Ace, have you considered the 535 piston that nfield sells? Has anyone used it with success?
A little more info comes to light.The ECU cuts off the fuel pump at 5500rpm.This means that if we plan to keep costs down, we can keep the rpms under that point, so we don't have to buy a new ECU or Power Commander. Nor do we have to fiddle with the hydraulic lifters.For a cost sensitive build, that would be the redline.For higher rpms than that, we'd have to spend hundreds for an ECU change and new maps, or go to a carburetor. And we'd also have to do the lifters and the valve springs, and it would be more stress on the bottom end, and we might probably have to do cams to explot that rpm range.If the aim is to stay under $1k budget, then I think it's best to work within the 5500rpm existing redline.And, Welcome Back, Nigel! .
Hey Ace,That's good news...With all the proposed power upgrades I think handling issues will have to be looked at concurrently. The UCE is a much more compact engine than its predecessors mounted much the same way on a marginally modified frame and that I believe has changed the weight distribution too much to the front... my layman 2 cents...http://youtu.be/X7ABWmHDZh8watch at about :20 secs into the videoHMRMumbai
Hi HMR,Yes, the C5 has been known to exhibit some of that squirrelly behavior, but some of the guys seemed to have solved most of that with some shock bolt adjustments(or something like that), from what I remember. Also, I think that the factory has dialed in some extra trail with the new front ends.Anyway, it doesn't happen with the G5, and I think the C5 issue has been solved. But, I'll pay attention to that.And we'll be in touch with those guys at RD in Bangalore.
AceI have 4 REs, all older generation, carburetted. I have ridden the UCE 500 extensively since 2007 but have not been totally convinced about the bike. The newer models are much better with the remapped ECU and front end tweaks but its yet to win me over. Hopefully, the ACE Classic hot rod will help me change my mind Let me know if you need any help from India on this project...RegardsHMRMumbai
I'll be following this project for sure. Although a freer flowing exhaust will help, I'm not to keen on an increase in noise over the stock torpedo. It just seems that most exchange mufflers/silencers increase the noise and backfarts far too much for my liking.Increase in torque and over all power at the same sound output? Can it be done?
I did find out that there is no outer race on the big end roller. So, that's not so good.
I'm having trouble visualizing this. Is it just inner race around the crank and then ball bearings riding on the raw aluminum of the case?Scott
IMO, it is indeed too bad that the lower connecting rod design didn't utilize a roller bearing that had a hardened outer sleeve which could have been pressed into place.That would have provided a very hard (HRC 63-65) smooth, durable surface for the rollers to ride on and when all is said and done would have cost less than the existing design.Speaking of this roller bearing design with the rollers running directly in the connecting rods bore it would be a good idea to check the surface hardness there.I assume they case hardened the surface by carburizing or nitriding? If they left the surface at a hardness below HRC 60 that could be a weak link in the design.As a side note to Ace, I think you forgot a zero? I think the clearance should have been .00085-.0010?Getting to Scotty's thought, because the CPU limits the engine speed to 5500 rpm, the lower bearings will probably not need beefing up.While this is fine for the "low cost" version that will probably increase the torque a bit it will be an issue if much of an increase in horsepower is desired.Increasing horse power usually requires increasing the max speed of the engine.
Page created in 0.088 seconds with 32 queries.