Forum

[Rattlebattle]

Or you could just put a Hitchcocks carb conversion on your EFI bike and get all the good bits of the UCE bikes whilst doing away with the bit that puts off s lot of people. Personally I don't mind EFI; I just don't like the system on the RE that really needs money spending on it if you want to change inlet and exhausts.

[Rattlebattle]

To be fair, the bike mentioned with fuel pump issues had done more than 40,000 miles and anyway it turned out to be a blocked filter. The pump (a Keihin, so not a rubbish make) has since been reinstalled. Of more concern to me is the nylon gear that drives the oil pump. There is a current thread about one that has lost a tooth (!). I shall change mine at the same time the oil seal should be changed -!something like 12 k miles, without checking. An easy enough job. I'll probably change the gear sprocket for a larger one too, as the engine cover had to be removed to do this. I should perhaps also point out that the iron barrel pump drive is not exactly brilliant either....

All in all I'm delighted with my UCE C5. Most of the niggles are well known (dodgy earth leads, sensor connectors that need separating, electric greasing and putting back, choice of option to get the fuelling right - PCV, EJK or carb to taste, unless one is happy with the standard bazooka silencer and flat performanc. Really though for the most part they're reliable, have a lovely clutch and gearbox (light years ahead of anything Albion ever produced- what isn't?) and can withstand sustained high cruising speed. I'd rather have that than have to do s complete engine rebuild at 10k miles as my brother had to do on his 500 iron bullet, bought new in 1992. i.e. Most issues with the EFI are niggles; the 500 iron Bullets need a proper rebuild with English bits before they are reliable- then again they were very cheap bikes; the UCE ones are not.

[Scalyback]

Dedication to the cause sounds good, but having got Tornado exactly as I wanted him, I'm not starting again and anyway, he is family now.

[Rattlebattle]

Yes, it's about finding a bike that's right for you and then getting it exactly how you want it. They call them keepers I believe. My C5 isn't leaving any time soon. For me it's got just the right amount of riding: spannering.

[jefrs]

I kinda agree with Rattlebattle but having fitted the PCV, I would not swap it for a carb now. The carb conversion kit was not available at the time. Fitting the PCV is kinda simple, it just plugs straight in, understanding pages of number is perhaps not. The PCV does however also control the ignition A/R which you lose with the carb conversion. Fitting the PCV is simplicity, but it does have to be enabled, which means waving a laptop at it. And it has to be mapped, which means Hitchcocks maps because they're the only company with RE-specific maps (Ok so Dynojet have one but it's like don't bother). Fitting a carb requires several drastic changes to the engine/management.



If you have swapped out the stock "towing a log" silencer you will have noticed just how heavy it is, quite apart from being pug-ugly. From there is an easy step to swap out the air filter for a better one. You can change the silencer on the ECU and it will cope with that but once you change the entire exhaust system and the air filter it can't and we need to do something else because the air/fuel mix has gone to pot. Even though the ECU is mapped to over 18,000-ft, it is designed for very poor fuel; we have an 'export' ECU, it is not the same as the 'domestic' indian ECU. The stock ECU does not allow user-tinkering, nanny rules, the PCV does.



I could have got any bike I liked. I wanted a bike to potter around country lanes without wrestling with it. I have short legs, so it had to fit me and I dislike very heavy bikes. I had a hankering to relive my long-ago 350 but in reliable format. I like tinkering with bikes but did not want to have repair or rebuild an old bike.

[Rattlebattle]

I don't worry too much about the ignition timing after fitting the carb conversion. It still has an advance curve because the crankcase position sensor is still active. In effect, therefore, it just runs off the base map and is no different to a Boyer or equivalent on any other engine with a carb. The original kit included a replacement generator and ECU, which is why it cost more than the PCV, but our hosts found that the engine runs just as well on the original generator and ECU - hence the much lower cost and why I opted for it over the PCV. After all, the engine is low revving and hardly needs sophisticated ignition timing unless tuned with hotter cams etc. My pre-unit Triumph effectively runs fixed timing, since with a manual mag apart from starting the engine it runs on full advance, as was the case with n big singles with the same system, albeit with a little judicious retarding to keep it in top gear at slow speeds. No need to be concerned about the ignition on an EFI with a carb conversion.

[jefrs]

I'm wondering how H have managed the carb kit using the ECU without giving it a fit by removing most of its sensors. The PCV has an ignition table, from that we can deduce the base ECU ignition A/R map. Looking at these we can see the ECU uses not only the crank sensor (for timing and revs) but also the throttle position sensor (TPS) not only to determine fuel flow but to regulate the ignition timing. The ignition table shows revs and throttle opening but we know from elsewhere that it also utilises fuel-air flow (MAP, manifold pressure) to determine whether it is accelerating, steady or decelerating (the PCV also recognises a 'delta' (change) input from the sensors). A Boyer (et al) ignition chart shows A/R vs revs. The ECU (&h PCV) also incorporates the TPS and probably the MAP too into the mix, it is pretty sophisticated.



When you get down to it, altering the PCV tables is less difficult than re-jetting a carb, just a lot of numbers which a many folks will shy away from.