Rickman Enfield Engine removal

Onder

Onder

VIP MEMBER
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,121
Country flag
I have posted this on the Interceptor list but will post here as well as some poor soul may find it helpful.

Just in case someone is going to do this in the future (or if I forget)
here is the easy way to pull the powerunit on a Rickman Enfield.
Remove the primary side cases, exhaust, the horn, top engine mounts
and the forward engine mounts. The lower stud will remain
in place.
Remove the TS frame to rear engine mount, two bolts on frame
one through back of cast mount. You can leave the DS untouched.
Place jack under the engine itself.
Remove the four nuts that retain the rear engine mount casting.
Remove the cast mount to rear and out.
Double nut the studs for same and remove all four.
Remove the bottom gearbox to frame bolt.
Lift and remove gearbox to TS.
You can now tip the engine over to the TS to clear the frame
top rails and then lift clear.
As I was working alone and the lump is bloody heavy for an old
fool so I used a cargo tie down strap to lift it out.

Lots of fiddly stuff to do but actually it went easily enough.
You probably do not have to pull the carbs off or the timing
cover but the lump is going to be broken down so in my case
it made sense.
 

Attachments

  • Rickman Enfield Engine removal
    Rickman_P1130085.JPG
    313.1 KB · Views: 79
  • Rickman Enfield Engine removal
    Rickman_P1130092.JPG
    473.5 KB · Views: 69
  • Rickman Enfield Engine removal
    rickman_P1130096.JPG
    368.5 KB · Views: 64
  • Rickman Enfield Engine removal
    P1130098.JPG
    369.6 KB · Views: 70
Since you ask: the gearbox is going to be swapped out (if I live long enough to get t'other back from
Fettlement Central) and with a recent overhaul the engine runs great BUT has a worrying oil pressure
situation. I cannot rest with the Ignorance is Bliss approach as cases are few and far between.
Clues: it takes forever to establish OP. This is actually fairly common with Series2 engines but since I have
another running recently overhauled engine I can see it is excessive. Once up to pressure it fades once
warmed. Sounds like loose rods. Second clue and an odd one: it leaks oil out the tach drive. Series2
has a huge breather tube so hard to understand how the crankcase is getting pressurized which seems
to be the cause of the leak.
I've done a fair amount of parts changing off the known good bike to try to eliminate maybes but no joy.
 
That sounds frustrating ! But you’re right, prevention is better than fixing when it come to possible catastrophic failure.

Is there any possible link between your two issues?

IE are there any oil ways near the tach drive, or similar, that could be A) leaking oil pressure whilst B) dumping excessive oil in that area thus causing, or at least accentuating, the leak ?
 
The cam tunnels seemed over full to me. They are fed by whatever drains from the head. The head is
rarely overfed as it depends on two feed methods. First it uses whatever the blow off is on the main
oil feed line from the pump. With an S2 that is whatever exceeds 60psi. Only in the world of the designer
does the pump make 60 psi much less an excess of that. Sure, when cold start you can see that but once
fully warmed the OP heads south. Faced with this, they drilled a TINY hole in the OPRV needle so there would be at least a few molecules of lube headed upstairs at all times. The valve needle, the OPRV, the
pump and timing cover have been swapped with the good engine with no change. All those parts work
correctly on the good engine as well. It still appears there may be too much oil headed up. Have not yet
pulled the rods but they feel ok.
 
Here is a pix of the crank bare. It may be of some interest to Nortoneers as a comparison. A massive thing one piece with huge main bearings. Rod journals are 1.875" By the time the Series 2 was being produced Norton was in overall command which is why the bike had a Norton front end and a Norton front brake. Inability to use the Norton oil pump was a real shot in the neck in my opinion. Norton closed down RE in spring of 70. RIP Enfield.
 

Attachments

  • Rickman Enfield Engine removal
    Inter_S2_crank_P1130121.JPG
    329.4 KB · Views: 62
Onder said:
Here is a pix of the crank bare. It may be of some interest to Nortoneers as a comparison. A massive thing one piece with huge main bearings. Rod journals are 1.875" By the time the Series 2 was being produced Norton was in overall command which is why the bike had a Norton front end and a Norton front brake. Inability to use the Norton oil pump was a real shot in the neck in my opinion. Norton closed down RE in spring of 70. RIP Enfield.
Click to expand...
Crank looks decent
 
Well it had better as it is NOS. This is not the one from the bike itself but one that will go into a spare set of cases that I have. Both journals spec'ed out to factory numbers. Always paranoid I not only mic'ed but
used Plastigauge. Probably 45 years since I last used it and surprised to find it made in UK.
 

Attachments

  • Rickman Enfield Engine removal
    Plastigauge_P1130145.JPG
    410.8 KB · Views: 57
  • Rickman Enfield Engine removal
    Plastigauge_P1130132.JPG
    1,010.2 KB · Views: 59
  • Like
Reactions: baz
Onder said:
Here is a pix of the crank bare. It may be of some interest to Nortoneers as a comparison. A massive thing one piece with huge main bearings. Rod journals are 1.875" By the time the Series 2 was being produced Norton was in overall command which is why the bike had a Norton front end and a Norton front brake. Inability to use the Norton oil pump was a real shot in the neck in my opinion. Norton closed down RE in spring of 70. RIP Enfield.
Click to expand...
Nice !
 
Another of the things that never were sorted was head design. It needs a Jim Comstock to do with it like
he did with the FullAuto head. The valves look like they came out of an aircraft: too big and too heavy. These bikes have issues with even warm weather and I suspect a lot of this is poor head flow. It was at a time when big valves were thought to be the answer.
Anybody want to do some development? I have a spare set of heads. Yes, heads plural, they are separate castings...as are the cylinders! Poor Enfield they never made it past the 1930s. :-O
 
I recently aquired '64 a S1 Interceptor & I'm really looking forward to pulling it apart for rebuilding. That crank is a very impressive piece of kit to look at, SG iron & dynamically balanced. It's just a shame Norton didn't get the machinery together to make something similar. I've always had a soft spot for Royal Enfields, as my first 250 was a '67 Continental GT.
 
I have never owned a Series 1 but they are said to be better off in the head department. And yes they were dynamically balanced
and are smoother than your average BSA! It is difficult to understand how you could choose a Series 2 over a 1970 Commando.
 
Onder said:
I have never owned a Series 1 but they are said to be better off in the head department. And yes they were dynamically balanced
and are smoother than your average BSA! It is difficult to understand how you could choose a Series 2 over a 1970 Commando.
Click to expand...
Having never owned or even ridden a S2 Interloper I can't begin to compare. How do you think they compare?
 
A sorted Commando feels like a modern bike. A sorted Interceptor feels like a nice 1950 bike....
Now I own and ride a Series 2 and I like it. But I am under no illusions. My 74 Norton is just so
much better. To be fair, it should be compared to a 70 model but that isn't that much of a difference.
The early Inters had a less effective front brake than the S2 and suspect the forks as well.
 
So, as harsh as it feels to say so, Norton were right to pull the plug and focus on the Commando …?
 
Enfield was out of time money and interest. It needed serious development and even that would have only kicked the can down the rather short road. It actually was no different than the BSATriumph twins in terms of life expired designs. As far as Norton saw
it why allow any competition to exist? RE had an experimental '800cc' (I think actually around 775 as the Interceptor 750 is actually 736cc) which apparently went well. But it still had the weak gearbox and barely adequate oil pump. Why not deal with that first? Because power sold bikes and if you remember the late 60s that was the curse of the brit bikes. Blame the Americans I guess.
 
When Triumph merged with Norton they wound up selling the Commando and the Bonnie. The did have the old BSA 500 single which was trial fitted to the Commando frame, as was the Trident, but the 500 twin was dropped. And speaking of dropped, the newest design, the Trident, was too. Hard for some to swallow but it was the correct move. Most wanted the stomp of the parallel twins and they were sorted and ready.
The enlarged Trident was not and cost more to build. Worse, triples never caught on with the riding public. Commando was the biggest hodge-podge of them all and actually was the best. By this point Enfield was ancient history and quickly forgotten. There are more Interceptors in this country now than in the 70's.
 
Onder said:
A sorted Commando feels like a modern bike. A sorted Interceptor feels like a nice 1950 bike....
Now I own and ride a Series 2 and I like it. But I am under no illusions. My 74 Norton is just so
much better. To be fair, it should be compared to a 70 model but that isn't that much of a difference.
The early Inters had a less effective front brake than the S2 and suspect the forks as well.
Click to expand...
I must to agree regarding the front brake. It looks like something off a 125, with the exception of being double sided. If I can't make it work well I'll fit a disc, as I have done on my Big Head Bullet.
 
Onder said:
When Triumph merged with Norton they wound up selling the Commando and the Bonnie. The did have the old BSA 500 single which was trial fitted to the Commando frame, as was the Trident, but the 500 twin was dropped. And speaking of dropped, the newest design, the Trident, was too. Hard for some to swallow but it was the correct move. Most wanted the stomp of the parallel twins and they were sorted and ready.
The enlarged Trident was not and cost more to build. Worse, triples never caught on with the riding public. Commando was the biggest hodge-podge of them all and actually was the best. By this point Enfield was ancient history and quickly forgotten. There are more Interceptors in this country now than in the 70's.
Click to expand...
I have always thought of the commando as the best and most successful bodge up in motorcycle history
It's greater than the sum of its parts
 
plastigage: that picture shows how it works very well, which I had not looked up before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top