Pro's and cons..........242 v 247/8 cota

[feetupfun]

5 hours ago, Twinshockandy said:

Thanks for pointer, must admit to thinking it was at a funny angle.

At present going around it just sussing out things to be done.............there is no chain tensioner fitted for example, where as I'm pretty sure originaly it would have had one (and there is a bracket halfway along swing arm which I guess is its location)

 

Re Mk1 Amal, is this a known fault with this model carb ? - and if so, how do users get around it, (yes I know there are other carbs out there often fitted...which is obviously an option if needed)

Slide jamming can sometimes occur with the flange mounted Mk 1 AMAL because the bore for the throttle slide can remain distorted if the mounting flange nuts have been overtightened at some point. The best way to fix it is to resleeve the slide bore, but a quick fix is to remove the high spots

[Twinshockandy]

1 minute ago, feetupfun said:

Slide jamming can sometimes occur with the flange mounted Mk 1 AMAL because the bore for the throttle slide can remain distorted if the mounting flange nuts have been overtightened at some point. The best way to fix it is to resleeve the slide bore, but a quick fix is to remove the high spots

Understood, and thanks.

[feetupfun]

5 hours ago, fourex said:

I'm pretty sure the air box is correct for this model that Andy has, being different to previous Cota 247 air boxes

.

 

 

Looks like it might meant to be like that then. I wonder what is different with the last model that they needed to change it like that?

[fourex]

G'day David, the main muffler looks quite different on this last model and takes up the space where the filter box once lived on previous models. You can see it in this pic.

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by fourex
Add picture.

[feetupfun]

32 minutes ago, fourex said:

G'day David, the main muffler looks quite different on this last model and takes up the space where the filter box once lived on previous models. You can see it in this pic.

 

Thanks Rod. Excellent photo. So did they achieve a narrower bike by doing that? I remember one of the selling points of the Sherpa T was how skinny it was at the rear end of the tank. Another thought was maybe they were trying to make it quieter. I see there are pipes on the inlet to the air filter. Maybe the main chamber of the exhaust was bigger than earlier 247s

Edited May 31, 2018 by feetupfun

[2stroke4stroke]

I can't believe an original set up would have the airbox drawing air directly from the back tyre as that photo seems to show.  Is this some previous owner's misguided mod?

[fourex]

I don't know for sure as I have not ever seen a Cota 247 C in the flesh. I'm basing everything on what I've found on the interweb and the fact I have a black framed '74 Cota 247 sitting in my garage only a few feet away from me that I'm using as a comparison, I'm fairly sure they simply added volume to that main muffler to alter power delivery but once again I am assuming.

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by fourex

[Twinshockandy]

12 hours ago, feetupfun said:

Thanks Rod. Excellent photo. So did they achieve a narrower bike by doing that? I remember one of the selling points of the Sherpa T was how skinny it was at the rear end of the tank. Another thought was maybe they were trying to make it quieter. I see there are pipes on the inlet to the air filter. Maybe the main chamber of the exhaust was bigger than earlier 247s

So given that this picture shows a late model 247.........I'm confused re the swing arm and it's chain oiler, I believed this item to have only been fitted to early 247's.............(ok as swing arms are same length etc can see it could have gained it during its life, - and what a good idea they were imo)

[iconic558]

Hi Andy, a bit late to the party but hey, so what.

I've the same bike, a 247C (Competition) and they are lovely bikes, light, small with a very friendly and smooth engine.

The early ones from June 1978 had front fork spring air assist whereby you could pump a little air into the front end to firm them up. This feature was soon deleted though, as they couldn't get the air to remain in the forks.....sounds familiar to modern MX boys

Mine is heading for a rebuild in week or so, only for a frame repaint as the tank paintwork is still original and they are only original once.

PS Your air filter is correct.

[Twinshockandy]

10 hours ago, iconic558 said:

Hi Andy, a bit late to the party but hey, so what.

I've the same bike, a 247C (Competition) and they are lovely bikes, light, small with a very friendly and smooth engine.

The early ones from June 1978 had front fork spring air assist whereby you could pump a little air into the front end to firm them up. This feature was soon deleted though, as they couldn't get the air to remain in the forks.....sounds familiar to modern MX boys

Mine is heading for a rebuild in week or so, only for a frame repaint as the tank paintwork is still original and they are only original once.

PS Your air filter is correct.

Thanks iconic558, thankfully the 247 seems to be ok, at the mo...........just as well really as the 123/172 is in the process of being fettled, - and under engine protection being added (clutch arm is under engine, and quite exposed)