OutdoorKing Repair Forum Forums Finding and Swapping Tip & Curb Side Finds Victa Twin and Lightweight

Anyone on here bid on this???

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190541268424 [old link]

Got pipped at the post. Couldnt justify bidding any more than that.

not me but that would have made a perfect catcher for my victa compact!!

Not me, but it had caught my eye.

I'm not much for electrics, but this one is nice from a collector perspective due to its classic look, feels like something i should one day get to complete th VC-family so to speak!

I wanted the catcher too.
Wasnt sure if i should have kept it or onsold it.

Dunno if there would be a compact/lightweight owner desperate enough to fork out more than $50 for a catcher.

Did victa make a full size electric???

Are the twin and lightweight the same engine to frame bolt pattern as the power torque/briggs???

If somone were to bring me a very good condition (near mint) with labels catcher for my compact they would be walking away with more than $50... I watched a N.O.S one go for over $200 quite a while ago. I do have a catcher for mine but its pretty sad

Yeah i saw pictures of it somewhere, has a big crack in the bottom of it doesnt it???

I have never taken the engine off a twin base but looking at one of my spare engines they are far from being the same of either an old victa engine or a powertorque pattern...

Honestly cant remember where the crack is in it, it has been wrapped in a blanket in my shed for a long time now, I think it was along the bottom though.

Hi Bob,
No, the twin engine is actually bolted to the base by the Cylinders, with the Crank Case supported between. This is because the Muffler is entirely underneath the base, and the Exhaust ports need to be firmly mounted to the base to seal the passage through for burnt gases.

The Lightweight has a similar set up, but in its case the front end of the case that replaces the second cylinder has protrusions for mounting at this end.

Heres a few pics:




Heres the crankcase end for the lightweight:

Thanks Ty


Reason i was asking as i was thinking of having a go at taking the electric motor off the base and fitting it on an 18" base.

I wont ever find a catcher for it so put it on something with a catcher.


I see Reed valve there in the last pic. At 85cc with a reed valve it should have gone OK on a 16" base. The twin would have a bit of poke too.


Bob.

Yep, the twin and lightweight had the carby direct to the crank case with the reed valve, the only victa 2-stroke engines i know of that did not have it through the cylinder.

What mounts does the electric engine have?

Heres the rest of that picture:

I think the electric bases are slightly different mounting to the compact victa engine, I cannot be certain but I do remember hat the base was no good to me but the catcher and everything else attached to the base was....

Thanks Joe. I will check it out.


That picture makes me wonder if a bloke got one of those reed valve assemblies if it could be made to fit on a series 80.

Rodeobob,

considering that there is a G4/LM carby over that reed valve
i would bet it has the same size mounting base as the cylinder mounted intake manifold
so it would fit for sure

Nah the reed valve is part of the inlet manifold I used to have a apare one but it would be way too big to fit over the port of the series 80...

Im sure if i put the cylinder in a mill and machined it flat i could get it to work.


Thats if i could be bothered and i probably couldnt.

I don't see why you would put a reed valve in a port-controlled intake passage unless there was some oddball situation like a multi-cylinder engine involved. Normally reed valves are placed on intake pipes that open directly into the crankcase, so the reed valve takes the place of the piston-controlled port.

Nah plenty of piston port bikes had reeds them.


Stops the intake pulse back up to the carb. Makes it stuff the good stuff round the piston up to where to does whats its meant too.

I guess you'd have to do dynamometer tests with and without, Bob, to see whether it helps. Piston ports give you lousy timing, and reed valves give you lousy volumetric efficiency. Using both together sounds like a very strange choice. Generally, if you want to make a 2 stroke give high power without supercharging, a rotary valve on the crankshaft alleviates both the port timing and volumetric efficiency problems. That is for high speed engines - rotary valves tend to be too expensive for cheapies. A reed valve directly into the crankcase is very good for low speed engines - volumetric efficiency isn't all that good, but it fixes the blow-back problem and gives correct intake timing as well (unlike ported intake systems).

Pretty sure if more go was needed i would just swap in a motorbike motor. Stick with something proven and tested.

I suspect the bike engines you've seen with a reed valve, actually had the intake port positioned so low, and the piston skirt cutaway so high, that the piston was not actually controlling the intake. That would make it a conventional reed valve 2 stroke - tends to have good low speed torque and fairly easy starting (for a 2 stroke).

Nah they have port windows in the piston.


A lot of the crank case inducted motors have a cut away in the bottom of the skirt as with the gearbox and all the other jazz its not possible to get the intake just into the crankcase so with the piston at TDC the skirt would still cover the intake port.

I agree about the cutaway skirt Bob, but the question is whether the intake port is closed by the piston during the crankcase compression phase of the cycle. A port-controlled intake system has to close off the intake port when the descending piston is still fairly high in the cylinder, so there won't be a lot of backflow out through the carburetor due to the early part of crankcase compression. That unfortunately means the intake port doesn't open until the piston is fairly high up in the compression stroke. As a result a port-controlled 2 stroke has a powerful crankcase suction phase, that you can feel quite sharply on the starter cord. A reed valve 2 stroke leaves the intake port open all the time or very nearly all the time, and relies on the reed valve to enable crankcase compression to happen for the full length of the downward stroke of the piston. Because the intake port is open all the time, crankcase induction happens for the full length of the upward stroke of the piston, so there is no crankcase suction that you can feel on the starter cord.

It can be convenient for the design engineer to have what looks like a piston-controlled intake port, but to position it as low as possible on the cylinder while also cutting away the piston skirt so the intake port stays open virtually all the time. Then a reed valve is positioned as close as possible to the intake pipe's flange mount on the cylinder. While it may look like a port-controlled intake system, it is actually a normal reed valve design.

Reed valve designs allow a considerably more effective crankcase induction process at low engine speeds, but they are not very good at high speeds: they restrict the gas flow, and they take a finite amount of time to open and close, so timing is delayed. The result is they are a great way to make low speed 2 strokes, but not a competitive way to make high speed 2 strokes. If you want high power output at more than, say, 6,000 rpm, port control is better than reed valves. (I don't think you will ever find a reed valve in a modern chainsaw.) At lower speed it is the other way around, and reed valves are better. So why do Victa and Villiers 2 stroke engines have port control, despite being low speed engines? It's because reed valves cost more than port control.