i have a ride on mower with a 16hp briggs and stratton,v twin engine
hohc vanguard,great engine,but,the starter motors are so expensive,has
anyone ever converted one into a hand recoil start,the mower is old
but it seems a shame to scrap it when there might be a way of starting
it.i have seen video of starting one with a electric drill and a
socket on the flywheel but the thought of a socketectomy is a tad
offputting,many thanks for all advice,oh!,and happy christmas all

On 20/12/2011 15:04, leedsbob wrote:
i have a ride on mower with a 16hp briggs and stratton,v twin engine
hohc vanguard,great engine,but,the starter motors are so expensive,has
anyone ever converted one into a hand recoil start,the mower is old
but it seems a shame to scrap it when there might be a way of starting
it.i have seen video of starting one with a electric drill and a
socket on the flywheel but the thought of a socketectomy is a tad
offputting,many thanks for all advice,oh!,and happy christmas all

I don't have any relevant input to your question, but have you tried a
specialist starter/alternator repairer? Good firms don't just do car ones

On Dec 20, 5:39*pm, Lee wrote:
On 20/12/2011 15:04, leedsbob wrote:

i have a ride on mower with a 16hp briggs and stratton,v twin engine
hohc vanguard,great engine,but,the starter motors are so expensive,has
anyone ever converted one into a hand recoil start,the mower is old
but it seems a shame to scrap it when there might be a way of starting
it.i have seen video of starting one with a electric drill and a
socket on the flywheel but the thought of a socketectomy is a tad
offputting,many thanks for all advice,oh!,and happy christmas all

I don't have any relevant input to your question, but have you tried a
specialist starter/alternator repairer? Good firms don't just do car ones

Or a motor rewind company. They can replace armatures, bearings etc as
well.


NT

So what is so special about their starters?
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Lee" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2011 15:04, leedsbob wrote:
i have a ride on mower with a 16hp briggs and stratton,v twin engine
hohc vanguard,great engine,but,the starter motors are so expensive,has
anyone ever converted one into a hand recoil start,the mower is old
but it seems a shame to scrap it when there might be a way of starting
it.i have seen video of starting one with a electric drill and a
socket on the flywheel but the thought of a socketectomy is a tad
offputting,many thanks for all advice,oh!,and happy christmas all

I don't have any relevant input to your question, but have you tried a
specialist starter/alternator repairer? Good firms don't just do car ones

On Dec 20, 3:04*pm, leedsbob wrote:
?
i have a ride on mower with a 16hp briggs and stratton,v twin engine
hohc vanguard,great engine,but,the starter motors are so expensive,has
anyone ever converted one into a hand recoil start,the mower is old
but it seems a shame to scrap it when there might be a way of starting
it.

They are over a thousand quid or dollars new depending on where you
shop. I'd have thought some engineuity worth the dumbling around.

How does it compare in realpower output with an old 16Hp car from the
good old days?

In article ,
wrote:
Presumably that is *hp* based on swept volume rather than *bhp* measured
at the output shaft?

Or even based on piston area - iirc. I suppose in the dim and distant
there was a correlation of engine piston area to HP, but that got left
behind quite rapidly from the 30s onward.

UK xars referred to as an '8' or '10' etc in those days (mainly before
WW2) referred to the RAC rating for horsepower. Which for some strange
reason, wasn't based on engine size, but merely the bore and number of
cylinders. Which led to very long stroke engines, as the old road fund
licence was based on that RAC rating.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
wrote:
Presumably that is *hp* based on swept volume rather than *bhp* measured
at the output shaft?

Or even based on piston area - iirc. I suppose in the dim and distant
there was a correlation of engine piston area to HP, but that got left
behind quite rapidly from the 30s onward.

UK xars referred to as an '8' or '10' etc in those days (mainly before
WW2) referred to the RAC rating for horsepower. Which for some strange
reason, wasn't based on engine size, but merely the bore and number of
cylinders. Which led to very long stroke engines, as the old road fund
licence was based on that RAC rating.

My recollection concerns the sort of cars I could afford in 1960:-)

ISTR 100cc/hp but I could very easily be wrong:-)

For example, 1935 Morris 8 tourer. 900+cc but side valve, bhp 23.5

regards


--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
wrote:
Presumably that is *hp* based on swept volume rather than *bhp*
measured
at the output shaft?

Or even based on piston area - iirc. I suppose in the dim and distant
there was a correlation of engine piston area to HP, but that got left
behind quite rapidly from the 30s onward.

UK xars referred to as an '8' or '10' etc in those days (mainly before
WW2) referred to the RAC rating for horsepower. Which for some strange
reason, wasn't based on engine size, but merely the bore and number of
cylinders. Which led to very long stroke engines, as the old road fund
licence was based on that RAC rating.

My recollection concerns the sort of cars I could afford in 1960:-)

ISTR 100cc/hp but I could very easily be wrong:-)


Thats a long stroke. You might have more HP for the same displacement
with a shiortyer stroke.

For example, 1935 Morris 8 tourer. 900+cc but side valve, bhp 23.5

regards


A typical BHP range is somewhere between 30bhp per litre (VERY stock
basic 4 stroke engine), up to 100bhp per liter for a tuned 4 stroke..or
up to 300 bhp per litre or more if you can turbo charge it or get the
revs up.

I.e a 1 liter normally aspirated engine produces more or less the same
peak torque no matter what it is, but if you can get the revs from a
morris minor 2500, 30 bhp to something say in the 5500 class. as - say -
a twin SU midget had, you were up to nearer 65bhp and with balancing
and tuning you might take that to 7500, and get 80-990 bhp..whereas an
F1 engine limited to 18,000 rpm gets around 850bhp from 3.0 liters:
That's nearly 300bhp per liter, but with peak torque at nearly peak RPM.

Essentially power is all down to BMEP X Piston AREA X RPM and BMEP is
fixed with a given fuel and compression ratio to more or less the same thing

You can do a but with higher compression and higher octane fuel..but
that's its. the rest has to come from higher RPM.

In principle the formula 1 engine is a simple beast: its an engine
strong enough to do 18,000 RPM coupled to a cylinder head with valves
big enough to suck a full charge of air at 18,0000 RPM and able to
ignite the specified fuel at 18,000 RPM at the highest compression ratio
that fuel will run at.

The rests is about making it strong and light...and able to deliver
something decent at less RPM than that..

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 07:04:26 -0800, leedsbob wrote:
i have a ride on mower with a 16hp briggs and stratton,v twin engine
hohc vanguard,great engine,but,the starter motors are so expensive,has
anyone ever converted one into a hand recoil start,the mower is old but
it seems a shame to scrap it when there might be a way of starting it.

Are the starters the same as used on their older, single-cylinder
engines? The latter seem quite readily available still, and it wouldn't
surprise me if B&S didn't retain the same starter for the twins.

Another approach might be to buy the starting gear assembly and adapt a
different starter motor for use with the engine.

I've seen recoil starters on their old 8HP single-cylinders, but never on
anything bigger.

have seen video of starting one with a electric drill and a socket on
the flywheel but the thought of a socketectomy is a tad offputting

I wouldn't recommend that, at least not without something to guarantee
disconnection when the engine does fire!

cheers

Jules

On Dec 26, 5:43 pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 07:04:26 -0800, leedsbob wrote:
i have a ride on mower with a 16hp briggs and stratton,v twin engine
hohc vanguard,great engine,but,the starter motors are so expensive,has
anyone ever converted one into a hand recoil start,the mower is old but
it seems a shame to scrap it when there might be a way of starting it.

Are the starters the same as used on their older, single-cylinder
engines? The latter seem quite readily available still, and it wouldn't
surprise me if B&S didn't retain the same starter for the twins.

Another approach might be to buy the starting gear assembly and adapt a
different starter motor for use with the engine.

I've seen recoil starters on their old 8HP single-cylinders, but never on
anything bigger.

have seen video of starting one with a electric drill and a socket on
the flywheel but the thought of a socketectomy is a tad offputting

I wouldn't recommend that, at least not without something to guarantee
disconnection when the engine does fire!

cheers

Jules

handcrank dumpers for e.g have assorted means of addressing the issue
- mine has a "sloped" shaft end that disengages the starting handle
once the engine fires

Jim K

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 11:21:32 -0800 (PST), Jim K wrote:

I wouldn't recommend that, at least not without something to
guarantee
disconnection when the engine does fire!

handcrank dumpers for e.g have assorted means of addressing the issue
- mine has a "sloped" shaft end that disengages the starting handle
once the engine fires

A socket on the crank nut strikes me as very risky. How do you
disengage it when the engine fires?

Even with a handcrank release system you still don't wrap your thumb
around the handle, have it on the same side as your fingers. Just in
case the engine fires the wrong way. It'll whip the handle out of you
grip and probably whack you on the back of your hand but that's a lot
better than having your thumb bent back or ripped off...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
UK xars referred to as an '8' or '10' etc in those days (mainly before
WW2) referred to the RAC rating for horsepower. Which for some strange
reason, wasn't based on engine size, but merely the bore and number of
cylinders. Which led to very long stroke engines, as the old road fund
licence was based on that RAC rating.

My recollection concerns the sort of cars I could afford in 1960:-)

ISTR 100cc/hp but I could very easily be wrong:-)

You are. ;-) The Ford Anglia 105E was just under 1000cc but had an RAC
rating of over 20 HP, IIRC. But that engine was designed long after the
RAC rating ceased being used.

For example, 1935 Morris 8 tourer. 900+cc but side valve, bhp 23.5

Engines of those days were generally as long stroke as they could make
them.

--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_horsepower

Total piston area..which as another poster points out leads to long
stroke engines of 'low' horsepower but high displacement and quite
decent brake horse power.

Long stroke tends to give good torque at the expense of max BHP. One main
reason is it restricts the maximum valve size


Example: BMC A series 948cc engine works out as just under 10HP but
actually developed a massive 30bhp in its typical stock single SU
configuration..

A bit more than that. Hence the Austin A35 being A35. With a Zenith.

--
*Tell me to 'stuff it' - I'm a taxidermist.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Dec 26, 9:32 pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 11:21:32 -0800 (PST), Jim K wrote:
I wouldn't recommend that, at least not without something to
guarantee
disconnection when the engine does fire!

handcrank dumpers for e.g have assorted means of addressing the issue
- mine has a "sloped" shaft end that disengages the starting handle
once the engine fires

A socket on the crank nut strikes me as very risky. How do you
disengage it when the engine fires?

? bodge a "handcrank release system"?

Even with a handcrank release system you still don't wrap your thumb
around the handle, have it on the same side as your fingers. Just in
case the engine fires the wrong way. It'll whip the handle out of you
grip and probably whack you on the back of your hand but that's a lot
better than having your thumb bent back or ripped off...

"engine fires the wrong way" mmmm that's never happened to me so
far....

if mine "fired the wrong way" the sloped shape of the end of the shaft
would appear to be designed to disengage the handle

Jim K

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
UK xars referred to as an '8' or '10' etc in those days (mainly before
WW2) referred to the RAC rating for horsepower. Which for some strange
reason, wasn't based on engine size, but merely the bore and number of
cylinders. Which led to very long stroke engines, as the old road fund
licence was based on that RAC rating.

My recollection concerns the sort of cars I could afford in 1960:-)

ISTR 100cc/hp but I could very easily be wrong:-)

You are. ;-) The Ford Anglia 105E was just under 1000cc but had an RAC
rating of over 20 HP, IIRC. But that engine was designed long after the
RAC rating ceased being used.

It's sister engine 123E, 1200cc was rated at 48BHP. After suitable
tweaking, mine was delivering 63BHP at the rear wheels. (probably about 80
from the engine)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article ,
charles wrote:
You are. ;-) The Ford Anglia 105E was just under 1000cc but had an RAC
rating of over 20 HP, IIRC. But that engine was designed long after the
RAC rating ceased being used.

It's sister engine 123E, 1200cc was rated at 48BHP. After suitable
tweaking, mine was delivering 63BHP at the rear wheels. (probably about
80 from the engine)

Right - so the smaller engine had likely a much larger RAC rating than I
gave.

The beauty of a very oversquare design is it allows much bigger valves -
on an inline valve setup like most basic pushrod engines had. Of course
these days twin OHC and 4 valves per cylinder allows more valve area on a
smaller piston - and very oversquare designs went out of fashion due to
emission regs.

--
*No sentence fragments *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
The beauty of a very oversquare design is it allows much bigger valves -
on an inline valve setup like most basic pushrod engines had. Of course
these days twin OHC and 4 valves per cylinder allows more valve area on a
smaller piston - and very oversquare designs went out of fashion due to
emission regs.

Hmm.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...2-preview.html

The new Ducatti Panigale; bore and stroke are 112 x 60.8mm.

Mind you, do emissions regs apply to motorcycles?

Given the number of two strokes still made I'd guess not. ;-)

But most sporty car engines seem to be about square these days - unlike
that classic Ford engine range. Which was incredibly successful in its day.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 11:21:32 -0800, Jim K wrote:
have seen video of starting one with a electric drill and a socket on
the flywheel but the thought of a socketectomy is a tad offputting

I wouldn't recommend that, at least not without something to guarantee
disconnection when the engine does fire!

handcrank dumpers for e.g have assorted means of addressing the issue -
mine has a "sloped" shaft end that disengages the starting handle once
the engine fires

Yes... I've seen them before on things, where as soon as the engine speed
exceeds the crank speed it'll disengage the cranking handle (although I
suspect they're not infallible if things are worn/dirty, because tales
abound of people being clobbered by handles when the engine fires up).

Someone could DIY something similar for an IC engine - I'd just be very
wary of a simple socket-in-electric-drill approach and hoping that it all
came off cleanly (and quickly) when the engine fired up.

cheers

Jules

On Dec 27, 2:02 pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 11:21:32 -0800, Jim K wrote:
have seen video of starting one with a electric drill and a socket on
the flywheel but the thought of a socketectomy is a tad offputting

I wouldn't recommend that, at least not without something to guarantee
disconnection when the engine does fire!

handcrank dumpers for e.g have assorted means of addressing the issue -
mine has a "sloped" shaft end that disengages the starting handle once
the engine fires

Yes... I've seen them before on things, where as soon as the engine speed
exceeds the crank speed it'll disengage the cranking handle (although I
suspect they're not infallible if things are worn/dirty, because tales
abound of people being clobbered by handles when the engine fires up).

Someone could DIY something similar for an IC engine - I'd just be very
wary of a simple socket-in-electric-drill approach and hoping that it all
came off cleanly (and quickly) when the engine fired up.

indeed.
IIRC the pull starters on smalller B&S and other larger engines (e.g.
some quad bikes) have those sprung "overrun clutch" mechanism s that
disengage the rope etc when they fire .... wonder if something could
be bodged around that? ditch the rope and prepare some nut or other
for the drill - job done?

Jim K

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
The beauty of a very oversquare design is it allows much bigger valves -
on an inline valve setup like most basic pushrod engines had. Of course
these days twin OHC and 4 valves per cylinder allows more valve area on a
smaller piston - and very oversquare designs went out of fashion due to
emission regs.

Hmm.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...2-preview.html

The new Ducatti Panigale; bore and stroke are 112 x 60.8mm.

Mind you, do emissions regs apply to motorcycles?

Given the number of two strokes still made I'd guess not. ;-)

But most sporty car engines seem to be about square these days - unlike
that classic Ford engine range. Which was incredibly successful in its day.

You trade a very good low down torque on a long stroke engine with the
ability to rev higher and breathe better at high rpm on a shorter
stroke..the problem with a short stroke screamer is there is very little
at low RPM at all..

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:14:04 -0800 (PST), Jim K wrote:

Even with a handcrank release system you still don't wrap your
thumb
around the handle, have it on the same side as your fingers. Just
in
case the engine fires the wrong way. It'll whip the handle out of
you
grip and probably whack you on the back of your hand but that's a
lot
better than having your thumb bent back or ripped off...

"engine fires the wrong way" mmmm that's never happened to me so
far....

Glad you added the "so far". A four stroke won't run backwards but
when being turned slowly they can kick backwards.

if mine "fired the wrong way" the sloped shape of the end of the shaft
would appear to be designed to disengage the handle

I don't think so. Think about the relative rotational speeds of the
engine crank and the handle. It might be easier to imagine keeping
the handle stationary and what happens as the engine crank rotates in
each direction.

The mechanisium will be designed to disengage the handle when the
engine crank rotational speed, in the correct direction, exceeds that
of the handle. If the engine crank speed exceeds that of the handle
but backwards it will force engagement of the handle and thus
forceably rotate the handle backwards.

There maybe systems that will disengage in either direction but the
simple pin in sloped slot isn't one.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Dec 27, 10:10 pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:14:04 -0800 (PST), Jim K wrote:
Even with a handcrank release system you still don't wrap your
thumb
around the handle, have it on the same side as your fingers. Just
in
case the engine fires the wrong way. It'll whip the handle out of
you
grip and probably whack you on the back of your hand but that's a
lot
better than having your thumb bent back or ripped off...

"engine fires the wrong way" mmmm that's never happened to me so
far....

Glad you added the "so far". A four stroke won't run backwards but
when being turned slowly they can kick backwards.

should've also added not once in 7years of clement-seasonal use of my
dumper - I expect the decompression lever has a lot to do with it ;)

if mine "fired the wrong way" the sloped shape of the end of the shaft
would appear to be designed to disengage the handle

I don't think so. Think about the relative rotational speeds of the
engine crank and the handle. It might be easier to imagine keeping
the handle stationary and what happens as the engine crank rotates in
each direction.

The mechanisium will be designed to disengage the handle when the
engine crank rotational speed, in the correct direction, exceeds that
of the handle. If the engine crank speed exceeds that of the handle
but backwards it will force engagement of the handle and thus
forceably rotate the handle backwards.

There maybe systems that will disengage in either direction but the
simple pin in sloped slot isn't one.

ah ...aye you're right.

Jim K

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:22:11 -0800 (PST), Jim K wrote:

"engine fires the wrong way" mmmm that's never happened to me so
far....

Glad you added the "so far". A four stroke won't run backwards but
when being turned slowly they can kick backwards.

should've also added not once in 7years of clement-seasonal use of my
dumper - I expect the decompression lever has a lot to do with it ;)

Probably but they can still kick back. Though with a diesel with a
decompression lever don't you wind it up to decent rotational speed,
stop winding thus the handle disenages, then drop in the compression
hoping that there is enough momentum in the flywheel to take the
engine through compression and fire.

The mechanisium will be designed to disengage the handle when the
engine crank rotational speed, in the correct direction, exceeds
that
of the handle. If the engine crank speed exceeds that of the
handle
but backwards it will force engagement of the handle and thus
forceably rotate the handle backwards.

ah ...aye you're right.

B-) Remember that warning about having your thumb(s) on the same
side of the handle as your fingers. Assuming you are stopping
cranking before dropping on the compression the handle should
disengage should the engine bounce back off the compression rather
than carry through. Note the "shoulds"... it only takes one kickback
to break your thumb.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Jim K wrote:
On Dec 27, 10:10 pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:14:04 -0800 (PST), Jim K wrote:
Even with a handcrank release system you still don't wrap your
thumb
around the handle, have it on the same side as your fingers. Just
in
case the engine fires the wrong way. It'll whip the handle out of
you
grip and probably whack you on the back of your hand but that's a
lot
better than having your thumb bent back or ripped off...
"engine fires the wrong way" mmmm that's never happened to me so
far....
Glad you added the "so far". A four stroke won't run backwards but
when being turned slowly they can kick backwards.


actually they WILL run backwards for some values of valve timing.

At appalling efficency and with lots of dire effects internally.

Especially if ignited by other than the spark plug..and fueled in
strange ways..

I.e. they tend to want to suck through the exhausts and spit through the
air intake.

On 27 Dec,
Jim K wrote:

"engine fires the wrong way" mmmm that's never happened to me so
far....

An early motorclcle of mine had manual advance/retard on the ignition.

If one stood on the kickstarter on full advance, and it fired too soon, one
nearly met Yuri Gagarin in space!

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

wrote in message ...
On 27 Dec,
Jim K wrote:

"engine fires the wrong way" mmmm that's never happened to me so
far....


My first car was a Morris Traveller (cost me nine pounds, and it was taxed
and MOT'd) but soon after buying it the starter motor packed up and I
couldn't afford a replacement. Fortunately the old guy next door gave me a
starting handle and showed me how to use it.
Rule one, never have your thumb wrapped around it.
It started so easily, even when cold, that I didn't bother with the new
starter for several months. When providing transport for pals they often
argued over who cranked the car, one got a very saw thumb by ignoring "Rule
one".
Eventually a pals dad bought a Ford and gave me a second hand starter motor
that he had kept for his own Morris.

Oh happy days!

Mike

On Dec 27, 11:20 pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:22:11 -0800 (PST), Jim K wrote:
"engine fires the wrong way" mmmm that's never happened to me so
far....

Glad you added the "so far". A four stroke won't run backwards but
when being turned slowly they can kick backwards.

should've also added not once in 7years of clement-seasonal use of my
dumper - I expect the decompression lever has a lot to do with it ;)

Probably but they can still kick back. Though with a diesel with a
decompression lever don't you wind it up to decent rotational speed,
stop winding thus the handle disenages, then drop in the compression
hoping that there is enough momentum in the flywheel to take the
engine through compression and fire.

nah in reality you can't stop winding til you drop the lever ;)

The mechanisium will be designed to disengage the handle when the
engine crank rotational speed, in the correct direction, exceeds
that
of the handle. If the engine crank speed exceeds that of the
handle
but backwards it will force engagement of the handle and thus
forceably rotate the handle backwards.

ah ...aye you're right.

B-) Remember that warning about having your thumb(s) on the same
side of the handle as your fingers. Assuming you are stopping
cranking before dropping on the compression the handle should
disengage should the engine bounce back off the compression rather
than carry through. Note the "shoulds"... it only takes one kickback
to break your thumb.

I'll bear it in mind for other machines - maybe my technique with this
one is sufficiently adept after all that practice ;)

Jim K

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 01:33:10 -0800, Jim K wrote:

On Dec 27, 11:20 pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:22:11 -0800 (PST), Jim K wrote:
"engine fires the wrong way" mmmm that's never happened to me so
far....

Glad you added the "so far". A four stroke won't run backwards but
when being turned slowly they can kick backwards.

should've also added not once in 7years of clement-seasonal use of my
dumper - I expect the decompression lever has a lot to do with it ;)

Probably but they can still kick back. Though with a diesel with a
decompression lever don't you wind it up to decent rotational speed,
stop winding thus the handle disenages, then drop in the compression
hoping that there is enough momentum in the flywheel to take the engine
through compression and fire.

nah in reality you can't stop winding til you drop the lever ;)

I remember we had a 3-cylinder Dorman genny in NZ; that thing was an
absolute arse to hand-crank - despite only being a 3cyl it was a big
engine, probably around the 5l mark, and it took a lot of muscle to get
it turning. Hazy memory says that the decompression lever was automatic;
you'd set it to no compression but it'd drop back in by itself when you
had the engine turning fast enough.

Thankfully it had 'leccy start too - a big switchboard so it'd auto-start
if the power dropped out, along with 24V batteries as a backup; hand-
cranking it was really a last resort :-)

cheers

Jules

In article , Jules Richardson
writes

I remember we had a 3-cylinder Dorman genny in NZ; that thing was an
absolute arse to hand-crank - despite only being a 3cyl it was a big
engine, probably around the 5l mark, and it took a lot of muscle to get
it turning. Hazy memory says that the decompression lever was automatic;
you'd set it to no compression but it'd drop back in by itself when you
had the engine turning fast enough.


I remember 20 odd years ago, what was an old engine then (might have
been a National) where the decom levers were in the crank case, so to
work them, you needed to have a rope tied to them with a loop on the end
that you could pull with a foot (or get an assistant).


Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "news" with "adrian" and "nospam" with "ffoil"
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.