All good points, and duly noted
No feelings have been hurt this i end, you're alright
I've done a bit of what you've suggested already Jason. The only fly in the ointment is my big heavy "barge" as you call it
(hence my interest in building a smaller and lighter boat that could do this project some justice
) Pointless testing this out on my heavy canal cruiser isn't it, although i have noticed a subtle difference with a couple of my older 102's where i cleaned up the prop.
I'm looking towards Nudge for some guidance here.
Rather than looking at one of my more cherished 102's as an example for improving,(13 and still breeding
) i have a collection of bits (quite a lot of bits) that once assembled could provide a good basis for further improvements. Enough to assemble an almost complete motor or two put it that way.
Port mapping i've done on a few cylinders, which unless i've made a massive mistake with the measuring seem to vary a little bit with all of them. I kind of expected as much. Without getting too bogged down with the theory side of things here, i shall play things slowly for a while until i have a better idea of where things need to be with regards to timing. Port timing that is...
Is lightest weight (reciprocating parts) a good option? I've weighed different things, i've measured different things, all with quite big differences. Which way do i go? Heavy or light?
Con-rods i have a range, most in pretty good workable condition, but after some recent comments i've listened and inwardly digested.
Cranks, most of what i have are within specs according to BS, and again after recent comments i've listened and taken on board what you've said. But i'm still just a little bit curious all the same, but i will start looking for something more up to the job. Same with crank bearings.
Question: how do i measure primary compression? (do you mean combustion chamber compression)
I can measure the compression in the combustion chamber, but not the crankcase. I need more information about this please.
Another area i'm interested in is the combustion chamber itself for obvious reasons
Would this compression measurement be leaning towards how far i can re-work the combustion chamber?
I've had another idea with using a much smaller gearbox which never got fitted to 102's which involves a block of aluminium which will end up being effectively a big spacer, so i can use a slightly bigger prop for this "small gearbox". Better gearing with this smaller gearbox as well. I reckon some of you might know what i'm hinting at here
Any help here would be appreciated with a few things. Just an idea at the moment but a definite maybe.
I will have a look for those topics dealing with props, and i promise i will pay attention.
Maybe i do spend too much time with the theory side rather than the physical hands on side at the moment, but i like to know that what i'm doing will be fairly safe without ending up in a pile of bits. You can't blame me for that can you.
Yes, i waffle on from time to time. Sorry about that too
Nothing will happen just yet as i've got another shed being delivered tomorrow to replace the current shed i'm working from. It's 20 years old and about ready to fall down on its own so any hands-on measuring won't likely be for another month or two. I might be away from the forum for a few weeks whilst i'm doing this. Give you some peace and quiet
All good
Jon