|
|
Post by DOUG (gopher) on Apr 11, 2007 19:12:48 GMT -5
Hi,
I've been reading that the xt500 is basically the same bike as an SR500. Is it possible to put the guts (engine/tank/seat/swingarm/forks/etc) in an XT500 frame??
Can anyone tell me if it would be a straight unbolt from the SR and Bolt onto the XT??
thanx
|
|
|
|
Post by colinjay on Apr 11, 2007 21:38:25 GMT -5
Hi,
The "basically the same" is very misleading. The engines will interchange, but virtually none of the cycle part (seat, tank, airbox etc) from a SR will fit onto a XT/TT frame and visa-versa. The front forks and swingarm will fit but thats about it!
CJ
|
|
|
|
Post by wotavidone on Apr 11, 2007 22:51:23 GMT -5
As CJ says, the mounts for tank, seat, and airbox are different. But the XT alloy tank would be nice and light, albiet smaller capacity.
There is, in my opinion an advantage in swapping engines. I read an article recently that I found on the net. It was a review of the SR when it first came out, and it listed the differences from the XT.
There are a lot of differences internally between an SR and XT engine that make the SR a much better beasty. When you combine that with the articles claim that the SR frame was made of heavier guage tubing, so inherently weighs a lot more, you can gain a fair performance advantage by combining the SR engine's bigger intake valve, better head porting, etc, with the XT frames lighter weight.
I reckon that an SR engine in a stripped XT frame, with wire TT wheels, would result in a bike that weighs about 50 pounds less than a stock SR. This would result in quite an improvement in power to weight ratio.
There no doubt will be some debate around whether frame flex is a factor here.
According to this article, the XT has one rubber mount in the engine while the SR engine is fully rigidly mounted. Can't say whether this would help frame flex at all. Also I musta put my XT engine back in with my eyes shut, can't say I noticed a rubber mount, unless it was the rear bolt at the top of the gear box which, now I think about did appear to have some sort of sleeve in it.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by DOUG (gopher) on Apr 11, 2007 23:27:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by milkman on Apr 12, 2007 0:04:36 GMT -5
i was looking at those too.
I like the bike in the background, flat tracker with and alloy cafe tank. Without any apparent bars, it looks really nice
|
|
|
|
Post by milkman on Apr 12, 2007 1:00:24 GMT -5
speaking of frames, there is a rollinog chassis SR on ebay Aust today, everything but the engine I think, with a cafe seat on it.
Lots of other parts on there aswell at the moment
|
|
|
|
Post by aero on Apr 12, 2007 3:43:15 GMT -5
I've cut up an SR frame, if they made it out of any thinner tube they'd be in trouble.
I think there is less metal in the XT frame, there a lot of sh*te at the back of a SR compared to the XT.
But the frame is quite a good design, the large diameter oil reservoir top tube gives it one hell of a lot of stiffness, certainly its much stiffer then most other Japanese frames of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by colinjay on Apr 12, 2007 23:59:55 GMT -5
Hi all,
I concure with Areo, regarding the SR frame.
For their time they are a good stong design and handle well apart from the suspension induced problems which are now easily overcome. If you look at a some of the after market / performance frame from the 1970's, and especially the EGLI frames, they used large diameter thin walled tubes for the main frame backbone, which is probably where Yamaha got the idea for the XT/TT/SR frames from.
Unless you have crashed an SR and bent / broken the frame (they commonly brake at the headstem in a bad head on crash) I can't see the point in swaping to an XT/TT frame unless you are building a dirttrack / motard special.
CJ
|
|
