Hitchcocks Forum

I've recently started work on a Royal Enfield Bullet I aquired earlier this year, It has had an Indian enfield 350 motor fitted, but came with a Reddich built 350 bullet engine, which I've decided to restore and put back in.
It is a magneto model, but there is something odd about the cranckcases. 2 of the 4 peg holes have been filled in with aluminium bar stock(both of the left hand crankcase peg holes).This looks like it was done at the factory, because the cranckcase was machined after this was done, once over the top of the 2 blanks, then down the side, -removing the edge of the aluminium blanking dowels to form the magneto platform.
I have a Lucas M01 magneto which seems to be correct, except it has 4 studs.
The other big difference is the crankcase breather hole. It is on the rear left corner, in roughly the 8 o'clock position and looks more like a sparkplug hole , - rather than the 3 screw fitting on most bullets.
Engine No is G2/ 35876 and yes the cases appear to be a pair (stamped 176 each side at the front) however the right hand case has a second number in a different size/font stamped on the top rear near the oil filler neck Large thin looking G (Only bottom half stamped on stud guide) large space, then 14147 in small heavily stamped numbers on the back corner.
Ideas?.....anyone...? :/

Zippy, the breather is correct for a 52-55 350 Bullet. You need to get your engine dated, go to the REOC for this, but I'd say late 54 or early 55, I have a bike with a similar number. Magnetos on Bullets usually have only 2 studs, nearest the timing side. The mag you have is for a different bike originally but you can remove the 2 studs you don't need. They are either push fit or sometimes screwed. Strange about the extra holes, never seen that! The number on the back of the case is an engine build number and only relates to the engine itself, don't worry about it. Hope this helps, REgards, Mark

Thanks mark, that's a great help,The extra stud holes are weird, It was definitely made as a 4 stud, - then blanked off. You can tell when the cases are parted on the inside, they have the swellings to take the stud holes as part of the casting. Also the black corrosion shadow outline of the magneto base is over the top of the stud blanks, so it ran like that. The magneto must have been double strapped then? (one for the dynamo and a long 2 piece one to stop the magneto escaping?

Zippy, the dynamo is piggy backed onto the magneto by a short semi circle strap and then the whole assembly is held onto the crankcases by 2 long straps which are retained by 2 of the main crankcase half studs. The semi circle strap is shown in the parts book but the 2 long straps aren't (I think!) In 1954-5 the 350 Bullet was undergoing a major redesign and there were numerous detail changes to specification which might explain the extra holes. I'm writing an article about the rebuild of a 1955 350 Bullet bought off ebay at the moment, you can read it at greenlane.biz under the title Royal Enfield Magazine.
REgards, Mark

Thanks Mark, I'll take a look. I hope there are plenty of magneto pics, as mine is incomplete. I have no idea what the drive pinon/seal arangement looks like and my points housing is completely empty not even a bearing!

Hi Mark. Just had a look at your article, yes your crankcases are very similar to mine.Not only that but your frame is exactly the same as mine - and they are a bit special too, aren't they...

Zippy, it sounds like your magdyno will need a complete rebuild! I recommend Dave Fisher at Moathouse Magnetos on 01929 421255. The seal is a sandwich of felt washers and wavy steel washers in a pressed steel cup. It looks crude but really works. Alternatively you could use a later neoprene seal from the post 55 Bullets but this may need the recess machining out.
REgards, Mark

It's worse than you think Mark, Not only is the points housing empty, I think it's the wrong one1 Mine has the advance /retard cable coming out on the left, when viewed from the points end. I think it should be on the other side...?

Zippy, I think so too (don't have mine to hand at the moment,) but don't worry, Dave can correct details like this as part of the refurbishment. Mine was the right rotation (not a problem you have with no points!) but the wrong advance like yours, and he sorted it. You could still use it, it just means you'll have "tight wire" advance rather than "slack wire". Did you see my rebuild article in the Royal Enfield Magazine at greenlane.biz ?
REgards,Mark

Hi Mark, I have managed to get most of the exterior parts I need, (mostly in stainless)But I'm having a bit of trouble getting detailed info on the interior stuff. I need to figure out which parts are "handed" and which are common to both directions of rotation. As to the advance retard situation, I had a very old ural like that. I found it was better to have a slack advance setting, as this will not creep when you go over a bump. Also it is vital to pull it back to the retard position when starting, or you get launched sideways over the hedge! . I have seen your article in issue 2, but I cant open issue 3 for some reason. Your engine and frame seem identical to mine, especially around the swingarm mounts. do you have a V5 for it? What does it say?