Bultaco 250 Sherpa restoration

[Ainsley]

I have owned this 1967 Bultaco Sherpa T for ages, it was the first bike I bought and rode.

Originally bought in 1982 for £400, I did some competitions on it then sold it when I was skint.

Years later bought it back off the chap I sold it to, he needed the money, but it was in bits in a box then. He had road registered it and had it taxed and running on the road at one point. So it does have a number registration YMO 215F.

I did a few more competitions on it, but it needed a restoration even back then. There was no working front brake when I last rode it back in the early 90's.

Its sat in the corner of my garage getting dusty since then. So I've now decided to fully restore it back to original spec. A weekend of research leads me to at least know its year and model number - I think. Looking at the various websites, the matching chassis and engine number tell me its model 27, but the tank / seat unit seem to be from a later model. Except I did read those, plus a different exhaust, came as a competition upgrade. However, all the pictures I've seen for the 27 do not show a built in sump guard, whereas mine has one.

Can anyone confirm the 27 did come with the same built in sump guard as mine ?

I've been to see a chap who can rebuild the engine and wheels, I've also seen a chap who can clean up the frame and paint it. I want to do as much as I can myself, but happy to pay experts to get an expert result. Last time I rebuilt my KX250 motocross bike about 4 times, probably four times because I was not too good at it. So paying someone to do the Bultaco professionally should mean its done once.

Just to add a bit of oddness, the gear lever is on the right and the brake on the left. Side stand is also on the right hand side. I believe that's so they could import and sell in the US. Harley made the US government rule that all bikes had to have left hand brakes to stop the competition, so Bultaco got round that by having the ability to switch them left to right.
 

 

[Ainsley]

[woody]

The frame isn't a model 27 frame, it's from a later model, looks like a model 80, could be a late model 49 or even an Alpina. The number on the headstock would normally identify it but if that is a prefix 27 number it has been restamped.  The M27 frame didn't have a mesh guard between two frame tubes, it had the Y shape frame under the engine with a bolt on sump guard

To restore to an original M27 spec is going to be an awful lot of work and first you need a frame. Also a tank, seat, airbox, sidepanels. It's going to cost a lot. Personally I wouldn't bother, you have the basis of a useable bike which you could use and enjoy for what it was intended - throwing up sections. Does it matter if it is a non matching frame/engine, it won't cost you marks in sections...

You could make it look like a model 80 slimline for a lot less than trying to restore to M27 looks. I'd guess Motofibre could restore the tank side piece where it's been cut off for the exhaust. Recover the seat, get the exhauist altered to the correct angle and you're nearly there. In terms of engine performance there is little if any difference between the M27 through to M80 range

The upgrade you mention was made available to convert the model after the M27. the M49, to M80 spec

[Ainsley]

Ah, so someone stamped a false number on the frame then.  Blimey, wonder why they did that.

Id better start looking at model 80's or 49's then. 

I assume the engine is a model 27, though, or do you reckon that's been "adjusted" as well ?

[Ainsley]

This is the frame number.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Ainsley

[rcgods]

Bultaco never stamped their frames that way.

 

And its on the wrong side of the headstock.  Should be on the throttle side and running like the JB in that photo.

 

 

[Ainsley]

Ah.  Oh well, perhaps they figured it would be good to have matching numbers then.  When I first bought it in the early 80's I never looked, or know about numbers.  Could have been done by the chap I sold, then bought it off, but not sure why he would do that.  Its not like he tried to sell it for any money, I bought it back off him for about 400 quid I seem to remember.

But it does seem to be a 27 engine though.

 

[Ainsley]

But as Woody says, it doesn't really matter.  I can still get it all looking and running like new.

I wonder how much a 27 frame would cost though after I take into account selling mine.

Edited November 14, 2021 by Ainsley

[Ainsley]

Would the exhaust for that engine fit properly into the later 80 frame ?  Or is that why its been bodged ?

[woody]

2 hours ago, Ainsley said:

Ah.  Oh well, perhaps they figured it would be good to have matching numbers then.  When I first bought it in the early 80's I never looked, or know about numbers.  Could have been done by the chap I sold, then bought it off, but not sure why he would do that.  Its not like he tried to sell it for any money, I bought it back off him for about 400 quid I seem to remember.

But it does seem to be a 27 engine though.

 

 

As mentioned above the frame number is a DIY stamping, not Bultaco, The number isn't even formatted correctly as there should be no 'J', that prefix was introduced around 1975, it should just be a B prefix. It would need to have a frame number related to its age to get a dating certificate to register it on an age related plate, that's probably why it has been stamped up like it is. If you take the paint off the other side of the headstock you might find a trace of the orginal number unless it's been completely ground away

Engine stamp is genuine

[woody]

2 hours ago, Ainsley said:

But as Woody says, it doesn't really matter.  I can still get it all looking and running like new.

I wonder how much a 27 frame would cost though after I take into account selling mine.

 

You'd be incredibly lucky to find a 27 frame, Bultaco didn't make many of that model.  For use in trials, the frame you have is a better frame with more ground clearance, there is nothing to gain by reverting to a 27 frame if you could find one, other than it being the right type for appearance (just my opnion of course but those early frames with the Y bottom tube layout are quite ugly and clumsy looking)

[woody]

2 hours ago, Ainsley said:

Would the exhaust for that engine fit properly into the later 80 frame ?  Or is that why its been bodged ?

It fits the frame as you can see as it's already in there, but it isn't the right exhaust for that tank/seat unit which is why it's been cut. The model 80 silencer slopes down to the footrest. It also has a small triangular end silencer between the frame and the shock but the bracket for that has been cut off.  Just google images for model 27, 49 and 80 and you'll see the similarities and differences

[Ainsley]

OK, thanks for the info Woody.

Looking at the 27 vs the 80 I also agree, the latter does look a bit better. 

Plus as you say, better ground clearance.  So I will carry on restoring it, but not bother trying to make it a 27 and just get it all looking and working nice with the engine as a 27 and the frame as an 80 then.

I may well see the original stamp once I clean the frame up before painting it again.

 

[Ainsley]

Spent Saturday morning stripping all down into a pile of bits. Actually only took a couple of hours, there is just so little to an old 2-stroke 1960's bike. Just one bolt needed hacksawing off, one of the bolts on the front mudguard had rusted into place. The engine bolts were close to finger tight, the large ring that screws the exhaust header into the fined head was easy as well. I was expecting that to be a headache, but nope, easy. Seemed to be too good to be true. Only bit left that seems stubborn is the rear swingarm pivot, but actually since there is no play in it, I may leave it in place.

[boghopper350]

If I were you I would do my utmost to remove the swing arm pivot while you have your bike apart. They can be a right b/stard to remove, but ideally you would at least want to clean the bushes up and get some fresh grease in there.... Sorry, but it will be worth it in the long run.