Enfield X2

[guest27]

Interesting - but why?

R

http://www.drysdalev8.com/v2/index.html

[Paulgertie]

If I was interested in this engine, given that the power is only 50bhp from a 1,000cc V twin I'd be more interested in seeing the torque figures, there has to be a reason for this engine, aside from look what we can do.
Paul

[bikeseamus]

Rog
        Delightful looking, easy to mount in the frame of choice, given the wet sump system. Probably sounds very much like a Vincent, but without the astro price. It should keep up with modern traffic, deliver plenty of torque,lend itself to easy maintenance, and have a pleasant thrum as it motors down the highway or back roads, and the more innovative bike riders will be inclined to ask questions.... resulting in intelligent motorheaded questions from the kind of people one might want to converse with, if you catch my drift.
                                                        I haven't heard a peep from the various motopresses or magazines about this power unit.... is it actually available?
                                                          Thanks for posting it.... I want one immediately... I have an empty Norton Featherbed Frame that is crying out to me to be fulfilled... and an upside down antique KTM front end with a twin piston caliper that needs a home, and some XT alloy rimmed wheels..... a Norton P11 tank in primer.... a cafe seat, Seca 650 headlight... I can see it now.  If you hear of any further developments on this innovative mill, please post them.

  I know it won't beat up a Road Star Warrior or a V Rod or Buell or VMax engine, but I couldn't care less... looks like a beautiful muscle and bone sweetheart to me.... with spare parts available.           Thanks,  Jim

[hondamichael]

looks interesting  a 1000cc with only 50bhp sould last nearly forever less stress to the parts  , thats like theses old v8 engines from america , i think they had one car build with a 5.7 liter big block but only 95bhp

[bikeseamus]

Right you are, Michael

   Back in the Sixties, it was the 300 horsepower V8s that actually ran the sweetest and lasted the longest, whether big or small block. I had friends who tweeked Chevy 427s to get over 550 Horsepower, but they were always cammy and lumpy and not user friendly.  If they weren't constantly being ripped up around 5000 RPM, they would load up, foul plugs, run rough...etc.
                          The balance of a 383 Dodge,Chevy 350, or Ford Cleveland 351 was always a sweet spot of tune that always seemed to be between 275 to 325 horsepower, and if you went too much over it there was a price to pay in smoothness of operation and longevity.

                        I had a 302 Ford that went 212,000 miles before I pulled it out to look at it. The main bearings were just fine,valves were ok, as were the guides, and the pistons were even still within spec.

  I ringed it, slight cylinder hone,lapped the valves with new seals,sealed it up with new gaskets and it felt like I had gained twenty horses back, and lost the blow by.   I drove it another 40,000 miles or so, then traded the Mustang for a couple of nice bikes.
                          The engine builders back then had an expression  "there is no substitute for cubic inches"

  In a way, they were right.... referring to torque, maybe.... but the sophistication of modern combustion chambers,injection systems, and 21st Century ignition systems certainly seems to be a good substitute for cubic inches, given the fact that our bikes are now whacking out 150 streetable horsepower per liter, and the old hot rodders rule back in the Sixties was one horsepower per cubic inch for a sweet streetable setup, in a car.

  Now the bikes can put out THREE horsepower per cubic inch, and still idle well, last over 200,000 miles between rebuilds,not to mention rip through the quarter in the high nines off the showroom floor.

   I never thought I would see that kind of steam out of so few cubic inches, outside of an Indy Car or something.

            Back when I started riding bikes, the nastiest thing commonly available was a Harley Sportster, Triumph Bonneville,or a Norton Road Atlas, and none of those bikes put out much more than fifty horses,stock.

  I am positively certain that if I had access to bikes like the kids have nowadays when I was 16, I would have been pushing up daisies by 1966. Even with 45 years of bike experience, I will admit that I do not have the riding skills to take a one liter bike to its performance limits..... at least not without being on a very fast closed circuit track with no one else on it, and someone like Valentino Rossi or some other champion talking to me on a radio as he rode behind me and coached me...

  We have come a long way in technology, but the limits of Human Motoathleticism have remained fairly constant.

  So be careful, and Happy Easter.                      Over and out.                               Jim

[guest7]

Interesting - but why?

Well, the first paragraph on the webpage answers the question:

"The basic premise was to create a “classic” style 1000cc British V-Twin utilising as many standard Royal Enfield parts as possible. All this to attain a well mannered torquey cruiser with the look, feel and sound expected from a bike with traditional British bloodlines but with enough technology to make it a practical every day work horse - at a reasonable price. The design premise included keeping production and maintenance costs down with a worldwide availability of spare parts."

I think it looks pretty and I'd love one jammed into a featherbed in touring trim
GC

[002]

Both GC and myself have seen soomething similar at Stafford one year.
Some Dutch guys had built a V-twin using Enfield parts and shoe-horned it back into the Enfield Frame.
With different brakes and wotnots ....it really looked sweet.

Jethro

[themoudie]

Road test in Motorcycle Sport and Leisure, December 2004, Issue 530, Page 52, Carberry Enfield.

URL: http://www.mslmagazine.co.uk/

May still have my copy, but will need to rummage! Publishers no longer have any copies of this issue, but may photocopy article if you ask and pay.

Sorry not to be more helpful.

Regards, Bill

[bikeseamus]

Bill
         Don't apologise.   It's the only thing I've seen.

 I asked them what was happening with this engine in an email, and have yet to hear from them.

  On the other hand, they are doing some fascinating things developing a V* for bikes.

   Listen to it on their website.... very angry sounding unit.

   Maybe he just likes to have fun... after all, he hasn't accepted cash deposits and failed to deliver, like some scumbucket bike hustlers ruining the sport and stealing money.

  Excelsior Henderson even stole cash from Minnesota State here, promising jobs and a healthy run at Harley Davidson.

    Those assholes made off with millions of taxpayer dollars and delivered a piece of junk .
Let's not judge these fellows too harshly..... they haven't hurt anyone, and add to our fun.

   Let's see what cooks out of this, in time.

[Steve H]

The guy contributes regularly to a motor cycle engine mailing list I'm on. Pretty knowledegeable and always helpful. I beleive the V8 was originally intended for GP useage, not sure what happened.

[guest27]

Hi all

here is the answer as to whether these are concept or real..


Subject: Re: V twin Enfield
X-Originating-IP: 203.49.192.34

I have a bike wich has done 17000KM and looking at production. what
kind of numbers of units would you be thinking? and do you just want
engines?
Quoting roger.********t.com:

> Hi Paul,
>
> Is the engine actually being built or is it still a concept?