HPRE

Menu

Members Rides

Color Concepts


in
Members Rides

59 Guests, 3 Users
mattsz, solg, gizzo
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 17, 2014, 05:05:05 AM

Login with username, password and session length

 

Author Topic: New Bullet Engine  (Read 4239 times)

Blackthou

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: 0
New Bullet Engine
« on: November 27, 2007, 07:14:37 AM »
Hi all, I posted a pdf re the new engine under the heading "Is it true?" Just any case any of you don't read the thread here's the article.

[old attachment deleted by admin]

stipa

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2007, 11:09:16 AM »
I like it, very impressive!!  Though,  I had thought, (from earlier posts), that this engine was, or is), supposed to be a 650cc?
Also, it seems like there is precious little space in that case for the sump/crankcase 'partition'.  This isn't a wet sump engine is it?
Do you know what the L.O. capacity is going to be?

SteveJay

cyrusb

  • Kept man
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2216
  • Karma: 1
  • Theres a last time for everything
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2007, 11:26:13 AM »
Wow, Looks like the only tradition left is the pushrods. Sure glad i have my 05.

stipa

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2007, 11:59:15 AM »
Well, okay, the outer primary case looks a bit too 'japaneesie,' the overall compactness and cleanliness of the package is "different,"  and the EFI is,  I guess unavoidable, but the jug, head, and rocker boxes are dead on, nice finish, and just looks,,,efficient.  (Which should be the ultimate goal of a well engineered piece anyway).
If this corporation (Eicher), was just producing rolling artwork, I would imagine they could sell more than a few units, but most likely those out of country, and those would be very expensive indeed. 
Overall, (and just talking the powerplant here), I think it represents a pretty good presentation in the Royal Enfield evolution.  BSA and Triumph went unit in the early 60's, right?
It should be up to us, the owners and riders, to make these bikes into 'roling artwork.'

Just my opinion, though.

Spitting Bull

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2007, 12:27:08 PM »
It is a new engine sure enough.  I'm not sure that it's a new bullet engine, however.

Tom
One cylinder is enough for anyone.

LJRead

  • Guest
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2007, 01:29:39 PM »

The way they've placed the new engine in the older frame, as seen in the Paris show, it would seem that the new engine could be a replacement choice for any of the older Bullets - if it does prove itself.  Can see no reason why it won't prove itself - it seems very simple in design.

stipa

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2007, 02:45:30 PM »
I'd be curious to see how well they have 'over-engineered' this engine;  how much theoretical torque one could actually extract from it before it destroys itself?

As far as frames go, I would prefer to see a full 'loop' frame (Model G), maybe 3 or 4 more inches of wheelbase,,,maybe I'll have to do that myself?


hutch

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: 0
  • Til death do us part
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2007, 02:56:02 PM »
I guess I will just have to wait to see the final product. I know Kevin said they were going to make a model even more retro than the Classic, but I am not sure the new motor would fit in with the retro look. The higher compression and torque would be welcome though. In my mind the new motor would fit in with the Electra look, and would probably bring in new customers that aren't into the older style bikes. Stipa, the oil sight glass is a dead give away, it is wet sump.       Hutch
« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 03:01:10 PM by hutch »
You learn from your mistakes, and I have LEARNED a lot.

stipa

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2007, 05:58:59 PM »
Ahh, I don't know,,,could still have a sump and still have a scavenged crankpit, couldn't it?  Isn't the crank throw such that a wet crankcase is going to result in the crankpin, webs, (flywheels), and big end immersing itself and making a washing machine out of the crankcase?  A lot of oil slung up to the rings? 
I don't know, maybe so.  I guess we'll get to speculate on this for a year or so.
(Bet the importer loves this).

They should lend me one for a few months and let me put 'er through the paces out in the mountains here!!  I could write up a decent and honest review.

Steve J.

DanF

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2007, 06:27:13 PM »
I am new to all of this and I am wondering what is the difference between a unit engine and what is being built now?

alwscout

  • Bulleteer
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2007, 06:28:20 PM »
Don't know much about bikes but the motors on both of airboats were Continental aircraft engines with wet-sumps and I preferred them over the Lycoming which isn't.....totally different engines though I know.

Adam
REA Member #10

LJRead

  • Guest
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2007, 06:55:30 PM »

You've brought up an interesting question - in general terms - what are the relative advantages of having a separate transmission?  I suppose there could be major differences in the new unit engine compared with unit ones in older machines like BSA, but logically, they seem similar.  Given that, has anyone had experience with a unit type engine who could give some insight into relative merits of each.  I can think of some.  If something happened to the trany part or to the combustion part (piston and rings), the other might be damaged through loose parts being thrown about.  Repair of the tranny would seem to be easier with the older type, just unbolt, take to the bench and work on it.  And then the idea expressed above of a washing machine effect. But the unit one may have fewer parts or be somehow simpler or more efficient.  Anyone have thoughts or experience to add?

Foggy_Auggie

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2007, 09:30:59 PM »

You've brought up an interesting question - in general terms - what are the relative advantages of having a separate transmission?  I suppose there could be major differences in the new unit engine compared with unit ones in older machines like BSA, but logically, they seem similar.  Given that, has anyone had experience with a unit type engine who could give some insight into relative merits of each.  I can think of some.  If something happened to the trany part or to the combustion part (piston and rings), the other might be damaged through loose parts being thrown about.  Repair of the tranny would seem to be easier with the older type, just unbolt, take to the bench and work on it.  And then the idea expressed above of a washing machine effect. But the unit one may have fewer parts or be somehow simpler or more efficient.  Anyone have thoughts or experience to add?

It all comes down to cost and efficiency of manufacture.  With the new CAD machining tools the new engine would have less total material in the unit.  Be quicker to manufacture, yet meet the designed engineering life under average use - and at the most economical cost out the factory door.

Follow this with a higher mark-up at both the wholesale and retail level.

Always follow the money.

Regards, Foggy
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

Fortiter Et Fideliter

hutch

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: 0
  • Til death do us part
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2007, 09:16:37 AM »

You've brought up an interesting question - in general terms - what are the relative advantages of having a separate transmission?  I suppose there could be major differences in the new unit engine compared with unit ones in older machines like BSA, but logically, they seem similar.  Given that, has anyone had experience with a unit type engine who could give some insight into relative merits of each.  I can think of some.  If something happened to the trany part or to the combustion part (piston and rings), the other might be damaged through loose parts being thrown about.  Repair of the tranny would seem to be easier with the older type, just unbolt, take to the bench and work on it.  And then the idea expressed above of a washing machine effect. But the unit one may have fewer parts or be somehow simpler or more efficient.  Anyone have thoughts or experience to add?
A separate trans tends to run cooler for 2 reasons. It is separated from the engine heat more and doesn't run in the same oil as the motor. Separate transmissions usualy run in gear oil and run cooler than units trans running in motor oil.   Hutch
You learn from your mistakes, and I have LEARNED a lot.

Rockdodger

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Karma: 0
  • Magic Black Beauty
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2007, 11:08:12 AM »
I didn't think I'd like the new engine, but it looks pretty good. Compact and efficient, yet still a bit retro. What I really don't like is the exhaust routing. Needs either a down pipe or an exposed trials type pipe with an attached heat shield. Alas-the thing that drew me to the Enfield in the first place was it's definite retro look and lack of modern sophistication. Gotta admit, at 63, I kinda like the electric start tho.
2004 Bullet 65 Magic Black
1999 Honda XR 400R