chrisnbush
Member
No, really it does have quite a bit more torque - I have run them both extensively. Turns out to be longer rod on piston (seem my subsequent post)
Regards
HuaSheng 142F vs Honda GXH50 vs Dax XC50s
- Thread starter Scootmeister
- Start date
- Status
No, really it does have quite a bit more torque - I have run them both extensively. Turns out to be longer rod on piston (seem my subsequent post)
Regards
chrisnbush
Member
Thanks Quenton, usually I am at 15 or less probably coming up a hill, before I go down the other side anyway. Sounds good, I will consider for my next build. I like the ability to consider different motors - the flexibility.
chrisnbush
Member
Just an internet search somewhere. This site won't allow posting of PDF's so I had to do a JPG. Search on the title of the diagram (in the document) and I am sure you will find it.
Scootmeister
Member
Great information, Chrisnbush. Thanks for taking so much time to clear up our mystery. Are there any engineers following this thread who can tell us if the slightly longer rod alone would explain the HP difference between the Super Titan and the 142 F? The question then becomes, what engine does the longer rod come from ( maybe it was designed especially for the Super Titan) and how does one obtain it? Also, is the timing different on the Super Titan to compensate for the difference in the compression?
The longer rod will change the torque. When I raced British singles and twins the short rod motors had less bottom end torque and a higher top end. We always used the long rod motors on "short tracks" and the short rod motors on the 1/2 mile and mile tracks.
The HS 53 CC motors use a longer rod and have more bottom end than the 49 CC versions.
Not sure if the Honda camshaft will fit, but would be worth the effort to find out as it would surely last longer.
Have fun,
The HS 53 CC motors use a longer rod and have more bottom end than the 49 CC versions.
Not sure if the Honda camshaft will fit, but would be worth the effort to find out as it would surely last longer.
Have fun,
chrisnbush
Member
Quentin -
BirdDog is selling HS 53 on ebay currently (they say they got a shipment of these by "mistake"), at least some variant - the ones with the magentos. BirdDog is telling me these are Hua Sheng 144-F model number.
If I look at the numbers for both the 142-F and the 144-F from the manual provided by Hua Sheng, the are both 35.8 mm stroke, but 41.8 and 43.5 bore, respectively. SO the HS 53 is indeed higher in displacement, but the rod is NOT any longer. That is, if you can believe the manual ;-)
This is actually kind of important, to me anyway, as the longer rod in the Super Titan does NOT result in higher displacement, the stroke is dictated by the crank offset, not the rod, right ? It does increase compression, but the displacment is still 49cc and therefore "heh heh" legal (although I think NH also has a statement about max HP as well as cc - though I think max is 3hp anyway).
This make any sense ?
Yes the short rod race motors used slightly heavier flywheels.
Concerning the 53 CC motors, there are 2 different versions. I have one with a longer rod and another with the same rod as the HS 142.
The length of the rod doesn't always alter the displacement as the stoke is determined by the crankshaft. As an example... The bore was also different on the "short" and "long" rod British racing bikes and the long rod motors had smaller pistons, whereas the short rod motors had a larger bore. The power ratio was very different because of motor square. If the motor is over-square it will rev higher, under-square will produce more torque, but less RPMs.
I don't know about the information on the web, but the rod is longer on one of the 53 CC versions of the motors. I also know the power is very different between the two versions of the motors we purchased to test. One of the test motors with the alternator has a short tapered output shaft and the other has a long shaft with a taper near the end of the shaft [same one B-E is currently selling]. Both motors are fired with a CDI instead of the coil, and both have a much heavier flywheel. Both motors are also much wider.
Have fun,
Concerning the 53 CC motors, there are 2 different versions. I have one with a longer rod and another with the same rod as the HS 142.
The length of the rod doesn't always alter the displacement as the stoke is determined by the crankshaft. As an example... The bore was also different on the "short" and "long" rod British racing bikes and the long rod motors had smaller pistons, whereas the short rod motors had a larger bore. The power ratio was very different because of motor square. If the motor is over-square it will rev higher, under-square will produce more torque, but less RPMs.
I don't know about the information on the web, but the rod is longer on one of the 53 CC versions of the motors. I also know the power is very different between the two versions of the motors we purchased to test. One of the test motors with the alternator has a short tapered output shaft and the other has a long shaft with a taper near the end of the shaft [same one B-E is currently selling]. Both motors are fired with a CDI instead of the coil, and both have a much heavier flywheel. Both motors are also much wider.
Have fun,
GreenMantis
Active Member
- Local time
- 10:02 PM
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 320
I'm getting one of those 53cc 144f motors on ebay, to replace the reliably unreliable 49cc 2 stroke on old green mantis. I wanted to convert that 2 stroke to run on r/c glow fuel, anyway, since the ides of the old green mantis burning nitromethane is hysterically funny to me for some reason. It's all about the fuel, and I have more to say about that, later.
You mentioned that there are a couple of these, and that one had more power, do you mind if I ask which one I will be getting?
And on fuel, which believe it or not will be getting back to the point, which was the possibility of souping up performance. The first easyest, biggest bang for your buck soup up isn't exhaust (best bolt on, agreed, though), it's the fuel. Always use premium gas, and try to find a source that doesn't have any ethyl alcohol added, it defeats most additives. I also add some napthelene, which will increase the appearant octane to about 100, and when I can, I like to add a little acetone and or some kerosene. Just the napthelene makes a huge improvement in performance, with the side effect of about 50% better milage than regular pump gas. They sell regular because people seem to be easily misled into spending more money per mile on gas, by a lower price per gallon on the pump. This is a scam. Rather than go on the rant, here is a site I found that pretty well covers that:
http://www.hho4free.com/additives/additives.htm
Motors with high compression (as it appears from reading that the "Super Titan" does, having a longer conrod) are particularly vulnerable to preignition, which is another great way to discharge a conrod, so should really avoid low octane fuel. Those will likely see the most gain from better fuel, anyway. I'll admit, though, it's not a huge stretch to use additives, when you have to mix in 2 cycle oil, anyway.
No, no, no, and no, in fact, to all of them, it will do the exact opposite (it's LOW octane that will "blow up" your engine, not the other way around- high octane will "blow up" your performance, fuel economy, and the life expectancy of your engine): it's in every way good for your engine, it will run better, last a lot longer, and as economically as possibe, in fact about 1/3 from what you would spend in terms of regular pump gas. Go read the labels on the bottles of tank gunk they sell at the parts store, that although sometimes listed as "inert" only real active ingedient that they share is naptha, the liquid form of napthelene mothballs, which are a bunch cheaper. They wouldn't sell that crap if it could possibly do anything to harm your engine. There are about 10 mothballs in each of those bottles. Solids are denser, after all. If you buy mothballs as a fuel additive, read the label, or use your nose, there are 2 different kinds of chemicals used as mothballs, and do not use paradichlorobenzine, or "para" mothballs, paradichlorobenzine is in fact, urinal cake. If you were born with a *****, and have ever used a public restroom, than surely, you must know what that stuff smells like. For some reason, that makes the idea of someone mistakenly putting them in their gas tank, really funny, too, for some reason,
Finally, although I have yet to see any of them personally, from the pictures, the Huasheng is almost too close for a clone. I would not be surprised if inspection of the fine print would reveal that the Honda motors are in fact manufactured for Honda by Huasheng. They wouldn't be the first "Big Brand name" Japanese company to be guilty of rebranding: it fits their m.o. In that case, I would suspect that the disparity in claimed HP between the two would have more to do with the arrangement with Honda, than to do with actual testing. For some reason, underrating your numbers seems to acceptable to the public in terms of dishonest.
Scootmeister
Member
Hey Chrisnbush, any way to get your hands on a Honda cam to compare with the HS? If they are the same I would definitely purchase a replacement for my engine. I heard one time that Kohler Command engines have a plastic drive gear for the oil pump and that's the most common failure on those engines.
- Status
