According to an article in Real Classic magazine in March 2018 by Roger Slater, original importer of 350cc Indian Enfields back in the seventies ( and of course more famous for giving the world the Laverda Jota a decade later), the balance factor of the UCE is 58-60% for the C5/B5 (ie engine as stressed member of frame). He wanted to explore why so many Americans ( he now lives in the USA) find the vibration on the UCE models so offputting and to see if he could improve it. He stripped his own C5 down and found (surprise, surprise - not) that his crank was neither balanced correctly within spec nor did the flywheels run true. He therefore set about balancing it to spec and trueing it up. A very useful series of articles, resulting in a transformed bike. He, of course did it in the usual way, drilling holes in brass plugs he fitted to the flywheels until it was in spec.
I have always contended that the owner experience is directly affected by how well his or her bike was put together at the factory. A good one will give no trouble; a bad one is awful.
These bikes were designed primarily for Indian use, where there is a “mechanic” on every corner. They were “developed” to be sold in other markets where top gear is used at speeds above 25mph and petrol conservation is not the prime objective. As such, they were an incremental development of the old iron barrel. It is not a more rational modern design like the Himalayan (to some extent) and the later 650 twin, which very much is. Nor were the early ones built on modern production lines. I have the contemporary sales literature with mine (2015) when they were clearly still hand-built.
IMHO it is a poor design. The oil feed is iffy, relying on an oil seal on a join between outer and inner crankcases. Perhaps that is the issue with the apparent collapse of hydraulic lifters? If there is a leak at the seal the oil won’t flow to the lifters as well as it should. It would worsen as the oil warms up, then recover at tickover. See Harald’s posts.Hydraulic lifters are a silly idea really; why not have adjustable pushrods, especially as there is already an inspection cover. And yes, why on earth can the lifters not be removed through the timing cover? And why, in the late noughties when these were designed, did they not change to spin-on, full-flow oil filters like the rest of the manufacturers? Why did they not consign primary chains to history where they belong. Vertically split cases, really? All for what, the thump of a long-stroke single. Surely that could have been achieved using a modern design while appearing outwardly similar? By contrast, the 650 twin, a bike superior in every way, except perhaps “feel” for those who like thumpers, bears little relationship to the old British RE twins and is a lot better for that, in terms of reliability, easy maintenance, design and reputation. There’s a reason why it has been so successful in Western markets.
For my part I have decided that enough is enough. My C5 will shortly be for sale at a low price, but not on this forum because I want rid of the bike as well as all the accessories, spares and workshop tools I’ve accumulated and I respect the fact that I should not advertise here in competition with our host.
I admire your perseverance, Cranky, not to mention your lateral thinking approach to trying to make a sow’s purse out of a pig’s ear, or something. Me, I shall ride off into the sunset on my new Honda, safe in the knowledge that it’s unlikely to need any sort of major surgery in 6,500 miles, or 65,000 miles if I pamper it like I did my C5...
Will I ever buy another RE, I don’t hear you ask? Not until a new single has been designed by the ex-Triumph team, has been around for a few years and has been found to be as reliable and major fault free as a modern bike should be. Maybe the new Meteor ( did the ex-Triumph designers come up with that name? It’s as inappropriate as some of the Hinckley model names) will turn out to be what it promises. By then we’ll probably all be forced to go electric anyway....
Cheerio
