JsMotorsport Maney 850 85bhp motor!

Ok what about two possibilities?

#1The full on 1007 motor with all the trimmings

#2 The 850 with Rods barrels pistons and cylinderhead(lifters cam etc)

Thoughts???

The 1,007cc is roughly 22% more displacement than the 828cc Norton so the larger engine would deliver a greater torque and power band with less stress.

A very simplistic comparative analysis is: in order to get the equivalent mass flow (air & fuel which roughly equates to power) through a given motor, if the 1,007cc peaked at say 6,500 rpm then the 828 cc would peak at 8,000 rpm which is a very high speed for an 89mm stroke engine.

I would say from a cost effective stand point, if going with new pistons then bore out to 920 cc.

The 828 cc would be a fairly stressed race motor if you really want to achieve 85bhp (crankshaft HP).

Overall streetability, I would go with the 1,007cc option.

As the Banksters and their Govt agents constantly steal our money-labor values I"d up the current inflated cost of best money can buy off the shelf to $15,000 and a couple more for special features and processing, then most of or more than $1000 to get it on a dyno for dial in and bragging rights. Most bang for the bux would be Bruce's ready to go Drouin but it may mess with the flinging ease I'm told, but with that kind of torque hit on tap no problemo to just trip it out in direction intended, which could be last thing remembered if not on a tamed isolastic that can handle the power punching on any leaning that counts.

Jim Schmidt's Race Tech manual is likely the best plan for cheapest impressive power with mostly off the shelf modified factory Norton parts.
http://victorylibrary.com/NOR.htm
A must for every Norton racer - Novice or expert. This manual contains priceless info gleaned from some of the greatest tuners of our time including notes from Peter Williams, Ron Wood, Leo Goff and many others. Twelve 8” × 11” pages of text. Eleven pages of illustrations and text. Three pages of photos. Subject material includes crankshaft lightening, reshaping and balancing (how to balance your own crank). Strengthening of crank PTO shaft (very important). Detailed porting specs for three stages of tune. Exhaust pipe and megaphone specs for various states of tune. Making and fitting your own big valves (1mm oversize). Racing cam specs for Norton factory cams, C.R.Axtell cams’s and other high performance cams. Piston and pin lightening. Handling/suspension improvements for Norton forks. Photos of rear monoshock layouts (racing frame) and much more for only $20.00 (plus shipping). Order now and make your bike a winner.

Dances with Shrapnel said:

The 1,007cc is roughly 22% more displacement than the 828cc Norton so the larger engine would deliver a greater torque and power band with less stress.

A very simplistic comparative analysis is: in order to get the equivalent mass flow (air & fuel which roughly equates to power) through a given motor, if the 1,007cc peaked at say 6,500 rpm then the 828 cc would peak at 8,000 rpm which is a very high speed for an 89mm stroke engine.

I would say from a cost effective stand point, if going with new pistons then bore out to 920 cc.

The 828 cc would be a fairly stressed race motor if you really want to achieve 85bhp (crankshaft HP).

Overall streetability, I would go with the 1,007cc option.

Click to expand...

Just an observation, the two 1007s racing in the UK I know of struggled to rev to 6000, more like 5500, until the use of full JS kit as reported elsewhere here on Dave Watson's bike......but for Street use...in lower overall state of tune, surely not a problem...though JS rods and pistons with a milder cam and head would still make sense for a nice street bike....

I am with you on the cost effective 920 solution.....

Very educational Steve A and backs up Comstocks telling us the longer the stroke the sooner friction limits power above some rpm. Dang hot rod long stroke HD's easy exceed 6000, so more mystery to understand why they can but not Norton-ish engines. I would think breathing was the limiting rpm factor but I guess not. Also educational along the lines of torque vs rpm for the HP contests racing. For non pavement flings I like to be in lower gears to keep crank spun up some, but not sure why it feels more secure ie: to allow slight 10%-ish controlled light spin for best traction yet still butt steerable or stablizing, or if d/t the gyroscopic stabilization not to just flip on side or head. On pavement I like to be able to spin rear slightly for short instants that then hook up soon as throtte eased off. The lower the rpms I can do this the more sure and secure I can live with it. In public a hi torque engine would be the cat's meow and reflect back to 2 very pleased fella's telling me about the hi dollar engines they had ordered and put in their honest to gosh Choppers they hold WOT and dump clutch in 4th and just hang on to get ahead of the pack. Both of them said they got on loose stuff, which is too common here and wiped out their lovely rides.

I hear you SteveA. I have a 1,007cc and it is truely amazing how it wants to rev. It has a Megacycle +D grind cam (near identical to JSMotorsports Stage 3 cam), Steve Maney racing crankshaft, cases and barrel and JSMotorsports rods and pistons. A video on this forum shows it on the dyno warming up and breaking in. My first impression is that it sounds and feels as light footed as my Norton 750 ultra short stroke; truely amazing and I am not exagerating.

At the risk of repeating myself, the best bang for the buck would be punching out an 828 cc to a 920 cc to gain an additional 10.50% swept volume. Another 10.75% increase in swept volume would come from an additional 1mm bore increase and a 4mm increase in stroke length which yields the 1,007cc. Friction loss is not such a factor as stroke is increased only 4.5% yet no need to spin it anywhere near as high as a 750 or 828 in order to get bucket loads of torque and power.

So can we shoehorn in the crank and rods out of a new Thunderbird 1600cc into Commando cases, and slip on its top end.
Plenty of cubes there.

Hush my mouth, did I say T*****h there anywhere.

1600cc, hmmmmm.
Norton looking crankcases.
Hmmm, 1600cc.

Folks are talking $10,000 + for stuff, this is not even so out of that ballpark.
1600cc, hmmmm....

I don`t think what we`re talking about is so wayyyyyy out.I would regard a bike with such a sorted motor in the same way as some of the E-type Jags that are refurbished with modern gear to make them truly useable machines.
I want a bike I can use leaving all the 70,s foibles in the past where they belong!
A bike with modern upgrades on suspension,brakes and motor will be a genuine investment.A usable enjoyable thing as opposed to a pain in the ass.A real piece of automotive history that you can use as your daily driver-That is what I want.If it costs me 10-15k over the next couple of years then so be it!
When I,m done my kids will sell it for a mint and go to university :wink:
Al

What you are talking about is about what Kenny Dreer tried with the VR880 series of Commandos.
Google that, and have a read.

Whether that is good value is an interesting question.
You don't see or hear too much of folks riding them - but who knows, they may take them out every day.
Do they sell for better prices than they sold for ???

P.S. A 1600cc Thunderbird engine in a Commando is probably going to be cheaper though. !
Wonder if it would fit - hmmmm ??
Now, about those brakes...

Kenny was a man before his time! Had he had access to the CNC etc that is available now,his story may have been very different. 8)

AlColombia said:

I don`t think what we`re talking about is so wayyyyyy out.I would regard a bike with such a sorted motor in the same way as some of the E-type Jags that are refurbished with modern gear to make them truly useable machines.
I want a bike I can use leaving all the 70,s foibles in the past where they belong!
A bike with modern upgrades on suspension,brakes and motor will be a genuine investment.A usable enjoyable thing as opposed to a pain in the ass.A real piece of automotive history that you can use as your daily driver-That is what I want.If it costs me 10-15k over the next couple of years then so be it!
When I,m done my kids will sell it for a mint and go to university :wink:
Al

Click to expand...

Al, your comments quoted here really goes beyond the "letter" of this thread (JsMotorsport Maney 850 85bhp motor!) so a 1,007cc is the way you should go (if you are serious about this) as that will be following the "spirit" of this thread. You have prices for the Steve Maney stuff and the JSMotorsports stuff, figure in what will transfer over from your 828 cc (valve covers, donor head, timing cover etc) budget for larger intake valves, better carbs, better pipes etc (hint, hint ....JSMotorsports) and sort out the appropriate cam. Again, if you are serious, you should set out a performance specification and then pass it by one of a few notable engine builders here on this forum for a sanity check and budgeting help. I think this thread has given you some realistic ranges of power and price to expect.

Do this build while you are still wallowing in money. The wild card will be how much you will need to farm out and how much you can do yourself.

I wonder how the old Norton box would hold up to 1007cc? The design as it is now is not much changed from the 20 hp days, seems about at the limit of it's endurance on an 850.

Are you going with one of the TT industries boxes behind the 1007?

Glen

worntorn said:

I wonder how the old Norton box would hold up to 1007cc? The design as it is now is not much changed from the 20 hp days, seems about at the limit of it's endurance on an 850.

Click to expand...

One way to find out :twisted:

Could stay with the sintered bronze plates with a dollop of hypoid - call it cushion drive. :roll:

Yes this will probably strain the box; I would say the main threats will be missed shifts, then snatching a gear, hard down shifts with rear wheel skip and dumping the clutch with Barnett plates.

Speeding up the gearbox a bit may help with loading; don't know what it will do with dodgy shifting. I would go with a belt drive.

worntorn said:

I wonder how the old Norton box would hold up to 1007cc? The design as it is now is not much changed from the 20 hp days, seems about at the limit of it's endurance on an 850.

Are you going with one of the TT industries boxes behind the 1007?

Glen

Click to expand...

I have no idea what it takes to kick start a 1007 motor, but I am assuming you don't want to!

You might be able to build a 4 Speed with a ball race in the inner cover end of the layshaft to mount it with less flex in place of the kickstart bush, it should take the torque, and actually with all that torque you won't need more than 4 Speeds, should be used with a lower primary ratio as DWS says to spin it faster, a belt and an outrigger behind the clutch.....

Or if you think you can kick it......just go TTi....it is only money....

hobot said:

Yeah Man, WEAL, grabbed a diaper to mop up all the time and money dumped into your fantastic Norton look a like power plant. An engine like this deserves its own thread for all the features and dyno measured feedback before the hi times of riding sensations. All of us might get moist to see the paired down flywheel crank with a 3rd bearing. I bet it'd run to 9000 with nothing more than oil weeps from seams curling their elastic lips open. Do look into cryo tempering as definitely helps but must not have any mixed metals like valve seating in Al or pops right out. Would love some details on expected amount of oil to devote to the spray jets, and how the heck one could oil spray head internally.
Oh did I look into that to find mainly just heats the oil too high so will water the outside if need be.

Peel 920 engine is close enough to this build to have some relation to judge by, I'd be tickled pink with a baseline 80's rwhp, by dream into 90's. Peels bottle neck is the standard valve size in CHO head, kinda hope it stifles some her baseline power response though or might wipe out just getting to pavement. If tire only spins up so much before back off hooks it right up then its easy fun to recover or steer but if spun up faster than can stop with throttle cut , bad ju ju. I know I'll have to spend extra on a good radar detector to tap much of her potential commuting. I've tasted enjoyed more power than wise so must be wise on pulling its so tempting trigger.

Fun Fun Fun till Daddy takes the T-bird away, thanks for the rocking chair thrills bench building into sleep disturbing development. Blipp Blipp Blipppp BLATTT!

Click to expand...

No more radar detector. Not only radar detector, also the detector used for metal detecting are also illegal to use in my states.

Radar detector, why inject that much reality in this dream machine thread? At the speeds 85 hp will fast project you too you'd still be going to jail even if ya could cut 50 mph off speed before radar registered way over the limit. If a bit economy oriented I'd say spend spend spend on lightening the whole bike front to back and in between, build up or just use a factory 850 and buy Bruce McGregor's [$3500] proven dialed in Drouin supercharger and run with the AMC gearbox which can take about 100 hp before spilling its guts, especially if 50-60 lb off the thing. Almost all the race engine stuff is done merely to tolerate sustained HI rpm, but the Drouin would increase torque dramatically below redline so tire spin and wheelie avoidance [or seeking wheelies] would be constant part of hobby. To me the real thrill is cornering w/o letting up so by far the most exciting thing I did was the rump rod and its two helpers so twisties w/o fast decreasing radius zingers is boring but with tire spin power can turn even wide long sweepers into a series of decreasers zingers no modern can tolerate to keep up.