A little spin-off from the Wico vs Lucas thread. Should engines be 
returned as far as possible to the build state in which they left the 
factory or should user modifications and repairs be regarded as all part 
of the history of the unit?

Personally, I like to leave well executed mods in place and do not shy 
away from adding a few of my own.

BTW. I dont want to restart the oily rag vs. fresh paint debate - I'm 
talking about mechanical mods and repairs, not cosmetic finish here.

NHH

Nick,

Don't be a spoil sport, I love winding John up its a good sport. Talking of 
the devil he has been rather quiet of late not heard from him.

Martin P
"Nick H"  wrote in message 
news:7f01isF2ifdnlU1@mid.individual.net...
>A little spin-off from the Wico vs Lucas thread. Should engines be returned 
>as far as possible to the build state in which they left the factory or 
>should user modifications and repairs be regarded as all part of the 
>history of the unit?
>
> Personally, I like to leave well executed mods in place and do not shy 
> away from adding a few of my own.
>
> BTW. I dont want to restart the oily rag vs. fresh paint debate - I'm 
> talking about mechanical mods and repairs, not cosmetic finish here.
>
> NHH

I think if it is done discreetly, any mechanical mod that makes an engine 
run better is justified, especially if it reduces its consumption of oil or 
petrol. When I've got an engine running, I take it to an event where I can 
sit & listen to it for hours, leaning off the carb & swapping plugs to find 
the best combination - you can make some dramatic improvements to engines 
that were jetted to run on load & are now just idling their days away! I 
once halved the consumption on a Petter PU4 compressor by doing just this. 
In the end, the NGK plug I ended up fitting was pale chocolate brown, the 
cylinder barely hot after running for an hour on a sunny day.

The gap between cylinder & bore can probably be reduced as oils are an order 
of magnitude better than they were even 50 years ago. You might like to look 
into ring design & see what is available.

Cleaning the inlet tract of casting flash, gaskets that stick out into the 
tract, cleaning up seat shrouding will all make a difference.

Turning to two strokes, dedicated silicone oils are so much better these 
days, it is perfectly OK (my opinion, you understand ;o))  ) to lower the 
oil content in petroil mixes. Again, experiment will be called for.

With petrol the price it is, green concerns & carbon footprints, I think 
this is a responsible (and frugal!) policy.

But I'd not go so far as to change the carburetor.

Regards,



Kim Siddorn

"campingstoveman"  wrote in message 
news:kMCdnQlCAaxrRxfXnZ2dnUVZ8gWdnZ2d@bt.com...
> Nick,
>
> Don't be a spoil sport, I love winding John up its a good sport. Talking 
> of the devil he has been rather quiet of late not heard from him.
>
> Martin P
> "Nick H"  wrote in message 
> news:7f01isF2ifdnlU1@mid.individual.net...
>>A little spin-off from the Wico vs Lucas thread. Should engines be 
>>returned as far as possible to the build state in which they left the 
>>factory or should user modifications and repairs be regarded as all part 
>>of the history of the unit?
>>
>> Personally, I like to leave well executed mods in place and do not shy 
>> away from adding a few of my own.
>>
>> BTW. I dont want to restart the oily rag vs. fresh paint debate - I'm 
>> talking about mechanical mods and repairs, not cosmetic finish here.
>>
>> NHH
>
>

My background is really in restoring classic cars, where similar questions 
are often asked. My feeling is that it is the function of "museums" etc, to 
preserve original examples thus there is no problem in us adding a few 
improvements of our own (sometimes the lack of spares make it essential to 
get the project useable!)
Pete
"Nick H"  wrote in message 
news:7f01isF2ifdnlU1@mid.individual.net...
>A little spin-off from the Wico vs Lucas thread. Should engines be returned 
>as far as possible to the build state in which they left the factory or 
>should user modifications and repairs be regarded as all part of the 
>history of the unit?
>
> Personally, I like to leave well executed mods in place and do not shy 
> away from adding a few of my own.
>
> BTW. I dont want to restart the oily rag vs. fresh paint debate - I'm 
> talking about mechanical mods and repairs, not cosmetic finish here.
>
> NHH

This is one of "those questions" that come up here from time to time. 
Opinions are mixed, but generally speaking there are those that like to 
repaint anew as the conclusion of a restoration and those that like to wipe 
their Iron Charges over with an oily rag & make 'em go!

I am in two minds as I think there should be both pristine show standard, 
chromed nuts 'n all engines to see. We know very well that all manufacturers 
made them for their stands at big shows. Indeed, I have a Douglas SV twin 
that was obviously intended for just such a purpose.  However, the great 
majority were workaday working lumps & (instance) the nuts were painted over 
along with the castings they held together.

Personally, I think that if it is rusty beyond recovery & needs rescuing 
rather than simply restoring, then a complete new painted finish to be proud 
of is part of the recovery process. The WW1 ABC generator I'm working on ATM 
is like this: the fuel & oil tanks were rusted right through & needed a new 
one from Frank the Tank. This I had sprayed a gleaming,  deep black & will 
go to some lengths to create myself the new waterslide transfers that will 
grace its flanks. It is rare for me to go to these lengths & usually a 
practical "honest" job is all I run to!

However, mechanical restoration is another matter & I'd be quite happy 
making new bits to a higher specification than those used when new, machined 
to closer tolerances and finished  in a way that will ensure they are able 
to continue in service for many years.

Just because the original lubricant was little better than bacon fat, that 
would not stop you from using modern silicone oils to lubricate the inward 
parts of your pride & joy, would it?

Regards,



Kim Siddorn

"THE DOUGLAS STATIONARY ENGINE RESOURCE (admin)"  wrote 
in message news:yqudndMMi9eZpzzXnZ2dnUVZ8jOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> My background is really in restoring classic cars, where similar questions 
> are often asked. My feeling is that it is the function of "museums" etc, 
> to preserve original examples thus there is no problem in us adding a few 
> improvements of our own (sometimes the lack of spares make it essential to 
> get the project useable!)
> Pete
> "Nick H"  wrote in message 
> news:7f01isF2ifdnlU1@mid.individual.net...
>>A little spin-off from the Wico vs Lucas thread. Should engines be 
>>returned as far as possible to the build state in which they left the 
>>factory or should user modifications and repairs be regarded as all part 
>>of the history of the unit?
>>
>> Personally, I like to leave well executed mods in place and do not shy 
>> away from adding a few of my own.
>>
>> BTW. I dont want to restart the oily rag vs. fresh paint debate - I'm 
>> talking about mechanical mods and repairs, not cosmetic finish here.
>>
>> NHH
>
>

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:20:55 +0100, kimsiddorn wrote:
> Just because the original lubricant was little better than bacon fat, that 
> would not stop you from using modern silicone oils to lubricate the inward 
> parts of your pride & joy, would it?

Anything that smells like cooked bacon as it runs sounds like a winner to
me :-)

kimsiddorn wrote (snip):

> 
> However, mechanical restoration is another matter & I'd be quite happy 
> making new bits to a higher specification than those used when new, 
> machined to closer tolerances and finished  in a way that will ensure 
> they are able to continue in service for many years.
> 
> Just because the original lubricant was little better than bacon fat, 
> that would not stop you from using modern silicone oils to lubricate the 
> inward parts of your pride & joy, would it?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Siddorn
> 

But what, as was the original intention of the thread, are your feelings 
on those mods and repairs that an engine may have gathered in its years 
use and abuse - something to be rectified or a cherished part of the 
unit's history?

NHH

On 9 Sep, 15:01, Nick H  wrote:

> But what, as was the original intention of the thread, are your feelings
> on those mods and repairs that an engine may have gathered in its years
> use and abuse - something to be rectified or a cherished part of the
> unit's history?

1.  Is the mod more historically interesting than the engine itself?

2. Is the mod well or badly done? It would have to be exceptionally
well done to make this a reason to keep it, but nasty botches should
usually be removed or reworked more neatly.

3. Is the mod interesting? A humidity-regulated governor on a mangel-
wurzel chopper would be worth preserving.

4. Is the mod in period with the engine?  A 1930s fix to a 1920s
engine might now be seen as "of an interesting historical period",
especially if the materials are in keeping. A 1970s hack with PVC hose
wouldn't be.

5. Is the condition of the mod comparable to the engine? Does one make
the other look better or worse?

Thanks Nick, that one slid past me!

As long as mods had been done well & were for better performance AND they 
were still working, I'd leave them alone. But if (say) an LT magneto had 
been replaced with an HT mag that was now faulty, I'd be likely to restore 
it as it was originally.

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

"Nick H"  wrote in message 
news:7gpqp7F2oia44U1@mid.individual.net...
> kimsiddorn wrote (snip):
>
>>
>> However, mechanical restoration is another matter & I'd be quite happy 
>> making new bits to a higher specification than those used when new, 
>> machined to closer tolerances and finished  in a way that will ensure 
>> they are able to continue in service for many years.
>>
>> Just because the original lubricant was little better than bacon fat, 
>> that would not stop you from using modern silicone oils to lubricate the 
>> inward parts of your pride & joy, would it?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Kim Siddorn
>>
>
> But what, as was the original intention of the thread, are your feelings 
> on those mods and repairs that an engine may have gathered in its years 
> use and abuse - something to be rectified or a cherished part of the 
> unit's history?
>
> NHH

kimsiddorn wrote:
> Thanks Nick, that one slid past me!
> 
> As long as mods had been done well & were for better performance AND 
> they were still working, I'd leave them alone. But if (say) an LT 
> magneto had been replaced with an HT mag that was now faulty, I'd be 
> likely to restore it as it was originally.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kim Siddorn
> 

I'd pretty much go with that, though I wouldn't necessarily restrict it 
to 'performance' mods in the SE context.

NHH

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 9 Sep, 15:01, Nick H  wrote:
> 
>> But what, as was the original intention of the thread, are your feelings
>> on those mods and repairs that an engine may have gathered in its years
>> use and abuse - something to be rectified or a cherished part of the
>> unit's history?
> 
> 1.  Is the mod more historically interesting than the engine itself?
> 
> 2. Is the mod well or badly done? It would have to be exceptionally
> well done to make this a reason to keep it, but nasty botches should
> usually be removed or reworked more neatly.
> 
> 3. Is the mod interesting? A humidity-regulated governor on a mangel-
> wurzel chopper would be worth preserving.
> 
> 4. Is the mod in period with the engine?  A 1930s fix to a 1920s
> engine might now be seen as "of an interesting historical period",
> especially if the materials are in keeping. A 1970s hack with PVC hose
> wouldn't be.
> 
> 5. Is the condition of the mod comparable to the engine? Does one make
> the other look better or worse?
> 


A pretty good check list to run through when considering the fate of a 
non-standard 'feature'. I rather like to see some of those copper sheet 
and dozens of 2ba screws frost repairs on a 'working clothes' engine for 
instance, but it would look awful on one done up to the nines.

NHH

Years ago, I watched a man patiently drill, tap & stud a frost crack in a 
Lanchester block. Took him all day but it worked!

-- 

Regards,



Kim Siddorn

"Nick H"  wrote in message 
news:7gq0l3F2oog46U1@mid.individual.net...
> Andy Dingley wrote:
>> On 9 Sep, 15:01, Nick H  wrote:
>>
>>> But what, as was the original intention of the thread, are your feelings
>>> on those mods and repairs that an engine may have gathered in its years
>>> use and abuse - something to be rectified or a cherished part of the
>>> unit's history?
>>
>> 1.  Is the mod more historically interesting than the engine itself?
>>
>> 2. Is the mod well or badly done? It would have to be exceptionally
>> well done to make this a reason to keep it, but nasty botches should
>> usually be removed or reworked more neatly.
>>
>> 3. Is the mod interesting? A humidity-regulated governor on a mangel-
>> wurzel chopper would be worth preserving.
>>
>> 4. Is the mod in period with the engine?  A 1930s fix to a 1920s
>> engine might now be seen as "of an interesting historical period",
>> especially if the materials are in keeping. A 1970s hack with PVC hose
>> wouldn't be.
>>
>> 5. Is the condition of the mod comparable to the engine? Does one make
>> the other look better or worse?
>>
>
>
> A pretty good check list to run through when considering the fate of a 
> non-standard 'feature'. I rather like to see some of those copper sheet 
> and dozens of 2ba screws frost repairs on a 'working clothes' engine for 
> instance, but it would look awful on one done up to the nines.
>
> NHH

> BTW. I dont want to restart the oily rag vs. fresh paint debate - I'm
> talking about mechanical mods and repairs, not cosmetic finish here.
>
> NHH

Spoilsport :-)

Our PC died a while back and I've only just got back on line.
Now who mentioned paint?

John