand were tooooooo close.. regards oldbiker

  3. Hans94114 says:

    Contrary to what the article said, only one very small government grant was used in this project, absolute majority of the funds for development and construction of the prototype was raised in the private market. This year, only six pieces will be made. Hurry up to get one!

  4. Ruefus says:

    Y’know…..the one thing this bike is missing is some honest-to-God knock-your-socks-off style. To a large degree, it looks like every other naked running around. One of the amazing draws of the CBX is the fact you get to see all 6 headers snaking their way around. The Valkyrie did this well, too. Some “WOW!!” factor.

    I ‘get’ the idea that this is a ‘performance’ bike, and I applaud the constructors. No doubt, some compromises had to be made. That’s Life.

    It’s just a shame the piping had to be hidden in this iteration. Wild doesn’t even begin to describe what three-to-a-side headers would look like on that bike.

    Imagine if they turned the engine sideways and gave the headers some face time!!!!

    • MikeD says:

      +1, Headers sticking out do have that WOW ! Factor mentioned. One of the reasons i like the Suzuki Stratosphere Engine so much (a shame they chickened out and it never made it to production). They should have kept the Mill and slap it on something else if anything.
      Maybe BMW with it’s new 1600 GT will put Japan Inc. onguard again and thinking about using I6s on something.

  5. Dave says:

    Engine just looks fantastic and the swingarm simply beautiful. That’s enough reason to make at least one!!

  6. zerk says:

    its about time some challenged the boss hoss. the boss will still be king but this may be a little more affordable. there is nothing like retched tissue-sensory wrenching excess. nothing.

  7. Wilson R says:

    What? Only 240 HP? That’s not even enough to hit 300 mph!

  8. Wilson R says:

    Only 240 HP? That’s not even enough to hit 300 mph!

  9. wjbertrand says:

    Wonder why they didn’t use a 60 degree V angle. Looks like a 90 angle, which isn’t ideal for V6 balance wise.

    • Norm G. says:

      who knows…? could be as simple as they/he just copied laverda (kneejerk)…? though that was longitudinally mounted ala guzzi (not the V8). someone mentioned it makes for a lower height engine (plus more room for TB’s and FI) which is true. i contend however, if you narrow up the V (65-60) and produce an overall smaller package (less displacement included), engine height effectively becomes a non-issue. plus you get the added benefits of better power/weight ratio. Noale knows what we’re talkin’ ’bout. i should admit, i am TERRIBLY biased towards engines/displacements that can ultimately be refined through racing (ie. insuring it’s future existence that). yeah… this ain’t one of ’em.

  10. GaryF says:

    I wonder how tough it would be to get a replacement air filter.

  11. Austin ZZR 1200 says:

    Love the styling, actually.

  12. Lovin Thabike says:

    I love all of these bashers – there are thousands of bikes to choose from and if this doesn’t float your boat, just move on with your life.

    This bike is insane, and I’d friggin love to have one. I wonder if an aftermarket exhaust would free up a few extra ponies.

  13. Old town hick says:

    Keep half the engine (the front half), incorporate a balancer, equitably trim down all other componants, and you have something truely interesting and marketable.

  14. Tom says:

    that red hot exhaust pipe looks mighty close to the rider’s right rump…

  15. ziggy says:

    An interesting and elegant solution to design and engineering problems that don’t exist.

  16. Tom Barber says:

    Unless you really intend to go 200+ mph, or unless you really desire to have gobs of reserve power for quick passing at speeds in excess of 100 mph, this much power just does not give you anything that you don’t have with a smaller engine about half the size. And the advantages of a smaller engine about half the size are very real. There is very definitely such a thing as an engine that is too big.

  17. Mr. Mike says:

    This is a great halo product that will drive technology and sales for more reasonable machines. It already has people in the West talking about this Czech company. Very smart. I’ll bet one ends up sitting in their corporate HQ lobby, a few get shuttled around for show and the rest go to people of financial means who will have enough sense to not twist the throttle too far.

  18. Vrooom says:

    That thing looks insanely fun. I’d probably give up 60 HP and 20 ft. lbs for losing 100 lbs, but hard to believe these won’t sell if priced less than $25K or so. Won’t sell to me, but with those kind of numbers there’s someone out there.

    • Norm G. says:

      hmmnn $25k… i suppose if we ever hope to see it, probably best we don’t come out the gate “devaluing” their efforts. if it’s a sound and emmissions compliant runner…? the engine alone probably cost well in EXCESS of $2.5 million euro (ie. 10x that). think design, materials, molds, tooling, fixtures, programming, prototypes, testing, labor hours, reprogramming, more fixtures, more prototypes, etc. just to get it to what you see here. scale production in an amount >1 incurs a whole nother set of costs. take note of the comment “largely financed with state subsidies”. that’s not a reference to tens of thousands being spent… that’s a reference to millions (with an M). and if i were to hazard a guess, i’d say the Republic isn’t in this for the 501c status.

  19. IBKING says:

    I live in a third world state (California)hijacked by Mexico, so I would have to save a long time to afford this bike. Does anyone know how many paso’s I would need to buy this great looking bike ? Mucho gracia.

  20. Scott says:

    Not my cup of tea, but always good to see a new player. With Ural resurging and now this, it will be interesting to see if that region will be a player in the future motorcycle markets.

  21. Dan says:

    This would be my dream motorcycle engine. I have always wished that Honda would have produced a nice 1000cc transverse V-6 that was styled and sized like the VFR800fi. If they could just wrap this Midalu bike up in Italian styled bodywork and use a senseable styled 6 into 1 exhaust. Nothing sounds better than a six cylinder engine with the right exhaust system! And just to put things pespective about weight, the complete air cooled CBX six cylinder engine weighed in at 238 lbs. Very close to this Midalu engines weight.

  22. Honker says:

    Thats a 416cc thumper per cylinder.
    I love it. Wont ever see one on the road, but I still love it.

  23. Slob says:

    Obviously, the purpose of this model must be to get us talking about FGR, which seems to be working. I wonder if they are going to come out with more “realistic” models in the near future? According to French webmag “Moto-Station” The Midalu is apparently the brainchild of Mr. Miroslav Felgr who in 2004 decided to build the biggest motorcycle possible. The motor itself weighs 107kgs (235lbs)!

    I like it, would love to try it, but even if I had the disposable cash, I wouldn’t buy it. I prefer a greater bias towards agility and manageable power..

  24. Bill says:

    Too much is never enough, and way too much is only just about right!

  25. Tom says:

    I’m glad there are guys like Jay Leno. He buys stuff like this. If it weren’t for guys like him these bikes would never be produced as there would be no one to afford them. Jet powered bikes, crazy exotic stuff and unobtainium one offs all in his garage. Some of them I lust after, some of them I wish I could take one ride on and some I just don’t get. Whatever the reason I’m always happy to see someone pushing the envelope on motorcycle design. Whether its a cartoonish ride or some freaking beast like this, I like them all. Yes even the Boss Hoss. Although I wouldn’t own one I’d love to take one ride on it.

  26. John A. Kuzmenko says:

    Looks like riding an engine. @_@

  27. Rich says:

    “Nothing succeeds like excess.”
    Oscar Wilde

  28. Brianzr7s says:

    since when does any government fund stuff that’s profitable or common sense?

    i’d suspect the chain and perhaps sprockets would go as fast as the rear tire. what the heck, with the rear wheel off to change tires, might as well change the chain and sprocket set while your at it.

    Triumph has a 2300 in production, on a much heavier bike. and with 163 lb-ft torque, but shaft drive not chain. I think the WSB engines make around that power but nowhere near that torque.

    i can’t remember for sure but i thought 90 degree V6 had an non evenly timed firing order (not every 120 degrees of crank rotation) and a non zero primary couple. but my memory could be wrong. i understand the 90 degree setup in order to get the engine height down to something managable. the narrower the V the taller the motor.

  29. Doug says:

    I wouldn’t want to own one, but I sure as hell would like to borrow it for the afternoon. WhooooHoooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  30. Tom says:

    Wow! Extra stout and sturdy, 240 hp and a v-6 and it weighs in at less than 700 lbs.! That’s quite amazing.

  31. mobilus says:

    Well, you come out with a practical bike and it’s difficult for a new company to get attention. Come out with something Batman would use and people will talk. If nothing else, government’s understand the use for emotional manipulation.

  32. Paul T. says:

    Needs belt drive. Dirty chain drives are old hat ideas for street/road bikes. Even leaky engine Harley’s have belt drive.

    • Nate says:

      A belt that would tolerate that much torque? No.

      • Tom Barber says:

        Belts have to withstand the tension associated with wheel torque, i.e., wheel torque divided by the radius of the toothed pulley at the wheel. If you make that radius very large, then belt tension is made smaller, for a given amount of wheel torque. But of course if you make that pulley larger you have to make the drive pulley larger assuming that you don’t want to increase wheel torque relative to torque at the drive pulley. In lower gears wheel torque is typically an order of magnitude or so greater than engine torque. Belt tension is in a specific ratio with the accelerating force at the wheel contact patch. This specific ratio is the same as the ratio of the wheel radius to the pulley radius. If the wheel radius is twice the pulley radius, then the belt tension is twice thrust. Because thrust is limited by available traction, wheel torque and belt tension are likewise limited by available traction. The belt need only be strong enough to handle the amount of tension associated with the amount of thrust that is possible given the available traction, regardless of how much torque the engine shows when connected directly to a dynomometer.

  33. Paul T. says:

    Oh yes, by all means, we need more power. How long will it take before the first of many young as well as young at heart souls get dead real fast? A 2000cc 4 cylinder of same engine design would have been an over-kill as well. 600 pounds would have dropped to under 550 pounds real easy for a sleeker less expensive VERY FAST motorcycle. I used to have a 1977 Yamaha 650 twin. It was cheap, peppy enough, reliable and got very good gas mileage. It had 3 faults. The seat was too small, the front disc break was a little lacking in stopping power and it had a generator charging system. I had to replace one of the generator brushes every 5-6K miles. I quit riding motorcycles over 10 years ago when the St./Feds decided that I needed motorcycle insurance. What was the last time you or I heard of someone riding a motorcycle kill someone else who was walking or driving a car? Yep, rare as chicken teeth.

    • Mr. Mike says:

      Google “motorcycle crashes into car” for enlightening pictures and videos. Regardless of whether anyone gets killed or injured, property damage is still expensive.

  34. MikeD says:

    I think is FINE, then again im a gluton for power…and as the part-time rider of a 550LBS+ 1982 Suzuki GS1100G i laugh and piss at the 600LBS figure.
    This bike can’t possibly ride/handle any worse than that GS and i ALWAYS have a ball on top of that PIG.
    This ain’t no stinking anorexic TU250 or 600, get that in ur heads and u’ll be able to live with it. It’s EASY. Choices … Choices.
    There’s no such thing as Too Much Power, just Too Little Brains and Poor Judgement. Don’t care if i only can use 50 of the 240HP, is w/e tickles ur pickle. This does it for me.
    Diavel WHO ?

  35. motobell says:

    BRILLIANT! as a naked bike and design, looks great, but.. but none of us was bike heavier than most cruisers – BIG FAIL! I read else where that it is over 600lbs. I am still surprise no one makes a competent, no excuse naked bike that is identical in performance to their clothed cousin with great ergonomics and 2 up capable.

    • Ruefus says:

      I disagree. I’d love to have a CBX….which was listed at 549 pounds dry and had conduit for forks and re-purposed bicycle tubing for a frame. Oh…btw….a ZX14 is listed at 566 lbs with 40+ hp less, 40 or so fewer ft/lbs of torque and over 1,000 cc’s less displacement.

      I’d say the ZX14 is the porker here, with this being a demonstration of Evil, Mean and Nasty incarnate.

      Let’s face it – this thing has a GoldWing motor folded up, turned sideways and a 600cc supersport motor stuffed in it “just because….”

      As a friend of mine is fond of saying……”Looks good n’ stupid. Can I ride it?”

      • Rick says:

        I owned a CBX and they rode just fine. Sure, if you pushed them hard the suspensions of yesterday were nothing like today but they weren’t that bad.

  36. Norm G. says:

    [darth vader voice]”impressive… most impressive…”[/darth vader voice]. pluses: engine, exhaust, and swingarm. minuses: 90 degree V and displacement.

    • Norm G. says:

      btw, if somebody placed aprilia badges on this i’da been none the wiser… lol

    • MikeD says:

      What engine layout and displacement would u rather have and why ? Just bike-curious.LOL.

      • Norm G. says:

        60 degree angle (the true V6 standard) and 1L-1.4L max. still plenty of power, but better balance, better fuel economy, smaller overall size, and less weight. i can’t call it… but at 2500cc’s, it’s almost as if they’ve either designed this block to pull double duty in a car…? or they’re deliberately targeting the american market and our proclivity towards excess…? since it’s been in the works for some time (and would cost megabucks), i’m guessing the latter.

        • Norm G. says:

          PS: don’t take any of this to mean that it’s not an AMAZING first effort, though if laverda could attack this in the late 70’s…? it seems anybody undertaking this should be able to hit nothing short of a bullseye here in the 21st century.

  37. uncle quinn says:

    Why does it seem that every time I read the comments of a given bike, they are negative. If its big it should be small, if its small and practical it should have more power and more sporty feel. If its naked it should have a fairing and touring bags…LOL you guys are more critical than Jocko, the singer from an old punk band I was in back in jr. high school…I think he’s in the janitorial field now.

    • Rick says:

      It’s like that in many blogs. Bash this, bash that. As you say, sounds like no one’s happy. Take them for what they are, make constructive comments, ride what you want, respect that in others and have a good interchange. The negative comments truly get old quickly.

    • Tom Barber says:

      I usually have similar sentiments, but mostly when a bike aspires to offer a useful measure of a certain purpose but does not go all out for that purpose. Most often you see this with a bike that offers a small but useful measure of off-road capability but stops well short of being an all-out off-road bike. The off-road crowd invariably start beating it over the head with titanium tire irons.

      In this case, however, I tend to agree with most of the negative comments. Wheel torque is limited by traction, and as such, it makes no sense for the torque multiple, i.e., engine torque multiplied by the overall gear ratio, to exceed that limit. A typical, familiar 1st gear ratio would be useless, and the same is probably true of a typical 2nd gear ratio, and probably even a typical 3rd gear ratio. Maybe it needs only two or three forward speeds. At taller gear ratios, wheel torque is a lesser multiple of engine torque. This bike would offer useful power reserve for passing at speeds well upwards of 100 mph. And of course it will have a very high top speed, possibly limited by traction rather than achievable wheel torque. So there will be real advantages, but when you consider what they actually are, i.e., ridiculously high top speed and ample power reserve for passing at speeds well over 100 mph, I’m just not convinced that these advantages have significant practical value.

      But I predict that they will take it to the ‘ring and attempt to set a new lap record. They may well succeed.

  38. Monkeyman says:

    Love to see any and all fresh and over-the-top designs from a revitalized Europe

  39. BoxerFanatic says:

    Holy smokes.

    A decade ago or so, I owned a 93 Probe GT with a 2.5 V6, and less than 200hp… in a 3000+lb car.

    This V6 with very nearly 100hp/liter, is going to be a widow maker in anything with only 2 wheels and a seat.

  40. Don Fraser says:

    WTF…..just because you can, doesn’t mean you should

  41. Old town hick says:

    Fantastic. Just what motorcycles today need…more power.

  42. Bud says:

    Amazing that they got the government to finance the production of this limited production vehicle instead of something with potential for widespread sales. I can’t see how it will be profitable. But I gotta say that based on the one photo here I like the styling more than almost everything from Japan these days.

  43. Bob says:

    Looks amazing! Like a Monster mutated by the Chernobyl accident. Too bad it’s 600 lbs. Cut the displacement in half and this bike would likely sell by the boat load.

    • Tom Barber says:

      I agree. The V6 is not a bad idea at all. The engine is just much too large and heavy. Do the V6, but with one-third to one-half the displacement, and it would probably be a nice, usable motorcycle.

  44. denny says:

    Another piece of glorious nonsense…. but then, people need to know it’s limits. Ever tempting and elusive game.

  45. BRYAN says:

    Great. Another heavy bike with useless amounts of power.Makes sense.

  46. Robbo says:

    Wow. Considering the massive donk, this thing looks relatively light. Cool-looking swingarm. The only thing I’d change is that blob at the front which is probably a radiator shroud. A lot of modern naked bikes have that feature these days and I dislike it because I think it makes the front look too heavy.

    Otherwise I love this thing!

  47. todd says:

    so where exactly would you take this bike to get service or replacement parts?

    your local car dealership?

  48. Butch says:

    A 600 lb. sportbike?

    About the same as a CBX.

  49. chris says:

    This bike looks like the balls – it’s all engine. Er, which reminds me of the VMax, another bike with unusable power on the street . . .

    • Dave says:

      respectfully disagree, v-max is very livable mine has a fancy milk crate to put my computer bag in
      this bike is clearly an engineering exercise Czech press speculated in the first year only six may be produced 1mil CZ Koruna about $55K