Inside the "Triple Nickel"

[wigglesworth]

This is just a theory until I drop this topend on the 2260. But, I think the wider transfer covers are needed to flow the volume need to make the power that the 562/2260 does. The stuffers are then needed to get the base compression back where it needs to be.

I've got a theory. You should ditch the popup on the next build. Don't be scared brad...

 

[Mastermind]

Don't ever be afraid to go places you've never been.

 

[blsnelling]

Don't ever be afraid to go places you've never been.

I've got a theory. You should ditch the popup on the next build. Don't be scared brad...

I'm still considering it. I might end up ruin this piston anyway with some intake port duration testing.

 

[nmurph]

Same thing as the 365XT, and the 51.4mm XPW jug. They restricted transfer flow to detune the saw.

Are you adding the 75cc's transfers are too narrow?

 

[Jacob J.]

Are you adding the 75cc's transfers are too narrow?

Randy has posted about the "shelf" or extra step cast into the lower transfer tunnels on the 51.4mm jug. All the 51.4mm/75cc jugs I've seen have this step. It definitely impedes flow.

 

[Mastermind]

Are you adding the 75cc's transfers are too narrow?

Yes Neal. The 51.4mm "XPW" cylinder is actually a 375K cutoff saw jug. It's designed for more low end torque, and is meant to operate at a lower RPM than the 372XP 50mm jug.

They made the main transfer tunnels and the upper main transfer ports smaller.

 

[nmurph]

Do you prefer to make turn off the upper transfers a sharper angle like an L, or more of a lazy turn? I understand the time/area implications, but it seems to me that a smoother turn would disturb the flow less. ..school me

 

[Mastermind]

That's a tricky spot when you are raising the transfers quite a lot. If you're not careful, you will cut out the top. I like to try to cut the transfer roof as flat as possible about .150" or so back into the port, then round and blend the back into the existing tunnel.

Have you noticed that on the 372 the main is flat, and the secondary is aimed toward the combustion chamber?

 

[7sleeper]

Here are a couple pics to show the differences in the transfer covers. The 562XP covers are .085" deeper than those from the 555. That's a pretty significant difference.

What I don't quite understand is that if the size is different and it is supposed to have such an impact , why are the saws in the cut so close?

7

 

[CR888]

What I don't quite understand is that if the size is different and it is supposed to have such an impact , why are the saws in the cut so close?

l see what your saying and a dyno(did l just say dyno)could explain this better but as the Monkey said they tend to 'detune' cheaper models this way. Maybe its the bigger transfer covers that equates to Revboost.

 

[sachsmo]

I have one of those in O Scale brass. Hope to make a Pere Marquette out of it some day!

****,

I'm so old I remember when the railroads had people stationed at the crossings in their little 'shack'.

Had a pot bellied stove it there and when a train came to the crossing they would go out and hold their STOP sign to warn motorists!

YUP!,

them old Nickle Plates were some fast moving trains fo' sure!

 

[sachsmo]

This is the REAL TRIPLE NICKLE!

Let's see how Brad or Randy would port one of those?


Now back to your regularly scheduled commercial.

 

[7sleeper]

.....Maybe its the bigger transfer covers that equates to Revboost.

That was what I was trying to imply. But as Brad has already noted he saw an improvement. So maybe there is still more to it. But since the modifications have already progressed so far we will never find out.

But obviously everyone wants to play with a train so this thread is slowly but surely becomming worthless.

7

 

[sachsmo]

Nope just lightening up one O' brads endless commercials.


I'm sure brad and Randy are far more intelligent then the engineers who designed these things?

Go have a beer eh?

 

[sachsmo]

That was what I was trying to imply. But as Brad has already noted he saw an improvement. So maybe there is still more to it. But since the modifications have already progressed so far we will never find out.

But obviously everyone wants to play with a train so this thread is slowly but surely becomming worthless.

7

Nope,

just me.

Guess if'n you are going to 'de-rail' a thread why not use a TRAIN?


Shoot them old boys have made some comments that would make T-bones' comments sound like Philosophy.


Been around and seen it all, Entrepreneurs' Fo' sure!


Carry on, I'll go away

 

[blsnelling]

Some people just have to hate by nature. Must be a miserable life. Too bad he can't understand doing it just because it's something you enjoy. I've been doing build thread much longer than I've been a sponsor.

 

[Mastermind]

He's just having some fun Brad. Ol' Sachsmo is one of the good ones around here in my book.

I don't think his comments were really meant to lash out at you......but once a guy gets riled up......everyone is fair game.

 

[wigglesworth]

Some people just have to hate by nature. Must be a miserable life. Too bad he can't understand doing it just because it's something you enjoy. I've been doing build thread much longer than I've been a sponsor.

I've been sponsoring derailment threads since I was a pup....

Carry on B-rad...carry on...

 

[Mastermind]

What I don't quite understand is that if the size is different and it is supposed to have such an impact , why are the saws in the cut so close?

7

Because chain speed is chain speed.

That why a 395 ain't much faster than a 346 in small wood.

If the saw has to power to pull the chain at the same speed as the bigger, or more powerful saw.....well, there won't be much gain.

Posting videos of an ongoing project is a tricky thing. Sometimes the gains are hard to see in a chunk of wood.....but they make the saw a hell of a lot more fun to run, less touchy in the cut, etc.

 

[Mastermind]

I've been sponsoring derailment threads since I was a pup....

Carry on B-rad...carry on...

Hello Bozo.