briggs and stratton

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

Reply to
leedsbob
Loading thread data ...

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 :)

Reply to
Lee

So what is so special about their starters? Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

On Dec 20, 3:04=A0pm, leedsbob wrote: ?

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?

Reply to
Weatherlawyer

The Sunbeam 16 was introduced for 1927. It featured a 2035cc six cylinder overhead valve engine rated at 16.9hp.

Reply to
Weatherlawyer

Presumably that is *hp* based on swept volume rather than *bhp* measured at the output shaft?

regards

Reply to
Tim Lamb

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.

Reply to
grimly4

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

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

>
Reply to
Tim Lamb

formatting link
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.

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..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

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

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..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

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.

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

cheers

Jules

Reply to
Jules Richardson

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.

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

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

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

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

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

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.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Hmm.

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

Mind you, do emissions regs apply to motorcycles?

Reply to
Huge

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

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.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

formatting link

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..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.