|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> 100 mm ? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1349870784 Message started by LANCER on 10/10/12 at 05:06:23 |
|
Title: 100 mm ? Post by LANCER on 10/10/12 at 05:06:23 Just received a new JE 100mm piston for the DR650; will try building an engine from left over parts to see if it will be workable. How long will it survive ? . 8-) |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by Gyrobob on 10/10/12 at 05:51:44 3C313E3335226267500 wrote:
28 |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by Dave on 10/10/12 at 06:09:08 I got some low mileage valve seals and a lightly used right crank bearing I can donate. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by Paraquat on 10/10/12 at 06:13:43 How much of the steel sleeve is left over? Edit: Should say cast. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by LANCER on 10/10/12 at 11:03:34 4E7F6C7F6F6B7F6A1E0 wrote:
I believe there will be about 1-1.5mm of sleeve left after boring. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by Dave on 10/10/12 at 12:25:25 738 cc of ground pounding super thumping....Vrroom, Vroom.....Crunch! Dang! |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by Serowbot on 10/10/12 at 12:37:26 1E202B363B363B590 wrote:
28[/quote] seconds?... minutes?... miles?... My guess is 42... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by LANCER on 10/10/12 at 14:10:24 Yes, the 1-1.5 mm cylinder wall is getting pretty thin, but all except the very bottom is supported by metal. The lowest portion of the cylinder liner that hangs below the aluminum portion of the cylinder is where the piston is moving the slowest and has the least pressure applied to it. Will the side thrust on the piston from the crank/rod as it moves before pushing the piston back up be enough to pull the liner wall apart ? ? Not sure. But I'm going to find out. The machinist at a large NAPA shop here thought it just might work. I've got an old cylinder that can be bored and used for the test subject. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by LANCER on 10/10/12 at 14:13:51 7C474A5D4C405B5D464E435C2F0 wrote:
Cylinder volume is enough for any manufacturer to call an engine this size a "750". ;) |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by greenmonster on 10/10/12 at 16:38:48 It's been a while since I ripped my engine apart so I don't remember this really well, but is there any room at the bottom of the cylinder liner to put a supportive backing behind it? |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by Oldfeller on 10/10/12 at 17:38:30 Nope, As a matter of fact, if you wanted to go larger in the bore you'd have to re-sleeve and you'd have to machine more clearance in the round opening in the cases to do that. And you'd have to increase the cut-away in the sleeve to keep the counter balancer mass from hitting the bigger sleeve. None of which are simple, easy or cheap. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by ralfyguy on 10/11/12 at 16:48:09 What about the overall balancing of the piston versus counterweight and crankshaft? Will it vibrate itself to death? |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by LANCER on 10/11/12 at 17:19:19 22313C3629372529500 wrote:
The weight of the piston is close to stock |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by ZAR on 10/11/12 at 19:48:02 Quoting OldFeller "None of which is simple,easy or cheap". Gee OF, if we wanted that we'd be driving a Chevette or a Pinto! Or whatever the modern version of those are! |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/12/12 at 05:50:43 2C212E2325327277400 wrote:
The weight of the piston is close to stock[/quote] Has anyone ever decided how close the counterbalance weight is to actual piston weight? I thot I saw something a few years ago where someone had come to the conclusion that the counterbalance was maybe a little heavier that it had to be to do the job. Tho, I gotta admit, If I was buildin an engine, Id go a little lite there, instead of heavy,& I have a hard time believing theyd unnecessarily increase the rotating mass,, hmm,, well,, IDK,, it IS a Big Single, Thats something only a case splittin moment is gonna answer.. Sure would be a hoot to get a few of us together with an engine on a table & take that thing apart.. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by Dave on 10/12/12 at 07:03:21 The weight of the counterbalance and the weight of the piston are completely different. The piston works back and forth on a stroke of 94mm, and the crankshaft has counterweights built in to help reduce the vibrations. The counterbalance shaft and weight works at twice the crank speed and spins around on a much smaller radius. The piston does not care what the counterbalance shaft is doing.....and because the counterbalance is not part of the crank the counterbalance does not really affect the stresses in the crankshaft/piston/rod. The counterbalance works through the crankcase to reduce the amount of vibration getting to the frame.....and if the balance is not exactly right you will just get a bit more vibration in the frame......not a deal killer for the weight changes in this scenario of going from 94mm to 100 mm - especially when Lancer says the weights are very similar. When I had my bike apart I wondered about the weight of the flywheel? It seemed really heavy, and one of the things that people do when they want to accelerate faster is take some of the mass off the flywheel. The big weight helps to keep the speed of the big single steady - so cutting down the mass would allow more speed variation and make it easier to stall at low rpms when letting out the clutch to get the bike moving. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by Charon on 10/12/12 at 11:18:26 Suzuki's GR650 Tempter had what they described as a "variable mass flywheel." If I recall correctly, it was supposed to have higher mass at low RPM, presumably to make the engine smoother. At some speed around 3K, apparently a centrifugal clutch disengaged part of the flywheel so the engine could accelerate more quickly. It also had "Twin Swirl Combustion Chambers" and used an oil jet spraying the bottom of the piston crowns for better cooling. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by Greg-E on 10/13/12 at 09:34:44 415A491B0 wrote:
The modern USA version is the Chevy Spark, I have one and it is a pretty nice car. The concern with the liner being that thin is heat and distortion, this would be better as a liquid cooled engine where you can control the heat better. An interesting mod. for as long as it works, but I doubt it will go 50,000 miles, or even 25,000 before the sleeve starts to shift in the aluminum. This is a problem with boring out the Buells and why most of the aftermarket jugs have thicker sleeves with the base machined to fit in the case. I don't think 1.5mm will be too thin, that's around what I have with the 1050 kit on my Buell, the rings never really touch that part so there should be no force in that area. In the quest for bigger displacement, what cylinders will fit if the case is bored? What are the options for a stroker crank/conn rod? |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by Cavi Mike on 11/08/12 at 05:26:07 Updates? |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by v-pilot on 11/08/12 at 20:49:11 Is that thing really gonna be able to breathe through the stock valves? Guzzi small blocks all had the same heads...350 to I think the 650's, maybe even the 700's, same cases too. But they were all Heron heads so flow was their big issue. I was gonna pull the trigger on your 97mm kit...maybe I'll wait a bit. Anyone know the weight of the flywheel? Seems like 1or 2 lbs shaved off wouldn't be too bad. I've heard of some Enfields going minus 5. Anyway this thread is in my fav's...wanna see what happens |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by LANCER on 11/09/12 at 05:13:06 This is going to be a longer term project because this engine will be built with spare parts and at this point I have a bottom end, cylinder and piston, but no head yet. Since boring to 100mm is going to stretch the engine beyond accepted safe limits for dependability, I will not use this on a current functioning bike. This TEST will be considered a "thow a way" engine. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by srinath on 11/09/12 at 08:01:19 466D64776A6B050 wrote:
I own a good many of these ... 1 of which even ran ... it was a GR in a GR frame and - well original GR. All the rest are GR motors going into GS500 frames. Anyway that disengaging flywheel may have been the real reason the GR650 was a 1-2 year only bike. It is jekyll and hyde. I know of someone who bypassed it in his 851 build of that bike, (as in it is staying light, he's removed all the parts that come apart) in a GS frame ... and I am thinking of fitting it with the disengaement locked shut, as in, its heavy all the time. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by Cavi Mike on 11/09/12 at 08:19:04 Tempter is a twin, not a single. People need to stop comparing the Savage to every Suzuki 650 they see, only the Savage is a single. The heavy high-mass flywheel on the Savage is to keep the engine spinning during the very long period between firing. Without the high-mass flywheel, the engine will need to idle much faster. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by LANCER on 11/09/12 at 17:19:30 Another Suzuki Tempter, not sure of the year but it is the early version of the LS650 or 400 engine Look at the R side engine case, cyl and head and header drum brakes front and rear http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp9%3A2%3Enu%3D323%3A%3E639%3E697%3EWSNRCG%3D336%3B%3B26552339nu0mrj '83 GR650 Tempter....totally different look from the our 650 engine http://www.suzukicycles.org/photos/GR-series/GR650/1983_GR650D_US_470.jpg |
|
Title: Re: 100 mm ? Post by Boofer on 11/09/12 at 17:44:39 Lancer, those Tempter pictures remind me of why I ride a Savage. It comes from a time when Motorcycles were works of art to me. Now I walked by a new Honda crotch rocket of undetermined size in a parking lot yesterday. Beautiful white wheels and lots of nice, clean plastic. I liked it because it's a motorcycle, but it's not as good looking as mine. Both those Tempters are beautiful. Now, for the piston deal. Have you seen the "wraps" the NHRA requires around the dragster engine/transmission? Better get one. ;D |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |