HPRE

Menu

Members Rides

Beefy the Bullet aka Fireball #10


in
Members Rides

34 Guests, 0 Users
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2014, 07:20:07 AM

Login with username, password and session length

 

Author Topic: New Bullet Engine  (Read 4261 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: 2217
  • 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

Kevin Mahoney

  • Administrator
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2007, 01:51:07 PM »
One good thing about the new engine is that it should be the platform that Royal Enfield will use for several years. This allows us and others time and the incentive to develop aftermarket parts such as exhausts, performance enhancements etc.

HRAB

  • I should really edit this
  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: 1
  • Been there, doin' more...God willing
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2007, 04:51:21 PM »
The question was asked about the difference between dry and wet sump.
The dry sump engine allows the crank to spin in air instead of in oil resulting in very slightly less drag or friction.
The wet sump engine will have the oil in the crank case near the crank but usually the engine is designed to hold the oil, especially when running, below the swing of the crank.( Like 99.99% of the car engines out there with "oil Pans") So in most engines there is little difference.

The Unit Engine often will have less internal power loss when compared to an engine with separate transmission/Engine configuration. This is usually due to gear drive vs primary chain drive. The unit construction also lends itself to a larger volume of oil in which the unit can operate.

I haven't seen the new unit yet, but I suspect it will be split horizontally instead of vertically. This may result in a huge disapointment to some of us traditionalists...not seeing the reasuring oil spot on the grage floor!  ;)
jim
BMWMOA www.bmwmoa.com
Iron Butt Association www.ironbutt.com/about/default.cfm
(Formerly) CRA# 118N www.cra-mn.com (I got smarter in old age)

stipa

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2007, 01:48:49 AM »
I guess I have a hard time envisioning a wet crankcase with the very small clearances between the flywheels and crankpin with the cases, especially the lower cases.  I would think the ineritial losses that would result would pretty much cancel out any power gains you've made in the upper end. 
And this is without considering the oil that is going to be slinging around, especially up into the lower jug, where the best control ring and drains just aren't gonna get it all.

As far as running the gears in the same oil as the engine, (i think thats what was implied), the viscosity of engine L.O. will change substantially from start-up to tie-up, and that doesn't sound like a very desirable characteristic with which to operate a drivetrain.  Not to mention that some of the worst aspects of the combustion process end up in the L.O., : i.e. carbon, sulphur, water, sulphuric acid, as well as the facets of engine wear, iron, aluminum, bronze, silica (okay, thats only some of us).
In the photos of the engine I looked at, I would think the bulls-eye (sightglass), is indeed for the sump, hopefully segregated from the crankcase.
There is a vent (or something similar) far back on the right side case, and outboard the countershaft sprocket.  (Crankcase/sump vent?)  There appears to be a "thread-in type filler cap forward of that, just inboard of the kicker.  The nest of gears, which Kevin M. has said is pretty much the same as the current 5-speed package, appears to be in a segregated, although contiguous case (Unit construction) with the main package, and that having the traditional vertical split.  (Yeah!).

That primary drive is indeed chain, and that with its proprietary case also, but that clutch pack looks to be a whole lot fatter. 

I think overall, the entire lower case package looks to be a little fatter.

If they did what I think they did with the oils, I'll buy one. 

Sorry to ramble here people, it's my marine surveying background. 

Here's one for the suggestion box.  Why don't  they offer, in the forum, an "Ask Kevin" segment?  Or whoever.  A rumour mill alleviator? 

Just a thought anyway. 

SteveJay

t120rbullet

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2007, 10:25:08 AM »
You can have a unit motor without sharing the oils.
My 68 Triumph is a unit motor, the motor itself is a dry sump with a external oil tank. The gear box runs 75w90 gear dope and I run Type F ATF in the primary.
I think somewhere around 71/72 they started sharing the primary oil and the motor oil but I never had one of them "newer ones".
1999 Enfield 500 Black Deluxe "Silver"
2009 Royal Enfield Black G5 Classic "G2" "SOLD"
2012 Concours 14 (no name yet)
2013 Royal Star Venture S  "Jelly Roll"

stipa

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2007, 10:21:53 PM »
Absolutely T120.  I had an old bonne myself.  I can't imagine the ironheads, or even the evo sportsters for that matter, with a common oil for the engine and the gear train. 
I think this (Unit construction motor), looks like a prety well thought out machine.  I'm sure it'll have a few teething pains, but overall it works for me.
It looks like chain access will be  a bit more convenient;  like that right side drive system.
One thing that does appear a little funky though, is the position of the kickstarter;  just looks too far forward.  Hmmm.

Steve

hutch

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: 0
  • Til death do us part
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2007, 08:43:14 AM »
Most all bikes that have a primary chain have separate oils like the Triumphs . No one has said about the new Bullet motor yet. Most Japaneese bikes don't have the primary chain and share the oil for the trans and motor.   Hutch
You learn from your mistakes, and I have LEARNED a lot.

Foggy_Auggie

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2007, 12:16:33 PM »
Most Japaneese bikes don't have the primary chain and share the oil for the trans and motor.   Hutch

They will still have an internal primary chain taken from the center of the crankshaft for multi cylinder engines and from the crankshaft end on single cylinder.  Sometimes the primary chain sprocket is right beside the overhead cam(s) chain sprocket.  And the clutch buildup will include a cush hub.  There is no direct gear on gear mesh absorbing the undampened combustion pulses of the engine.  This would cause fractures of the hardened gear teeth from metal fatigue.

Regards, Foggy
« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 12:18:41 PM by Foggy_Auggie »
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 #22 on: December 03, 2007, 03:41:56 PM »
Foggy, what I meant was the long horizontal chain between the crank and trans like on the Triumph even though it is a "unit" motor, with a separate internal trans case, not like the compact Japaneese setup, that allows for both trans and motor to share oil, examples of which are my Kawasaki w650, most 60's-70's Japaneese bikes, and my 2006 Suzuki Savage 650. Sorry about the confusion.    Hutch
You learn from your mistakes, and I have LEARNED a lot.

Foggy_Auggie

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
  • Karma: 0
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2007, 06:41:29 PM »
Sorry about the confusion.    Hutch

No problem Hutch! ;)

They don't call me and my Bullet  "Foggy and Clyde" for nothing!

Regards, Foggy
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

Fortiter Et Fideliter

cyrusb

  • Kept man
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
  • Karma: 1
  • Theres a last time for everything
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2007, 07:51:54 PM »
A pretty good reason for dry sump is if you eliminate the the "oil pan" under the engine you can now locate its mass lower in the frame, a huge plus for bikes and even cars.

hutch

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: 0
  • Til death do us part
Re: New Bullet Engine
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2007, 06:17:39 PM »
Most all bikes that have a primary chain have separate oils like the Triumphs . No one has said about the new Bullet motor yet. Most Japaneese bikes don't have the primary chain and share the oil for the trans and motor.   Hutch
Kevin has answered the question about "shared" oil between the motor and trans, in the Enfield news section. The thread is "when do the new engine and designs come out " thread. They DO run in the same oil. As long as the trans is designed for it, no problem. As mentioned more "gunk" will be running in your crank bearings and trans, but the Japaneese have been doing it for years. As I stated in the other post, that is just a good reason for a magnetic drain plug.     Hutch
« Last Edit: December 22, 2007, 06:25:43 PM by hutch »
You learn from your mistakes, and I have LEARNED a lot.