[Blltrdr]

Let me just add my 2 cents worth to this. Presently I have 22 bikes, everything from a Brough Superior to a new Triumph Thruxton. I can put up with a lot of shortcomings on bikes but how in the world can Enfield ever expect to grow their market in the US, or the rest of the world for that matter,  if they don't put some effort into quality control and design improvement.

I had a 96 500 and got rid of it because the trans was crap. I picked up a 2002 e-start one with less than 500 miles on it and the trans is still crap. It had the left foot shift on it and was impossible to ride. I installed a right foot conversion and nothing has changed (see my post on difficult shifting on four speed trans). The only explanation is poor design.

Also, what do they make the rubber parts out of? Every rubber part on both bikes turned to mush after just a couple of years. The chrome on most parts is just a thin coat that disappears as soon as it is exposed to air.

The only market for such junk is people like us that  will put up with this. There is a big market out ther for a GOOD vintage styled bike.

Your 4spd woes are probably attributed to adjustments. Setting up the 4spd takes some effort but once it is set properly it shifts like a dream. 

[jedaks]

A fellow in the Royal Enfield Club down here was telling me of a trip to India he did a few years ago and of a visit to the RE Factory.

He said that these bikes are hand made to a large extent. A worker would be responsible for a certain part of building a bike. He had a crate of parts beside him on the floor and he attached them to the bits someone else did before him.

If you got a bike built by a conscientious worker that checked his parts before installation and gave a damn about what he was doing, then that was reflected in the finished bike.

[C.C.]

Let me just add my 2 cents worth to this. Presently I have 22 bikes, everything from a Brough Superior to a new Triumph Thruxton. I can put up with a lot of shortcomings on bikes but how in the world can Enfield ever expect to grow their market in the US, or the rest of the world for that matter,  if they don't put some effort into quality control and design improvement.

I had a 96 500 and got rid of it because the trans was crap. I picked up a 2002 e-start one with less than 500 miles on it and the trans is still crap. It had the left foot shift on it and was impossible to ride. I installed a right foot conversion and nothing has changed (see my post on difficult shifting on four speed trans). The only explanation is poor design.

Also, what do they make the rubber parts out of? Every rubber part on both bikes turned to mush after just a couple of years. The chrome on most parts is just a thin coat that disappears as soon as it is exposed to air.

The only market for such junk is people like us that  will put up with this. There is a big market out ther for a GOOD vintage styled bike.

If you put enough changes in quality control and design improvement you no longer have a true 50's British bike. Remember "Untainted by technology" that includes quality, design and build methods.

As far as the rubber, the only thing rubber on my bike that I have replaced is the tires and they had 14,000 miles on them with good tread. No issues with chrome or paint. No corrosion or rust.

You are right there is a big market out there for a good vintage style bike. The iron bullet is not a vintage style bike, it is the real thing. The new bullets are more of what you are looking for, vintage style with modern technology design and manufacturing methods.

CC

[C.C.]

To me, design and quality are two totally different things. I was drawn to my '06 Bullet due to the archaic design. As for the quality, it left much to be desired. For example: I think a better fit of the head and cylinder, along with a 'modern' head gasket, would not have been out of line. It certainly could have been improved without compromising the 'vintage appearance' and originality. Just because the design is outdated, does not mean that better gaskets and rubber parts could not have been installed at the factory. I spent many hours installing proper hardware and checking clearances after I took possession of my bike. Another example: the aft muffler bracket was doing its best to saw the right swingarm in two. I made a spacer and replaced the bolt and corrected the situation. Are the citizens of India satisfied with what they are spending their hard-earned rupees on? Don't get me wrong, I do not regret purchasing my Enfield. I think much could have been taken care of as the bike was moving down the assembly line. The bike could have maintained its 'retro' look with some attention to detail. As for oil leakage, I could not be more pleased. My Bullet does not spew all over my garage floor. In time it may, but I won't mind correcting the problem when it arises.

The design is 50's along with the build method. The design of the engine does not allow for the perfection you are looking for in head to cylinder fit. You will have some leakage at some point and sometimes they will fail. If they did not fail then manufacturers would still be using the same methods to build engines. The iron Bullet is not vintage styling it is the real thing! It is a 1955 Royal Enfield no mater how you slice it.

I do believe the citizens of India are satisfied with the iron Bullet, they built and sold it for over 50 years.

My Bullet does not spew oil all over my garage floor. I does show signs of oil residue around the thick gaskets, like the ones used on cycles back in the 50's and 60's. That is one of the reasons Honda kicked their asses and took over the market. Honda Tainted their bikes with technology.

CC

[Roundsworth]

So basically, British-built bikes from the 1950s were poorly made, with little or indifferent quality control standards? I am sure that employees of British motorcycle manufacturers did their jobs with pride and passion. I followed this forum for a year before I bought my bike. I knew what I was getting into, insofar as design and technology. That is why I bought the bike. To say that improvements, unseen by the human eye, are not possible because it would diminish the aura surrounding the Enfield seems a bit weak to me. I believe the theme of this thread was quality, not 1950s technology and/or design. I, like others, bought my iron barreled Bullet because it was the 'real thing'.

[C.C.]

So basically, British-built bikes from the 1950s were poorly made, with little or indifferent quality control standards? I am sure that employees of British motorcycle manufacturers did their jobs with pride and passion. I followed this forum for a year before I bought my bike. I knew what I was getting into, insofar as design and technology. That is why I bought the bike. To say that improvements, unseen by the human eye, are not possible because it would diminish the aura surrounding the Enfield seems a bit weak to me. I believe the theme of this thread was quality, not 1950s technology and/or design. I, like others, bought my iron barreled Bullet because it was the 'real thing'.

Ok, Its is not that British bikes from the 50's were poorly made they were outdated design and manufacturing methods. Compared to today's standards they are poorly made. They are after all 50's design and old tech manufacturing methods. Just because you do your job with pride and passion does not mean the quality will match today's capabilities or expectations. BSA for example was the largest cycle manufacturer in the world, where are they today. Part of the charm of owning a vintage machine is keeping it running and running good. The iron Bullet is the real thing with all the problems of 50's technology and manufacturing. I did not say that improvements were not possible, they are that is why they build the new Bullets. I believe the new Bullet will meet the expectation of today's quality and design. I understand the thread is about quality but technology and design effect/limit the outcome of quality. They (RE India) choose not to change the design or much of the manufacturing methods of the original Bullet.

CC

[jedaks]

Remember that Royal Enfield had a joke name among motorcyclists.

They were dubbed "Royal Oilfield" because of their leaks.

[barenekd]

Compared to today's standards they are poorly made. They are after all 50's design and old tech manufacturing methods. Just because you do your job with pride and passion does not mean the quality will match today's capabilities or expectations.

Most of the Brit bikes of the '50s were designed in the '20s and '30s, which in itself doesn't make them bad designs. Ed Turner's Triumph twins in the '30s sparked the vertical twin explosion.
Much of the equipment wasn't as dated as people like to think. A lot of it was updated during the war as the motorcycle companies were involved in making war materials. Granted, some of it was pretty old stuff and needed a special touch to get out acceptable parts.
But since the Brits didn't have any appreciable competition until the '60s, then their new non-motorcycle management didn't know how to cope because they didn't know motorcyclists or what they really wanted. After all, they were just building "Consumer Durables".
Bare  

[Lwt Big Cheese]

Remember that Royal Enfield had a joke name among motorcyclists.

They were dubbed "Royal Oilfield" because of their leaks.

Really, are you sure?

Sounds like an alteration to try to sound humorous to me.

They were also where the Queen kept her chickens. Royal Henfield!

[jedaks]

Yes, I'm sure.

http://www.classic-british-motorcycles.com/royal-enfield-motorcycles.html

http://www.royalenfields.com/2008/08/royal-oilfield-slur-stains-enfields.html

[Lwt Big Cheese]

So if it's written on the 'net it must be true!


 

http://www.royalenfields.com/2009/01/joke-lays-egg-in-royal-henfield.html



Want some magic beans?

[Arizoni]

All of the old   English bikes dripped oil.  BSA, Matchless, Triumph, Ariel, Royal Enfield... they ALL did it.
It was a trademark.

In those days Harley was also an oil dripper.

It was said that if your motorcycle wasn't dripping oil, it was time to add some more. 

[MDLNB]

I have a "refurbished" 1968 Iron barrel.  I have old and expect it to be old.
I have a 1968 Mustang.  It's old but looks new/old.  It still runs like a 1968 because it still has a 289 in it.

Have you ever seen an old triumph, or a BSA?  They leaked.

Have you ever seen the old Harleys?  They leaked.

The Enfield has kept their old design for many years.  You get what you pay for, I guess. If you want something small and kind of vintage, then pay a little more and buy a Harley Sportster.  Just say.  I also have two Harleys.  Of course my Harleys are better than the Enfield.  But my taurus runs better than my Mustang too.

[bullethead63]

This whole "leaky Brit bike" thing is true,but with modern sealants,gasket material evolution,and Loc-tite,it doesn't have to be that way...you CAN have an oil-tight Brit bike...my three Bullets use more oil than they leak...and yes,there IS oil in them...watch how they slap them together on YouTube...there's plenty of Triumph factory videos from the early 1950's,and not a torque-wrench in sight...no wonder they leaked!

[single]

Well,I owned a 1967 BSA Shooting Star,441 cc single,in 1968 to1970.NO leaks.No issues until 2nd gear went away from power shifting to get the big wheelies going.
I owned a 1974 Triumph Trident from 1978 to 1998.NO leaks.Head gasket failure due to semi-clogged carbureters causing an overheating episode.Bad gas.
All of my friends rode British bikes at one time or another,some,but not all, leaked.Some of the guys had "trued" the case joints,I admit it.
In my personal experience,English bikes were not chronic oil users.A lot of them had chain lubrication using engine oil,these could over do it and be messy,I suppose.My Enfield is leaky in a seeping sort of way,never drips unless a new leak comes along.
 I would say that what we have is somewhat less than what we would have obtained from England.I believe this is obvious.They only resemble the old English bikes.
I find no little irony in noting that the worst bike I have ever owned has a British heritage but was not made there,and that the faults of it tend to be attributed to British bike history when the present firm have cut every corner possible,until recently,resulting in a product the Brits would have shunned.
Still,I have an attatchment to Jolly.I really just want to make it better and keep it.