[Rennjit]

Originally Posted by Mr.O

....
But there is a twist. The other end of the breather pipe comes out of the right side box. Some time it splashes out drops of engine oil . Can I divert that pipe to anywhere else? Say, chain like in the older models? Is that a good idea?

This pipe you said would be coming from an oil catch can placed close to Lh tool box. If oil drops are getting to air filter, probably the can is in need of a clean up. If you see mayonnaise like residue in oil while draining out, then a minor rearrangement of those pipes can keep moisture also away from oil tank.

cheers.,

[Mr.O]

Originally Posted by Rennjit

This pipe you said would be coming from an oil catch can placed close to Lh tool box. If oil drops are getting to air filter, probably the can is in need of a clean up. If you see mayonnaise like residue in oil while draining out, then a minor rearrangement of those pipes can keep moisture also away from oil tank.

cheers.,

Yes it is coming from an oil catch. Looks like mine needs cleaning as the oil deposited in the air box looks like mayo. Dunno why Royal Enfield came up with that oil catch. They could have emptied it straight to chain. Or is that oil can distributing oil to anywhere else?

[raghu.t.k]

Had my first puncture on my rear wheel of classic 500. Thankfully it was a minor one, where a 1/2" thin nail had pierced in the centre.

So moved the rear fender up as suggested in this video / site, made it a 1 man job without having to tilt the vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KkOgpuAQDU

http://www.enfieldmotorcycles.in/201...easy-with.html

Thought the number of steps is more, it could easily done by 1 person.

The concept used was the same, but nut was not the size of the spark plug, instead required an allen key (not part of the toolkit), and one of the double end spanners. Apart from the allen key and a hammer, the rest of the tools required are available in the toolkit. The manual seen onsite shows a castle nut and split pin, unfortunately did not see it on my bike. Not sure if its a recent change.

[Rennjit]

Originally Posted by Mr.O

.... Dunno why Royal Enfield came up with that oil catch. ...

I'd say don't know HOW enfield came up with that! Initially the Can had a drain point but on later models this drain point was routed to timing chest with a tube. The Can is supposed to condense oil vapour back to liquid & send it to timing chest, And oil fumes+moisture be sent for combustion via air filter. Instead it collects oil+moisture mix to make mayo & sends it to engine oil- never ever good. A simple mod would be to disconnect the oil return line at timing chest rear, plug the tube with a screw & route it straight down the chassis. This tube could be the drain line, trust me you could see water - yes water running out of. Drain it after few 100 kms to sample. As for the timing chest nipple (oops!) , put a short duckbill on it (oops again!). The metal screen layers in the Can might be rusted by now, it could be taken off as the plastic holding disc with its teeny tiny holes itself is good enough. One of the weird contraptions by RE, another being the PAV. These are good if designed & working as intended, but its not the case with RE anyways

[tharian]

Originally Posted by Mr.O

Yes it is coming from an oil catch. Looks like mine needs cleaning as the oil deposited in the air box looks like mayo. Dunno why Royal Enfield came up with that oil catch. They could have emptied it straight to chain. Or is that oil can distributing oil to anywhere else?

Oil Drain cans were required by law on export bikes since otherwise oil used to fall onto the chain and road.

Later all bikes were fitted with one and then associated issues like Rennjit mentioned began.

[Mr.O]

Originally Posted by Rennjit

One of the weird contraptions by RE, another being the PAV. These are good if designed & working as intended, but its not the case with RE anyways

I've heard PAV's in Royal Enfield doesn't work that well, PAVs are designed to reduce pollution but robs a bit of power (right???). They have managed to rob a bit of power. But did they succeed in reducing pollution? That is why I had initial plans to block that PAV. Lets hope Royal Enfiled RnD department will find a solution. After all failures are always stepping stones to success.

Another thing I have noticed is that UCE 350 engines doesn't have a PAV. But 500 UCE (carb) have. I am not sure about FI models or 535 models though.

[ArizonaJim]

IMO, the Pulsed Air Valve (PAV) does not rob power from the engine.
The amount of air drawn from the air filter is very small so it has little or no effect on the engines air supply.

It's purpose as mentioned, is to reduce air pollution by providing fresh air to the exhaust as it exits the cylinder thru the exhaust valve. This fresh air is intended to burn any fuel that may have evaded the burning process in the cylinder rather than just blowing the petrol out into the air we breath.

The system consists of a one way valve, an air supply and a port into the exhaust system right below the exhaust valve.

The high pressure, high velocity exhaust exiting the cylinder is only present for a short interval while the exhaust valve is open.

(This high pressure gas will try to escape from the exhaust pipe any way possible so while this is happening the PAV's one way valve remains shut.
By being shut, the gas cannot escape thru the connecting pipe into the air filter area.)

When the exhaust valve closes, a vacuum is formed right behind the pulse of exhaust gas.

This vacuum draws fresh air thru the one way valve into the exhaust pipe where it can mix with the next blast of exhaust, burning any remaining fuel that might be in it.

With all of this happening outside the engine and burning fuel that failed to ignite in the engine it can be seen that no power from the engine is used thus, no power loss happens.

Some feel that the cool fresh air actually cools the exhaust valve and if this is true, it can extend the life of the valve.

The burning of the spent fuel in the exhaust pipe does produce heat and some bluing of the exhaust pipe may be seen but this blue or yellow area does not greatly diminish the chromes ability to provide rust protection unless the owner scourers it off.
Removing the blue or yellow coloring does in effect thin the chrome plating and this does reduce its protective properties.

[navin_v8]

Originally Posted by man_of_steel

Maashey.. Can you please describe in brief about the difference in characteristics of both heavy and light cranks? I mean how does the feel of both differs?

In addition to what abhijeetK has mentioned. Here is my experience with both light and heavy crank.

Well from my riding experience both light and heavy crank differ in terms of gearing, speed and the almighty thump (with a stock short bottle silencer ofcourse). I will try my best to list down the characteristics of both the light and heavy crank Bullet CI's including AVL. I dont know whether to put in as a advantage or a disadvantage but here it is:

Light Crank CI's (350cc):
1. Slightly high revving while idling
2. Marginally good pickup
3. Eager and ready to run engine
4. Slightly mellowed but bassy thump at low speeds
5. Low bottom end but superb top end speed
6. Need to play with the gearbox to stay in the correct speed

Light Crank* AVL (350 cc) (*AVL engines have light crank only):
1. High revving engine while idling as well as running
2. First to take off from the signal in the early 2000's while beating the Pulsars and CBZs of that era (No offense to Pulsar and CBZ) due to superb pickup.
3. Low bottom end but superb top end speed
4. Engine a bit rough and rattle prone thanks to aluminum construction
5. Nice 5 speed gearbox (left side) for relaxed top gear riding or rather cruising
6. Mute but sweet thump and soothing to the ears on those 300+Kms. per day rides.

Heavy Crank CI's (350cc):
1. Very low idling (read lazy) and thus low revving engine
2. Oodles of bottom end torque at near idling speeds
3. Lacks top end speed but hey you dont ride a heavy crank for top speed
4. Heavy crank results in that typical trademark bassy thump which cannot be replicated. This very bassy thump from a low revving lazy heavy crank engine sets a rhythm with your hearbeat. One feels like their heartbeat and the exhaust stroke of the mighty B1 and G2 is in tandem with each other. Believe me you.
5. The heavy crank stores so much of energy in inertia that one doesn't need to change the gears frequently. Some might call it lugging but the CI heavy cranks were built to run like that. Which is doing as low a 20-25 KMPH on 4th gear(without clutch input) and the engine would still not stall neither jerk.
6. Has surprisingly meatier torque delivery in all gears.

There is so much more that I can include but in brief these are some of the points I remember.

[man_of_steel]

Originally Posted by navin_v8

In addition to what abhijeetK has mentioned. Here is my experience with both light and heavy crank.
...

Now, thats the stuff I was looking for!

I wanted some deeper gyan other than 'You can start even from 4th gear' cliche! Thanks for taking the time to write this up.

Another noobish question as I haven't experienced the CI and AVL Bullets much

- Does the light crank CIs and AVLs also posses the capability of running in a high gear at extremely low RPMs (or speeds)? UCEs are terrible in this department as the engine components are lighter than CIs or may be AVLs. So is inertia of the engine components alone the determining factor for this high gear low RPM rideability?

[navin_v8]

Originally Posted by man_of_steel

Another noobish question as I haven't experienced the CI and AVL Bullets much

- Does the light crank CIs and AVLs also posses the capability of running in a high gear at extremely low RPMs (or speeds)? UCEs are terrible in this department as the engine components are lighter than CIs or may be AVLs. So is inertia of the engine components alone the determining factor for this high gear low RPM rideability?

The answer is both yes and no. In light crank CI's people tend to ride half clutch to get that low speed high gear feeling that comes naturally in heavy crank CI's without using half clutch. So in a way NO one can't ride light crank CI's on higher gear with speeds as low as 20-30 KMPH. AVL is a different engine altogether it is a aluminum engine and obviously has lighet components and crank for that pickup, mileage and topspeed. It will jerk even more than a light crank CI leave aside a heavy crank CI. Coming to the UCE's again they are aluminum engine and have light components but what I have noticed in my Thunderbird 500 is different it has a flat torque curve which disguises as it having a heavy crank and whenever I ride the Thunderbird 500 I feel that I can ride it as low as 30 KMPH on 4th gear. But I don't do that as I know the UCE engine is not built for it.

[tharian]

Adding to the above discussion.

On a light crank CI 350, third gear is where it is at. This gear is long and can be used at speeds of 20kmh and can revved upto almost 65-70kmh.

This means, in third gear the engine feels very close to a heavy crank engine and the older the engine is, the more it feels like one. Though, the feel of a heavy crank can be never be felt on a light crank.

Navin, what I experienced after riding a 4sp AVL350 is that, compared to the light crank CI, it has much more torque at the bottom. This of course is not due to the crank, but everything else that makes a AVL a AVL.

[navin_v8]

Originally Posted by tharian

Navin, what I experienced after riding a 4sp AVL350 is that, compared to the light crank CI, it has much more torque at the bottom. This of course is not due to the crank, but everything else that makes a AVL a AVL.

I haven't ridden a 4 speed AVL 350 so far, but you hit the nail on the head by saying the bottom end torque of the AVL 350 is better than a light crank CI 350. I agree with you as the 5 speed AVL 350 that I own has a better bottom end torque than my light crank 1996 350 CI Standard. The torque delivery both from standstill and while in motion is amazing in the AVL 350 5speed. I have done a full load test on my AVL 30 where me (85 Kgs) plus my brother in law (120 Kgs) were seated on my AVL Tbird 350. A combined weight of around 200+ kgs was hauled effortlessly by the AVL Tbird 350 on a steep incline of about 40 degree. Many have told me to sell off the Tbird AVL 350 since it is a odd man out and has a weird engine. I just smile back and reply, Never!

[jeeva]

Just to add to the discussion, a set of NGK Iridium spark plugs makes a big difference to the "luggability" of the modern UCE (Electra/Classic).
Folks have already started modding the UCE crank to ~11kgs and getting rid of that clanky decompressor-exhaust cam. I am next in line, for the mod.

[ArizonaJim]

Don't forget.

That clanky decompressor-exhaust cam is there for several reasons.

During starting, it reduces the compression making it easier for the electric starter to crank the engine. This can be particularly important if one has a poor battery or the battery is not fully charged.

The automatic decompression device does a lot to prevent "kick back" during the time the engine is coming to a stop when the ignition is turned off.
This kick back during shutdown is caused by the piston starting to compress the air/fuel mixture without having enough crankshaft momentum to get the job done.

When this happens, the piston is driven back down the cylinder, turning the crankshaft in the wrong direction.

While most of the moving parts can tolerate this direction reversal, the sprag clutch cannot.

The sprags "lock up" will almost instantly accelerate the starter gear train and starter motor backwards. Due to the gear ratios in the starter gear train this produces a very high loading on the sprags.

Although the gears and the motor can tolerate this, the sudden impact of the sprags engaging can over-stress them and ultimately lead to their breaking.

Replacing the sprag clutch is not an inexpensive process so I doubt that removing a slightly annoying feature like some ticking is worth the trouble it may cause.

[Rennjit]

Originally Posted by tharian

.... ....
Navin, what I experienced after riding a 4sp AVL350 is that, compared to the light crank CI, it has much more torque at the bottom. This of course is not due to the crank, but everything else that makes a AVL a AVL.

Agree its not the crank but most probably it'd be the higher compression ratio which boosts low end torque in the Avl. I've always wanted to raise the light crank CI's CR to a modest 7.5 but its been on hold for long.

Originally Posted by navin_v8

...... Many have told me to sell off the Tbird AVL 350 since it is a odd man out and has a weird engine. I just smile back and reply, Never!

For some odd reason i like the Avl more than its old & young cousins, may be for its appearance or the oddity. I went asking for an Avl motor but ended up buying a light CI - for practical reasons you see, it was a time when the Uce's appeared on Tbts.
Even now as i'm looking to pick up a used bike, i can't make up my mind on Avl vs Uce. Strange? May be an Avl top end on Uce cases would be the prescription in this case

Originally Posted by jeeva

.... Folks have already started modding the UCE crank to ~11kgs and getting rid of that clanky decompressor-exhaust cam. I am next in line, for the mod.

What do you do with the ex-cam, swap with an inlet cam or just a tiny blob of weld? i'm sure you have gone thru details. Lets have some pics & notes please..