The ability to post messages is restricted to LCGB members. Any questions contact us at lcgbadmin@googlemail.com
Dazts1 wrote:There is the old saying You can’t get it out without putting it in !
Although the 1st endurance engine we used proddy dsc RB 20 used 6l of fuel per hour. The year after a purpose built dsc Rb 250 was built for the same race. Bags more power guess how much fuel an hour it used ?
Knowledge wrote:Wow, what a bunch on ney-sayers.
I have ridden a 283 by Harry Barlow for many years and it makes superb power (loads of torque) but is a bit thirsty. I have ridden alongside Stuart Day’s 270cc which is based on a hand-glider engine which is incredibly fuel efficient. Both produce power in a friendly manner that delights the rider whilst never being uncontrollably or scary. For this reason, my engine never feels under stress.
Both can be considered “prototype” engines when it comes to production quantities, similar to the production numbers (so far) of the Sledgehammer. I have spoken to Jon Gilbert who has ridden the Sledgehammer and he says it is a game-changer. For that reason, I would throw-in my money behind the 333cc if I hadn’t already got the 283cc.
Believe me, low stress big cc engines are the future and this Sledgehammer appears to be the ultimate development of this configuration.
Just because 333 is half of 666, there is no need to fear the beast.
Dazts1 wrote:Hi sorry got the late reply. The RB 250 used exactly the same amount of fuel per hour as the RB 20 surprisingly. 6l per hour but bags more smiles
Covboy wrote:Does anyone on this forum have one who would be prepared to share their objective thoughts of the pro’s and cons ???
Fast n Furious wrote:I wonder what MPG you are likely to get from this engine at full chat?
I suspect a trip from the Smoke upto Leeds on the M1 with a standard tank would involve a visit to every filling station.![]()
![]()
![]()
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests