I've never owned a 2 Stroke before

Superb.

 

http://www.mustangforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=368307
"My car was idling like crap the other day so I figured since I just got
it, it may have been awhile since anyone changed the oil out. I decided
to go ahead and change the oil. I used Mobile 1 synthentic oil like I was
reccomended on here. Anyways, I drain out the oil and noticed it was
extremely dark and even after 10 minutes of draining, it was still coming
out. I decided to go ahead and flush it to make sure all the bad stuff
got out. I hooked up the hose, ran water through the engine, started it
up and was waiting for the water to come out clean (The engine never went
above idle so I was told this would be ok). Anyways, About 3 minutes into
this, then engine starts shaking and shuts off. I figured it was all
cleaned out so I plugged it up, added the oil and figured I was ready to
go. WRONG! The car won't freaking start now. This car has been nothing
but trouble for me, I think I am done with it."

 

Hardly the first troll on a car forum, is it?

 

He forgot the fairy liquid.

 

Wow. Just...wow.

 

I bet you'd find _some_ things, like lenses and switches. These tended
to be pretty much standard across a manufacturer's whole range. In
fact, you could usually spot the make of a bike long before you could
see any detail, just by the shape of the rear light. I think just
about all hondas from around 1974 to 1980[1] used exactly the same
lens.

[1] Guessing the dates, of course, and ISTR that maybe the CBX/CB900
era bikes broke that mould a little earlier than others.

 

Well quite, but I did spend a while paging thru the forum [1] to see
if he owned up, and he didn't.

[1] Arrgh - web forums. The combination of illiteracy and flashing
images is too much to bear.

 

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/observer/archives/2006/09/29/jarvis_cocker_w.html

 

Heh.

<Pedant mode>

I've owned both. Tail light was squarish on the TS and 'dogbone' on
the GT. Switches were different as well, as GT had electric start. Um,
flasher unit and most electrics would have been different, too, as the
TS was 6v and the GT 12v.

Indicator lenses *might* have been the same..... Maybe the clutch
lever....

You're closer than you know about the commonality of parts, btw, at
least for other bikes. For instance, the GT380 triple was - literally
- a GT250 and a half (hence the 372cc capacity). Pistons, conrods and
rings were interchangeable. I *think* the GT750 Kettle used GT500 twin
pistons, too, but ICBW.

 

Well I wasn't, as you realise, being specific, having never owned
either of the above.

No. I know how close I am. I was there, remember?

That (the interchangeability) was also true for some of the other
strokers of the era. IIRC the only difference between the RD250 and
400 motors was the con rod length and barrels. And I believe the same
was true for the KH models too.

That I wouldn't know, but I could well believe it. They certainly
weren't well-designed for a poorly water-cooled motor, and were very
prone to burning holes in themselves, particularly the middle pot.

 

I think that could be true of the RDs: the 400 was a stroked 350,
which was in turn a bored-out 250.

As regards the Kwackers, the S2 350 was a bored out 250. Kawasaki
didn't sell many, because you could achieve the same result by just
modding a 250, so the S3/KH400 was changed quite a lot (different
heads and barrels). But I'm sure the 250, 350 and 400 triples all
shared exactly the same stroke.

 

Ace wrote:

Very wrong

Different crankcases, crank, con rods, heads, pistons, clutch basket
primary drive pinion and oil pump too. The gearbox internals,
gearchange mech, kickstart, clutch casing and generators were identical
though, so you got something right. The left casing of a 400 has a
grease nipple for the gearchange shaft that the 250 doesn't have.

If you'd said RD350A or B instead of 400 you'd have been closer to the
mark. The only difference between those and an RD250 of similar vintage
was the barrels, pistons and headsc - they shared the same crank/stroke.

 

Correct about the 250-350, but wrong about the 400. See my reply to Ace.

 

Oh, I know there was a helluva lot more than simply a stroke job. The
point was that I was trying to say that the 400 wasn't a bored-out 350.

 

Well I am suitable enlightened, and of course not in the least
surprised either that I got it wrong (hence the IIRCs etc.) or that
you came along to set the record straight.

 

I'd best get it cleaned up an running then.

Needs a new rear tyre though, its sort of "shiny"

 

Thats got to be a 1st for me

 

Well, if they are going spare.... you know Gibbo or I will blow it up at
some point

 

I drove a Colt GLX 20 miles with nothing but soapy water in the sump. It
was still running ok when I got to the scrap yard.