- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 11,527
rotorwrinch said:I don't think Mr Canaga would mind my posting a link to the scanned 8 valve article that he posted a while back. Ken would you have the rest of the article?
Rj
rotorwrinch said:I don't think Mr Canaga would mind my posting a link to the scanned 8 valve article that he posted a while back. Ken would you have the rest of the article?
Rj
comnoz said:However I do recall reading of someone who has tried it on a Norton. It would be a difficult task given the poor access to the inside half of the chamber. Jim
No problem RJ (and Dave). I have the other two pages of the article, but only in .pdf format, which photobucket doesn't take. I'll see if I can convert them and post them later. In the meantime, this is another short article on the head.rotorwrinch said:I don't think Mr Canaga would mind my posting a link to the scanned 8 valve article that he posted a while back. Ken would you have the rest of the article?
http://media.photobucket.com/image/nort ... 2.jpg?o=72
Rj
jseng1 said:What I heard from Pete Lovell is that when they had the 8 valve working well it put out 90 HP with a stock cam and pulled the spokes out of the rear wheel. The bike crashed at speed and was totaled.
As for HP a very well tuned 750 long stroke racer can put out over 70 hp and a short stroke can put out 80+. Of course you have to have the right pipes, ports, valves, cam and intake manifolds. Most Norton racers today are not that highly tuned.
If you want all the HP you can get from a Norton. Take a close look at a Harley 750 XR flat tracker and copy everything - the exhaust , inlet track , valves, cam action, ports , bore/stroke etc etc as close as you can. They were using the D shaped port way back. All the developement has already been done and its the best breathing 750 pushrod twin on the planet. I'm not promoting Harleys here - just want to see the Norts pull away. I took it as far as I could but there is plenty of room for improvement.
lcrken said:I have the other two pages of the article, but only in .pdf format, which photobucket doesn't take.
Ken
lcrken said:That was my recollection of our discussions. With the small number of owners willing and able to spend several thousand dollars for an 8-valve kit, you'd do well to break even on cost, and certainly never recover your initial investment. It would have to be a labor of love by someone who could afford to lose a lot of money and time. Now where did I put that lottery ticket?
I'm just grateful that Ken jumped in with the Fullauto head production. I'm quite sure he isn't getting rich off all us tightwad Norton owners.
Ken
ZFD said:He who can read between the lines and is familiar with the niceties of British jounalism in conjunction with the customary unrealistic and over-positive "riding impressions" given, knows from that "test" the testbike performed like the proverbial dead bockwurst. Which it did when Nortons themselves first tested the Piper heads that, to cap it all, fell apart every two minutes- or so those involved with the project still recall. The telling "still in a relatively mild state of tune" phrase is in the test, a phrase that is the British journo's way of telling the more intelligent part of the readership the thing hesitated to move under its own steam. Where the 70+ bhp figure comes from that an engine with the piper head supposedly gave when tested by the factory I do not know. I heard figures 20bhp lower from those who tested the contraption.
Having had the misfortune to ride a bike that was the greatest heap of s**t I ever rode, disguised as the "Commando to end all Commandos", built by a character deservedly forgotten now, only to read a delirious writeup on that very heap only weeks later in Classic Bike, I can vouch for the rose-tinted glasses journalists put on. These are even more so when they are being confronted with the latest product from a regular and prominent advertizer.
The 8-valve head was deservedly burried, never to appear again.