Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


honda cg 125 big bore kits

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> The Workshop
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Smiley
Derestricted Danger



Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:09 - 08 Oct 2011    Post subject: honda cg 125 big bore kits Reply with quote

hi as previous topics! i have blown my piston twice! im giving it one last chance n replacing the piston over size! bore the barrel and replace con rod and bottom end bearing!

the question im having is would it be worth getting a big bore kit and which is cylinder and piston! n replacing it as a whole!! but the problem is that the piston sleave is bigger than the crank mouth! so it wont fit! but says that it is for a honda cg 125 bike of the age of mine and older and younger!! so can anyone help with this?

cheers
Smiley
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
N cee thirty This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.

The Shaggy D.A.
Super Spammer



Joined: 12 Sep 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:12 - 08 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd love a CG150!! If you go ahead with it let us know how you get on!! Post as many pictures of the process as you can!! Or just buy a bigger bike!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!1!oneoneone
____________________
Chances are quite high you are not in my Monkeysphere, and I don't care about you. Don't take it personally.
Currently : Royal Enfield 350 Meteor
Previously : CB100N > CB250RS > XJ900F > GT550 > GPZ750R/1000RX > AJS M16 > R100RT > Bullet 500 > CB500 > LS650P > Bullet Electra X & YBR125 > Bullet 350 "Superstar" & YBR125 Custom > Royal Enfield Classic 500 Despatch Limited Edition (28 of 200) & CB Two-Fifty Nighthawk > ER5
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
unitynotsocri... This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.

tahrey
World Chat Champion



Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:34 - 02 Nov 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would there be any mileage in getting hold of ACTUAL 150cc engines from Brazil or India (the latter being Hero's, I suppose)? The CG150 is an actual model in certain markets, along with the CG100. It's all down to local regs.

As far as I've been told, the foreign 150 is barely any more powerful than the 125 here, but I presume that's because it's detuned for crappy petrol. If we kept the UK spec CDI unit and adjusted the carb to suit, there might hopefully be a nice 20% power/torque boost in the offing for better speed and easier cruising without too bad a fuel economy hit or needing pricier upgraded tyres, brakes, etc.

(This is something I've wanted to try for a while since passing my test - I'm quite in love with the economy and light weight / nimbleness, as well as the £16 sub-150cc tax class. A 149cc would have the extra dose of power I sometimes crave when squeezing in front of an HGV at +0.5mph at the end of a sliproad, or slogging up a hill with a headwind... allow a trailer or sidecar if I went completely mental... be allowed on various european motorways where sub-125cc is verboten... etc. Really my only other choice at the moment is going up to a 250, which is tempting but a bit OTT for my needs)

But, how much would it cost to import even a handful of second-hand lumps for ourselves and any other interested parties?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:02 - 02 Nov 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

The other option would be to try and source some 161FMJ Chinese engines. That's essentially a clone of the 150cc Honda pushrod. You're unlikely to find any in the country already, so you'd be looking at importing a bunch of them (30+ Exclamation) from China then selling them on (good luck with that).

Failing that, a 156/157FMI 125cc from a junk bike plus a Chinese-made 150cc barrel and piston (see eBay) should fit together OK, and drop in to a CG125.

I say should, you'd have to do a fair bit of measuring to be sure.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
unitynotsocri... This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.

pepperami
Super Spammer



Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:06 - 02 Nov 2011    Post subject: Re: honda cg 125 big bore kits Reply with quote

Smiley wrote:
hi as previous topics! i have blown my piston twice! im giving it one last chance n replacing the piston over size! bore the barrel and replace con rod and bottom end bearing!

the question im having is would it be worth getting a big bore kit and which is cylinder and piston! n replacing it as a whole!! but the problem is that the piston sleave is bigger than the crank mouth! so it wont fit! but says that it is for a honda cg 125 bike of the age of mine and older and younger!! so can anyone help with this?

cheers
Smiley


I` d love to know how you get on setting up your bike to be a 150cc "Big Bore Bad Boy" Laughing so loads of photos and a write up please Thumbs Up

One thing that does puzzle me is how the hell have you managed to wreck a CG 125 engine Shocked ?? TWICE Shocked ???
They are almost indestructable.??
I had one years ago and I have one now.
Both lasted/are lasting really well.
It begs the question, what are you doing to break them?
____________________
I am the sum total of my own existence, what went before makes me who I am now!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

0ddball
World Chat Champion



Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:47 - 02 Nov 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was just thinking the same. If you have managed to screw a standard engine twice it suggests you are doing something wrong. I'd find out where you're going wrong with the 125 barrel before messing with big bore. If you have that much trouble with a standard engine, the big bore will be a world of hurt.
____________________
ZXR750L
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
unitynotsocri... This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.

Teflon-Mike
tl;dr



Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:27 - 02 Nov 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, a bit of power theory, for you.
Science Says, as far an making it in an internal combustion engine;

Power = Cylinder Pressure x Cylinder displacement x Engine revs.

As its a direct relationship, suggests that increasing cylinder displacement 25cc, or 20% from 125cc to 150cc ought to increase power, accross the rev range by 20% so your 10bhp CG engine would get up to 12bhp.

BUT, this presumes all other factors equal. and I can tell you straight away, they wont be.

If you have a cylinder head chambered for a 10:1 compression ration on a 125cc engine, it will have a 12.5cc combustion chamber volume.

Squash 150cc onto 12.5cc and your compression ratrio goes up, like the power, 20% to 12:1

This is a BIG difference, and while it would be good for power, and pottentially increase combustion pressure as well as capacaity, giving MORE than theoretical 20% power gain..... taking Compression THAT high, likely to start risking pinking, the fuiel octane rating just not high enough to stand that sort of C/R meaning you have to back of ignition timing and ritchen mixture to compensate, loosing more than you would gain, and reducing mpg...

Worth mentioning also, MPG is 'Inverse Power'... power is rate of energy transfer, fuel is energy, mpg the rate you buirn it or transform it from potential energy to kinetic. If you up the power engine makes by 20%, reasonable you will reduce the MPG same amount... you buy CG25's becouse they are ecconomical, remember?

Anyway.....Convenient most 'big-bore' kits save you a bit of effort trying to get cylinder heads machined to increase combustion chamber volume and reduce compression ratio, and pottential problems in this taking metal away around valves and stuff; they often make the barel longer, or the piston shorter to put more voilume above the piston top at top dead center.

So, you may be lucky and you might get a BIT of extra compression, you may not, but bit of luck, you wont start running foul of octane rating and having to 'loose' pottential gains in power from less optimal ignition and fuel mixture.

OK, back to the bang, and the cylinder pressure comes from getting charge into the cylinder and making it burn... more charge you get in (with more fuel in it... remember that MPG is power too!) more cylinder pressure you get.

Cylinder is 20% bigger so you ought to get 20% more charge, and as much pressure as before.... BUT, sucked through the same holes, which almost certainly will be stopping the 125cc cylinder getting a 'full fill' very often, and certainly not at higher revs..... it doesn't stand MUCH more chance of putting much, if ANY more charge into a pot 20% bigger....

Manifold pressure, the actual 'suck' that fills the pot, more dependent on piston 'speed' than piston size, with the same 'stroke' you get the same piston speed for the same engine speed, and through ports sized for a 125c cylinder you often get LESS complete cylinder fill on big bore engine than you do on smaller one.

Capacity goes up 20% but combustion pressure often falls, due to incomplete fill by almost as much, and you seldom see theoretical power gain, often only a fraction of it, and often only over a portion of the rev range.

Increasing capacity from 'stroking' rather than 'boring', using crankshaft with longer stroke rather than bigger piston, you increase capacity, but importantly increase piston speeds for any given crank speed, giving more 'suck' in the inlet manifold, and consequently the short fill phenomona often less dramatic, and certainly at lower engine speeds often gives a much more significant power gain.

Anyway, third variable in the equation, engine speed.

If you want more power, so you can get a bit more speed.... well.... power is how fast you make or over come force.

Yes, lets you go faster, becouse you are using power to oiver come drag, and at the business end Power = Drag x Speed.
So more power = more speed.... only as drag is also proportional to speed to go a little bit faster, you need a lot more power, and doubling your power will tyically only increase speed maybe 50%....

CG125 makes 10bhp, and does 65mph.

Double the power to 20bhp (about that of an unrestricted NS125, or CB 'two-fifty') you will just about struggle up to 'about' 90mph, so actually already beyond the 50% more speed for 100% more power, and aproaching steeper portion of the exponential, where it starts taking 3x the power to get 1/3 more speed... but anyway.

20% more power, then will not mean 20% more mph, and that extra 2bhp you are hoping for but are unlikely to actually get, will not boost top speed from 65 to almost 80.... realistically, might just get you nudging 70 from time to time.

BUT, road speed is directly proportional to crank speed, curtecy of the gearbox and final drive.

If peak power is at 9,ooo rpm, and that gets you to 65mph, then no matter how much power you have..... 9,ooo rpm will always be 65mph, unless you raise the gearing..... extra power will simply accelerate you to the SAME top speed, more rapidly.....

Though depends on whether the bike is significantly 'over geared' to start with, and what revs you are actually pulling 'flat out', on a little bike, they do tend to be geared pretty close, and will be pulling max speed at peak power revs.

Without up gearing then, likely to not go any faster, unless you can make engine rev to higher speed....

Here boring the engine out, that idea of sucking charge through same ports; at 125cc, likely that the poets will flow enough air to supply the pot at peak power revs, but on bigger pot, likely that it will be reaching its maximum flow 20% further down the rev range...

Consequently instead of making peak power at 9.ooo rpm, its peaking at just over 7,ooo rpm....

Balence of that Power = pressure x capacity x revs equation, you get no more power from extra capacity, you just get what you had, at lower revs....

Now, your bike, has same power so same speed, but geared for 65mph at 9,oooo revs, you still have to rev to 9K to go that fast, only you now has LESS power at that engine speed and not enough power there to over come the drag.

With peak lower down the revs, you accelerate harder and faster to 'peak' but reaching peak at just 50mph, power starts dropping off, and no higher gear to change up to.... you might struggle to get much more than 55 from the thing......

Which is ALL a long way round saying that its a bit more complicated than you might presume..... and its NOT as simple as 20%cc meaning 20% more power and 20% more power meaning 20% more mph, AND it all happening with no change in MPG!

You will rarely get 20% more power JUST from 20% increase in capacity, without optimising the whole engine to get most from the extra displacement, AND optimising the gearing to exploit the extra power.

Usually power gains are a lot less than simple science predicts with the competing factors taken into account, the spoeed gains from them, even less impressive, and the increase in mpg, usually higher...

You rarely get owt fer nowt in this world, and messing with engines, theres ALWAYS a price..... and THAT is before we look at the effect on component load ratings and how a presumed 20% more power can put an extra 50% ed=xtra peak 'load' on them, and deminsih service life 100%....

Ie: carrying loads of 10bhp, engine may have 30,ooo mile 'life'. Up that power to 12bhp, and loadings increase such, and compund such that engine life deminsihed to 15,ooo miles....

No great shakes you may think, thats still a lot of miles..... but doubles the cost of the engine, for a fractional improbvement in performance.... and may not be abig deal when you have a brand new engine with pottentially 30K miles life in it....

If you are tuning an old engine, thats already blown up a couple of times thats probably already exceeded its 'normal' 30K mile life.... shoving a new piston in it to get maybe 3ooo miles out of whats left in the bottom end...

NOT a great idea to stick piston 20% bigger over it, for miniscule performance benefit, to eat that 3ooo mile 'residual wear' in double time, and see the big end bearings disintegrate in maybe just 1ooo miles time.....

If you are trying to eek out life in an old bike, on its last legs, and keep it going that bit longer, then you REALLY dont want to be trying to sacrifcde its already compromised reliability trying to incorporate 'performance' mods.

Want performance; start by putting as MUCH life ionto the STANDARD engine as you can, THEN think about how much of that you CAN sacrifice for performance gains, and THEN ponder whether its really worth it.....

Dont blithy bolt on go faster goodies, to a thrashed to death bike, thrash it some more, and then grumble that it keeps breaking!
____________________
My Webby'Tef's-tQ, loads of stuff about my bikes, my Land-Rovers, and the stuff I do with them!
Current Bikes:'Honda VF1000F' ;'CB750F2N' ;'CB125TD ( 6 3 of em!)'; 'Montesa Cota 248'. Learner FAQ's:= 'U want to Ride a Motorbike! Where Do U start?'
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts
unitynotsocri... This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.

Teflon-Mike
tl;dr



Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:32 - 02 Nov 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

unitycrippledatmo wrote:
So,fit a bigger bore exhaust pipe, a K n N and be happy it will pull a little better lower down the revs,i.e practical useable power ,or fit an OHC engine?
Most bikes use square /over square bore/stroke dimensions for higher revs ,is it possible to make a longer stroke cg so it has more pulling power?i used to love my old triumph car engines,they were long strokers and lasted longer because they revved LESS.


Hmm, your old triumph engines, are we talking the 2.0 or 2.5l 'six'?

When it comes to how long they last, what speed the crank turns is actually imeterial to the point ALMOST of being inconsequential.

What 'goes' first on an engine, when its knackered?

As often as not, provided the engines reasonably well maintained and not utterly thrashed, it will start getting 'smokey' and using oil; the two common reasons for this, worn valve guides or worn rings/bore, or combination of both.

Long stroke, short bore engine, as said, for any given crank rpm, the piston will be traveling further; so it will have to accelerate harder from bottom dead centre to a higher peak surface speed at 90 deg BTDC, then slow harder as it decelerates to a dead stop right at the top...

Think about the windscreen wiper on your car, as it sweeps one way lip is bent away from arm, as it reaches to top of its stroke, has to reverse, the arm wiping over it and folding it back so it trails the other way.... thats whats happening to a piston ring at top and bottom of each stroke.

The higher piston speeds mean higher accleration, hence higher forces, on the ring and piston and cylinder wall and hence higher wear.

This does NOT suggest its likely to last longer than a short stroke engine with piston traveling a lot more slowly at the same rpm, giving much lower piston speeds.

We now look at the valve guides. If you have a small bore, and a long stroke, the area above the piston you have to cram valves into is a lot smaller proportionally to the volume of cylinder the valves have to fill or vent.

If you cant have big valves, you have to open them further and faster to get the same air flow.... the faster pistoin speed, giving greater change in pressure helping get air shifting helps, but only if the air has room to move, and you have necesserily restricted port volume.... but piston getting out the way of TDC quicker does mean you can open the valves further and faster.....

You now have similar problems on the valve and valve seats, with further distances to travel, in the same time, so higher loadings and higher wear....

OK, lets look at the crank and big ends..... power is force times speed. Bearings are rated by thier load carying capacity, and the maximum surface speed that can sustain.

Imagine putting a bit of metal against an angle grinder; harder you push it against the grinder, faster it will wear down. Now if you have a 4" disc surface speed will be about 1/3 that of a 10" disc, rubbing it faster on the big disc, with same pressure it will grind away about 3 times as fast..... Wear is the load times distance rubbed, rather than the speed.

So, if you have a long stroke engine, the high acceleration forces moving the piston further and faster each stroke, regardless of how much power the engine is making via cylinder pressure, will put higher cyclic loading onto bearings, and THAT is as likely to wear them out faster than engine with shorter stroke, that even reving at the same speed, will be putting less cyclic load on the journals, and and reved higher STILL likely to not put as much load on the bearings as the long stroke engine, and in the numbers, the extra distance at lower load still doesn't give same wear as higher load at shorter distance....

So SORRY, but the correlation doesn't work and the low rpm of a Triumph 'Six' doesn't explain why it might last any longer than any other engine..... what MIGHT explain it, is I believe that for an engine of its era it was actually a remarkeably over-square' engine, so the shorter stroke and lower piston speeds MIGHT help explain any greater durability than a four.... but its mopst likely to simply be that it IS a six.... the same power shared accross six smaller, lighter slugs, the loadings on each no where near as high; six 400cc cylinders, even with the same bore/stroke ratio as four 600cc cylinders will have a shorter stroke, and hence lower piston speeds, AND what made the six 'smooth', 120 firing intervals. four cylinders of conventional 'four' you have one piston on each stroke, each doing a different 'phase' of teh four stroke Otto-Cycle, with a change-over top and bottom, all four slugs hitting top or bottom in unisen.

Six, with 120 crank offset, you have over-lapping firing intervals, one cylinder helping power the others through the over centering top and bottom, and damping out the 'pulses' as each pot bangs....

THAT phasing of pulses damping each other out reduces peak loadings....

But probably AS important, and reason Trumpet, Jag & Rover 'sixes' were 'expensive' engines to make, the 180 degree two up two down crank of a four, is 'flat' the journals all in one plane and easily forged in one strong piece.

A 120 crank has the journals off set at 120 degrees to each other two up, two two thirds up, two two thirds down, to make one demands a much more complex casting or forging process and a lot more critical crank shaft machining and final balencing to avoid it shaking itself to bits......

And TBH, the reliability of anything coming out of Standard-Triumph, Rover Cars, or Jaguar, all within spitting distance of each other along the A45 Coventry-Birmingham road... any question of reliability was more a function of what mood the bloke that built it was in, and whether the Unions were arguing for another pay rise or had just got one!

They were, also, in a reletively 'modest' state of tune, and limiting power is always a good way to improve reliability and 'life'.

A 2.5l engine, they typically only made around 90-110bhp or so, depending on what they were fitted in. The TR4 was only tuned to about 140bhp, I recall, and the last of the TR6's was only chucking out around 150bhp.... very creditable for its day... but it's day was the same as that of the Coventry climax, getting that kind of power and more from 1500cc, or the Harry-Mundy slant four getting over 200bhp, from 2.2l, four, without a blower, or even the humble Ford Pinto, which has been offered in huge number of configurateions and states of tune, over the gears both by factory and after market tuners; BUT, in the day Triumph 2.5's were still being entered into world championship rallies as a seriouse contender..... ford were leading the way with the EVO Escorts..... and the factory RS2000 was with 25% less displacement, and in a reletively 'concervative' state of factory 'tune' as or more powerful than Trumpet six....

OK, long stroke CG crankshafts.

Idea that a long stroke, gives more torque, is a common misconception. Older lower reving engines ofted did have more low down tractable power, but.....

Look at the equation:-

Power = Cylinder Pressure x Cylinder Displacement x Engine revs

Theres a mathmatical proof for that, but pressure is force times area, so the FORCE you get from combustion is the cylinder pressure times piston area.

TORQUE is FORCE x LEVERAGE

Leverage at the crank is the crank-throw, or distance between centres of the crank-shaft main journals and the crank-pin, big-end journal, this is half the piston stroke.....

So Torque = Cylinder pressure x piston area x 0.5 stroke

Piston area x stroke is the cylinder capacity.....

So give or take a couple of constants of proportionalty between units..... doesn't matter whether its an under-square, long stroke engine with small bore, or over square engine with short stroke and big bore..... for a given cylinder displacement and a given cylinder pressure, the 'torque' which is no more than a convenience of engineering expression, will be the same, and power, another convenience of engineering expression, will be the same...

What you 'feel' as power or torque, when driving a car or riding a bike, is NOT power or torque. Power is a 'rate' and you can no more 'feel' the power an engine makes as you can 'feel' the rate of interest on your credit card. You cant 'feel' torque either, its another derivative, what you 'feel' is force, but even THEN, not REALLY, what you feel is translation of force to motion, the 'acceleration'.... and even THEN, more often not pure acceleration, but the CHANGE in acceleration....

What is so often described as having 'lots' of low down torque, is merely a fairly big ramp in available power with increasing revs, numbers dont have to be that big, just the change in them.

Best example is a common argument in Land-Rover circules between the 200TDi Turbo-Diesel fans and Rover V8 afficionado's. TDi fans frequently insist that their aga engine, has a HUGE reserve of 'low down Torque', 'ideal' for 'off-roading' where the Rover V8 has 'power' but is all 'revs', and none of it where you need it, near tick-over...

I often pull the power traces for this one.... the Rover V8 in Land-Rover applications is and a very low state of tune. The most lowly variant (bar the rare 'restricted' Series III Stage 1 engine) is the 120bhp 'low compression' two door Range-Rover engine. Its quite a nice comparison to the 115bhp 2.5L TDi engine as it makes similar power at similar revs, the RV8 peaking at 'about' 4,500rpm, though able to rev out to about 5K, the 200TDi governed at 4,800rpm, and BOTH engines offereing peak power at about 3,500 rpm...

What makes the TDi feel like it has lots of 'low down torque' is actually that it has bog ALL real low down torque! Rover V8, in almost lowest state of tune there is, almost makes more 'shear' torque at tick-over than the TDi does at 'peak'! more advanced variants actually do! So, the LACK of low down torque on the TDi, gives a very dramatic 'ramp' in the power trace, giving a huge change in delivered 'thrust' as the revs increase... magnified by the turbo spooling up, but by 2,200 rpm, that 'surge' is all over and the torque trace starts to drop off, 'power' riding only slightly, increasing with engine speed making up more than is lost from lower and lower cylinder pressure as the engine is spun faster... to a peak power at pretty much the same place.

Rover V8, feels 'flat' in comparison, becouse its power trace is far less dramatic, the torque trace almost a flat horizontal line accross the rev range, power increasing as that 'huge' amount of toirque is magnified by engine revs! Oh, and its a very over-square, short stroke, big bore engine!

SO, if you wanted a longer stroke 'big-cc' CG engine, chances are it would not give more 'pulling power' than a short, big bore, 'big cc' CG engine.

'Torque' is not closely related to the engines stroke.

Longer stroke motors DO tend to offer more low rpm 'power' but perversely not becouse of the extra leverage at the crank, but becouse, moving faster for the same engine rpm, the acceleration of teh piston top is that much higher.

On the induction stroke, when the piston is at TDC, 'Charge' is not moving through the inlet tract, only starts moving when the piston starts to fall.

Now get a book and fan your face with it.... feel the breeze? Now do it in slow mo.... feel anything at all? Try fanning really fast....

Faster the piston accelerates, the bigger the vaccuum it creates above the piston. Sure, the bigger the piston the more area for a smaller vacuum to suck from, BUT, air is a strange fluid and the higher the speed more resistance it has to move, there fore the bigger the 'lag' and the bigger vaccum you get to get charge moving into the pot.

Its all about 'optimisation' and there are lots of variables, like valve sizing, port volumes, cam timing, valve lift etc etc, but thats 'tuning', and I'm talking generalities, BUT the only real advantyage of a longer stroke is the low speed piston speed helping low speed aspiration and hence cylinder filling.

But this is normally NOT a huge impediment on many engines, particularly ones designed to run at higher rpm, where they have ports that have more than enough capacity to flow the required charge at low speeds.

Brings us back to the first principle of tuning, which is whatever you are looking for, look for the thing stopping you getting it, not the thing most easily changed!

In the little cG engine, its in a pretty low state of tune. It has pretty good porting, it CAN flow enough charge to make more power than it does... so where does the restriction lie?

The air-box? That's pretty big, and fitting supposedly 'free-flow' K&N style 'pod' filter, often chokes flow MORe than the airbox does, putting a reletively small filter area imedietly around the carb mouth; smaller filter area increasing flow per sq cm, hence adding restriction, worse, sucking from ariund the perfiry of the carb mouth, demanding a tight change of direction between where air is sucked from, through almost 90 degrees RIGHT in the carb-mouth, creating a turn radius of restriction that possibly reduces effective area by more than half.... NOT good for free breathing! They just offer NO flow stabilisation upstream of teh carb.

Worse still, they are stick right behind the hot cylinder, sucking air warmed, in this case by passing over cooling fins of air cooled engine.... right in an area of low pressure and air stagnation.... so you have less ambient pressure there, probably turbulannce wipping up what is there, and what there is is hot, and rarified, so you have to crab a greater volume to get the same mass....

K&N pods were shown twenty years ago to be apailing for free flowing engines, and thier only benefit over an open carb mouth was in combatting 'vapour stand off effects' which is where you get a mist of fuel vapour lingering in the carb-mouth, and dissapearing into the surrounding air on the reverse shock waves of the air pulsing into the engine on each induction stroke, and sending back a rever5se shock wave through the carb when the column of moving air suddenly stops as the inlet valve slams shut.

They are unfortunately NOT a very good 'performance aid'!

OK, carburettor.... well CG125 uses Keihin PD26. That carb is 'good' for the air-flow rate needed to supply a 20+bhp engine.

Carburettors are simply a fuel metering device; they 'some how' measure (or to som edegree 'guess') the MASS of air flowing into the engine, and chuck in the apropriate amount of fuel to make a burnable charge. Carburettors normally measure the air flow by the pitot effect of the depression caused in a pipe at 90 degrees to the flow. Co incidentally using that depression, to suck the right amount of fuel up into the air stream, by proportionally sizing the pitot tube (main jet) and the height of fuel in that jet (float height), PRESUMIMNG a mass of fuel based on 'usual' ambient air density.... or as in most cases 'suck it and see'...

Doesn't really matter how sophisticated the carburettor is, or if its digital fuel injection, thats all the carburettor does, and as far as power is concerned all we are bothered with is whther the carburettor has sufficient capacity to flow enough air to make big enough charge to get the power we want, or if, at some point the carburettor will start choking the flow....

And the PD26 does have spare flow capacity above that needed to fill CG125 cylinder, maybe not much, but its there, its not the weak link.

Exhaust? What goes in must come out, if it dont come out, its going to hold up new charge going in.

CG125 has a fairly large bore exhaust; its rather long, and it is fairly heftily baffled, but its not a HUGE impediment. And there isn't an AWFUL lot to be gained from a fre-er flowing exhaust.

On a more highly tuned bike, like a 75bhp CBR600, or 60bhpo Bandit, or even a 120bhp SP1, baffle-less 'Race' exhausts, ofetn make little more than 4-8bhp difference to power for all the extra noise, increasing power by barely 5%, for typically a cost of 10% more fuel, due to the over-scavenging of exhaust rushing out of the exhaust during the over-lap period when both valves are open, sucking unburned charge through the inlet valve and straight out the exhaust, with it....

CG engine, unlikely to do that, its in a much softer state of tune, and running a lot less agressive valve timing, opening the valves so soon or holding them open so long.....

And THAT is where we find the 'weak link' in the CG engine....

Its a push-rod engine, using convoluted double rodker arrangement either end of the push rod to open both valves off the same cam lobe.

Being a push rod engine, the cam timing is significantly 'softer' than for an OHV engine for simple reason that with two rockers and a push rod to move, as well as the valve and valve spring, theres a lot of mass in the valve train.

High acceleration, opening valves quickly, to get them open fast, puts incredibly high forces on components, and that means that they have to be stronger, hence heavier so take even more force to make them move, or they have to be light to get them moving easily, but cant stand such high forces without a high degree or wear or risk of failure...

The CG is consequently MOST limited in the power it might make by the cam shaft,m which is necesserily 'mild' first for ecconomy, and secondly for reliability, and thridly for 'sost' on what was expressely designed as a low cost, low performance, low maintenence 'commuter' machine.

Its not got a lot to do with the single cam-lobe providing identical lift and duration for inlet and exhaust valves, MOST engines have identical or near identical inlet and exhaust valve timing and lift.

Doesn't actually mean that the cam timing is consequently compromised, most engines have little scope to vary the cam timing between inlet and exhaust, between peak centres, haviung lobes cast on the same shaft. And infact, rocker arrangement, using eccentric rocker bishes to effectivel move the rocker pad around the cam, and potentially increase rocker 'ratio' to give more valve lift, from same cam ramp, possibly gives MORE scope to mess with cam timing, than a conventional stick cam....

BUT, there is a limit to how radical you might go with the cam timing, and that is the ramp rates that the valve train, will withstand before buckling or breaking.... lightening the valve train... and old trick used to be to use lightweight alloy rockers and maybe carbon fibre push-rods, which may also increase component strength, can help, but its still limiting factor...

And what we conclude is, that best way to get more power is to go to a wilder cam profile, and reduce the valve train mass to zero or near zero....

Which is dead easy... you go over head cam, and use either a single over head cam with just two rockers operating the valves (Honda CB125S, ipon which the CG engine was originally based!) or you go to Double overhead cams, and havce a love over each valove stem pushing it open directly, no other links in the valve train at all... and you have modern CBR125 engine....

THAT is the logical conclusion.... the CG125 engine was actually a retro-designed to an older, less sophisticated, valve mechanism, with LESS scope for performance, EXPRESSELY sacrificing that performance for ecconomy and reliability....

If you want more performance than a CG125 has to offer, BASICALLY you have bought the wrong bike....

And to try and FIND performance it doesn't have to begin with?

Well, you are going to have to go to a lot of trouble to find real improvement, and with the topogrophy of the engine working against you, its going to be a lot of effort and expense for little or no reward, and chucking the baby out with the bathwater, LOOSING the very virtues of ecconomy and reliability, that are the bies greatest assets!

IF a CG125 isn't fast enough..... flog it.... buy a bike that is!

BUT, Hondas own CB125 (four stroke) Twin, brilliant bike that it is, only makes 2bhp more than a CG125, significantly about as much as a really good chunk of expensive CG tuning, and offers only 5mph for it, loosing around 20mpg for the gain....

More modern CBR125, offers 40% more than a CG125, and curtecy of fuel injection a smaller loss of ecconomy, but its STILL only a 75mph motorcycle...

Is it REALLY worth it?

Mucking about wityh engines seeing what you can do with them, all good fun.... but boil it down to cold numbers.... makes very, VERY little sense, other than 'just for fun'...

If you have real need of the bike, and you want it to 'work' and work well.... dont fix what ent broke, and before looking for MORE than standard, get what you ought to AS standard.

Old Knackered CG engine thats likely candidate for muggering project?

Very little point spending seriouse money to recondition it, and put good life into it, to take any considered tuning, only to remove half that life doing so... and no point trying to get more go from an old engine that is on iots last legs to begin with limping along, you'll just kill it even quicker.

But any WHICH way.... first rule of tuning, ALWAYS look for the weakest link... and on CG engine, thats that soft cammed push-rod valve actuation.... without improving that, nothing will give any significant gains.
____________________
My Webby'Tef's-tQ, loads of stuff about my bikes, my Land-Rovers, and the stuff I do with them!
Current Bikes:'Honda VF1000F' ;'CB750F2N' ;'CB125TD ( 6 3 of em!)'; 'Montesa Cota 248'. Learner FAQ's:= 'U want to Ride a Motorbike! Where Do U start?'
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts
unitynotsocri... This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.

0ddball
World Chat Champion



Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:15 - 02 Nov 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

unitycrippledatmo wrote:


Have you thought of being an engineering lecturer Teflon Mike?in these times of deteriorating education your country may need you!


Degrees are only 4 years long.
____________________
ZXR750L
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

pepperami
Super Spammer



Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:49 - 03 Nov 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

0ddball wrote:
unitycrippledatmo wrote:


Have you thought of being an engineering lecturer Teflon Mike?in these times of deteriorating education your country may need you!


Degrees are only 4 years long.


Laughing I see what you did there Laughing
____________________
I am the sum total of my own existence, what went before makes me who I am now!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

chris-red
Have you considered a TDM?



Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:13 - 03 Nov 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

It took me longer to scroll past Tef's posts than I usually spend reading an average post. Laughing
____________________
Well, you know what they say. If you want to save the world, you have to push a few old ladies down the stairs.
Skudd:- Perhaps she just thinks you are a window licker and is being nice just in case she becomes another Jill Dando.
WANTED:- Fujinon (Fuji) M42 (Screw on) lenses, let me know if you have anything.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
unitynotsocri... This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.

stonesie
World Chat Champion



Joined: 04 Jul 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:37 - 03 Nov 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tried it, got it running and it turns out I have a serious crank problem and no idea how to set up the carb, lost interest and bought a Daytona Laughing

Might have another crack at it in the new year or just return it to a 125 and sell it to a learner.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 12 years, 176 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> The Workshop All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.18 Sec - Server Load: 0.86 - MySQL Queries: 16 - Page Size: 149.48 Kb