[deejay]

Just curious, how many 350s were imported to the US? I've never seen one for sale used.

[LJRead]

Can't answer your question, deejay, and am also interested in the answer.  However, I will say that a year or so ago, when first in the market for an Enfield, a 350 import was the first one I came across on Ebay, and have seen several since - not real common, but they do come up for sale -  many in the know feel that the 350 is better than the 500 in many ways.

[deejay]

many in the know feel that the 350 is better than the 500 in many ways.

So I've heard, and thats why I'm interested. 

[Sixty5inILL]

If you're keeping count, I have 1.   

[PhilJ]

many in the know feel that the 350 is better than the 500 in many ways.

So I've heard, and thats why I'm interested. 

Ok you two, so out with it. How are they supposed to be better?

[Kevin Mahoney]

Without some real digging in the attic (which I am not going to do) I would say that there are less than 100 350's in the US.

[LJRead]

Well Phil,  basically the R E was designed as a 350 cc bike which didn't sell well in the U.S. so they modified it to 500 cc (even though in the 50s there were also modifications to that capacity).  This puts more stress on the bottom end, the 350 piston, etc. being lighter and more in keeping with the designed stress level.  Then, in addition, R E apparently chose a poorer quality piston which is a little like a time bomb in each of the 500s in that a goodly percentage of them will eventually give trouble.  According to experts like Pete Snidal, the 350 doesn't suffer any of the stress related problems that the 500s do, and, in addition is darned peppy. 

Indian 48 (Kumar) mentioned to me that he was having trouble getting the factory in India to sell him a 500cc iron barreled R E.  I suggested to him that he go read all the testimony on the Yahoo forum, of which, at the particular time he was buying, there had been a lot of discussion.  Both Tim Busby of New Zealand and Pete had put their seal of approval on the 350 as compared with the larger engine.  Kumar saw the light, bought the 350 Electra (iron barreled in India), and has been delighted with it as compared with his 500 cc AVL Machismo.

I suppose there are places for the bigger displacement, but remember, as standard engines, they are only 4 hp different in power, and the smaller engine is much happier being wound up. 

I guess this covers most of it.

Happy thumping Phil,

LJ

[deejay]

Well, I'd rather have the 500, there are more mods for it, and it was designed in england as a 500 too. The current 500 is not just a 350 bored out. Actually in a recent classic bike mag there is a comparison between an old 500cc english built bullet and a new 350cc india built bullet. Not really a fair comparison if you ask me. But like LJ said, the 350 puts less stress on the bottom end, and if I were to get a 350, I'd keep it mostly bone stock.

[LJRead]

There is also the situation where you do add a lot of stress producing modifications, then the problems with the 500 seem to go way up.  My own feeling is that bone stock is the way to go with the 500 too.  There are, however, ways to beef up the bottom end in the 500, expensive, but probably worth it if the money is there.  The AVL in both sizes is pretty well set, no mods, but then none really needed.

I just got back from a fairly long ride (100 km), for me, and did several plug checks.  Too rich when at idle, even though adjusted fully lean, and perhaps a little lean at half throttle.  Sure enjoyable.  Maybe I'll see what I get without the old style air filter and moving the clip down a notch

[PhilJ]

In my younger days I was into mods and getting the next little bit of power I could. And for my '72 beemer /5 it was worth the effort. The BMW could take the mods and handle the extra power.

When your starting off with 22(iron) and 23(AVL) hp you could easily pore a lot of loot into a machine that won't give much in return. Doesn't make sense to me. But then I'm not in the 20 - 40 year bracket anymore. 

Regarding the less reliability on the 500s with mods. Seems that the 500 must be built to about max without, as you say, beefing up the bottom end. Maybe even then it would be iffy for the reliability attainable by stock. Just too much money for too little gain. IMHO

But then that's what makes it fun for some.

[Foggy_Auggie]

I'd guess that with a 6 to 1 compression ratio, the lower end probably doesn't know the difference between a 350 jug and a 500 jug.  Especially if the cams and carburation are close.

[Jon]

Taking the stance that the indian built Bullet is a direct descendant of the Redditch
built Bullet the bottom end was modified in the early 1950's to have a wider big-end
bushe and 4 ball and roller main bearngs in order to cope with the increase to 500cc.
The 350 and 500 bottom ends are sustantially the same,it is the stud spacing that
prevents interchangibility.Some trials versions had heavier flywheels.
The 350 top end puts less stress on the bottom end but in normal use this shouldn't
be an issue.
The 350 was more popular mainly becuse it was a little cheaper and more
economical to tax ,run and insure in 40's and 50's cash strapped UK, exactly
the same virtues that made it so suitable for India.The 350 was probably less suitable
for American road conditions even in the 1950's.Many more 350 Bullets have been
made, both British and Indian than 500s.
Tollgate Classics in the UK offer a 450 bore kit for the 350 and claim that this
makes a nicer machine than either 350 or 500.

[PhilJ]

Nicer in what way, Jon? Just something betwixt and between or something else?

[Kevin Mahoney]

LJ has brought up some good points. I thought I would jump in on this subject.
When you get beyond theory, the differences between the 350 and the 500 are not that great. The following article mostly concerns the cast iron engine which is no longer being made for export markets.The Indian made 500 was introduced in the early 1990's before  they were imported into North America. (It is interesting when you see a 1975 Indian made 500 for sale. they were not made until the 1990s. The cranks are a bit different, the cases are a lot different (try to slip a 500 barrel into a 350 crankcase without extensive machining. The barrel piston head and carburetor are different. There are "experts" on the internet who proclaim one or the other better for a multitude of reasons. (One of these "experts" hasn't laid his eyes on a new Bullet in for many years). .( I am not speaking about anyone on this forum)  You can dream up all sorts of theoretical issues with these engines, but what about the real world?
Where do these Urban Legends come from then?
Let's talk about this from a real world perpsective. I have read every warranty claim since 1998 in the US and have a pretty good feel for this.
lSize
The 500 was designed for western markets. LJ or someone else has correctly pointed out that there only have a 4hp difference between the 350 and the 500. You can feel it, but not much. Until recently the 500 was not popular in India. They have been sold there on and off over the years but the added expense and higher petrol consumption made them less than attractive to Indian consumers. Remember that until recently the 350 was by a long shot the most expensive bike in India. Also parts availability for 500's  in India is very poor. In short it was an option that made no sense from an Indian consumers point of view. That is changing as the concept of the motorcycle as a recreational toy is just starting to catch on. With an improving economy the "bigger is better" mentality is rearing it's ugly head.

Reliability
I would say that in it's earliest form the 500 was not as good an engine as the 350. That has changed over the years in a big way. If for no other reason than the factories energy and research has been focussed on improving that engine as opposed to the 350. The biggest single reason that the 500 had teething trouble (at east the iron barrel) a bike that is designed for commuting at a leisurely pace. If you ask the bike to do more than it is designed for you are asking for trouble - period. Doesn't matter 350 or 500.
Bottom ends
This is going to be unpopular, but the idea that you need to replace the bottom end in either bike is bunk. I would love to sell you a $1,000 crankshaft or one with an Alpha Roller bearing and a Carrillo rod, but unless you are asking more of the bike than it was designed for or racing (and even that is questionable) there is no reason to do this. Where does this urban legend come from? In the 1990's quality control at the factory was not nearly as good as it is today. The spec for runout of a 500cc crank is about .005 thousands. We used to commonly see them at .010 or more. Indian bearing were suspect etc The second bearing on the timing side would sometimes fail, we have not seen this for years in any meaningful way.
Even at that the number of failures was not as high as you might think. In a year where we would sell 400 bikes we used to  see about 10-15 "issues" a year. That is about 3.25%. In my opinion this was high for a single issue. Our failures used to mystify Enfield because they never imagined that we would use the bikes the way we do here. The Brits who sold more bikes than we did had even  less failures. A crank with wobble in it would also cause other problems. Now  cranks have less than .001" wobble in them and the bearing are much better in fact many are German. Now out of 400 bikes we may see one or two bottom end failures. Then if you add up the total number of bikes out there the failure rate is exceedingly low. Dan Holmes ran a stock bottom end in his first race bike and only switched because he started to get into some very high rpms and was afraid of a a failure that never happened. We have a racer in Ohio that races hard and wins often with  a stock bottom end. I will say that racing on a very long  track like Daytona or Brainerd may not be a great idea with a stock crank, nor is cruising at 70 for extended periods of time. When I first took this company over i was also told that if you modified the Enfield you should replace the bottom end. I drank the Kool-Aid and was a believer until I started to get a picture of what was really going on.
Rods
Rods themselves have rarely presented a problem at least as a primary cause of failure
Pistons
Piston failures come from a few reasons. Perhaps number one is from running too lean or too advanced. This is usually manifested by a hole in the top of the piston - totally self induced. Seizure is another one. Almost always self induced from overheating. Sometimes a repair shop will not believe the factory spec and size a piston too tightly too a cylinder and cause the problem. It is seen more on a 500 than 350s because a 500 is usually driven harder especially in the West. Then we have the piston coming apart. Typically in the case of a 500 the top of the piston would separate at the oil ring lands. If you look at a 500cc piston this is it's weakest point. This was rarely seen in the 350. I think this was mostly related to a bad supplier and poor checking at the factory. In the very late 1990's and very early 2,000's we would get this in streaks. It seemed to be "batch relate"" . We haven't seen it much in recent years. It happens but not much (3-4 a year) out of the thousands of bikes on the road in the US. In general the 350 was a more robust design and had less occurrences.

One thing that no one has ever explained is the difference between markets. For example the Brits run into different thing than we do. There are a couple of Aussies who have experienced piston problems in the AVL engine. In the UK, and the US no such problem exists. I think this can be explained by two things. First of all in small markets such as Australia one failure is a much higher percentage of the total market than in the larger markets such as the US, UK or Germany.  If there is a "bad batch" of one sort or another it can appear to be catastrophic. Another reason is the different ways they are used form one country to another. Why do we see bottom end failures that the Brits don't see? When we brought in the AVL engine the Brits who had had it for a year warned us that the tappet covers cracked all of the time. i really loaded up on them and may have sold one in 3 years. Go figure. One thing I know for sure - a good dealer makes a huge difference in how well a Bullet performs. A high number of claims come from dealers who do not educate their customers properly or go over a bike as well as they should. There is nothing better for a Bullet owner than a good dealer.
At the end of the day we believe that there is not need to replace anything of a modern day cast-iron Bullet if you drive it as it was intended to be driven. We also think that adding a few cc's such as the 535 kit does not cause trouble. The biggest route to trouble on a cast-iron Bullet is to drive it like you stole it. We would much prefer that you drive it like you own it.

[PhilJ]

No one better to dispel rumors than you Kevin. It's always nice when you chime in and set the record straight..... But I feel certain that another is in the making... 

[LJRead]

Thanks Kevin,

But when you think about it, the issues I have raised recently are ones that have been going the rounds, and all I've done is give you a good opportunity to put these rumors right.  But maybe I should have just keep quiet and let the rumors persist??? 

Like Phil says, your inputs come with authority (as you say you see the complaints), we are a little in the dark and struggling.

One thing I would make clear - I love my Enfields and want to do nothing to in any way tarnish their image - good bike, beautifully presented and to look at - just loads of good fun.

LJ

[Kevin Mahoney]

Larry,
I wouuld be very disappointed if you kept quiet. Would defeat the purpose of the board. You are always polite and thoughtful, what more coud someone ask for?