Reproducing ET Crankcases

I was lucky enough to find a complete NOS ET 967 kit for a fair price. Thing is since Art is unfortunately no longer among us, and Mark Erikson isn't up to speed yet, availability of a crankcase is non-existent.

By pure coincidence, a local friend has his 1107 torn down for maintenance and repair. This gave me the opportunity to thoroughly inspect and measure the 1107 as CNC machined by Art. Knowing the 1107 and 967 are the same except the 1107 uses a stroker crank, I made the BOLD assumption that the case porting would be super similar if not the same.

So I sandblasted all the nooks and crannies to be filled in the top crankcase, washed it in warm soapy water, then soaked it in acetone for 20 minutes. Then I filled it with JB weld. This took 2.5 packages of the big 10oz JB weld.

IMG_7013.jpgIMG_7016.jpg
 
Last edited:
Then I got to work. I own my own Bridgeport. So boring the case to accept the base of the cylinders was straight forward. And I used a .500" ball end mill to radius the transfers and enlarge the boost port.

Then I got creative with the bridgeport. This was for the tunnel/finger port work. By placing the case on the table at an angle and having the milling head rotated, I was able to use the borrowed 1107 cases to establish the angles needed for the tunnel/finger ports. Turns out, a .625" end mill fits perfectly into the corners of the tunnel/finger ports. So I used a 4 inch long, .625 end mill to hog out the tunnels.
IMG_7055.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here are the results. This is my first attempt. There are two small blemishes, and I might do another set of cases (because I am a perfectionist when it comes to this sort of stuff) But all in all, I'm super satisfied with the results. The cases with the pulse lines and studs on the intake are Art's CNC work, the other case is my effort to reproduce.
IMG_7063.jpgIMG_7067.jpgIMG_7068.jpgIMG_7069.jpgIMG_7070.jpgIMG_7065.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7066.jpg
    IMG_7066.jpg
    189.6 KB · Views: 61
  • IMG_7072.jpg
    IMG_7072.jpg
    178.8 KB · Views: 61
Last edited:

88kawi5fiddy

pew pew lazers!
Location
So Utah
Here are the results. This is my first attempt. There are two small blemishes, and I might do another set of cases (because I am a perfectionist when it comes to this sort of stuff) But all in all, I'm super satisfied with the results. The cases with the pulse lines and studs on the intake are Art's CNC work, the other case is my effort to reproduce.
looks good.
One thing I see with a lot of ported cases, FWIW is they hog out so much material that yes they flow well, but the oil catchers are gone. yours are intact and SHOULD feed more oil to the bearings. more oily bearings = happier bearings. After case porting my own stuff I have specifically cut in longer, full transfer width grooves to catch all the oil and feed it to the bearings. Does it help? dont know. But I haven't ever blown a crank from a locked up main bearing. It should also help keep the crank seals lubed up too :)
 
looks good.
One thing I see with a lot of ported cases, FWIW is they hog out so much material that yes they flow well, but the oil catchers are gone. yours are intact and SHOULD feed more oil to the bearings. more oily bearings = happier bearings. After case porting my own stuff I have specifically cut in longer, full transfer width grooves to catch all the oil and feed it to the bearings. Does it help? dont know. But I haven't ever blown a crank from a locked up main bearing. It should also help keep the crank seals lubed up too :)
My understanding is the oil catchers only function when the engine is not running and unburnt premix drains down the transfers into the catchers and then into the bearings for the next startup.

When the engine is running, the air flowing through the cases passes over this hole and draws premix up from underneath. Very much like how a carb works.
 

88kawi5fiddy

pew pew lazers!
Location
So Utah
My understanding is the oil catchers only function when the engine is not running and unburnt premix drains down the transfers into the catchers and then into the bearings for the next startup.

When the engine is running, the air flowing through the cases passes over this hole and draws premix up from underneath. Very much like how a carb works.
oil migration times are completely, 100% depend on RPM/ air velocity. anywhere under ~2000 rpm oil is falling and/or stationary. so anytime it is at idle the bearings are getting additional oil.

If running correctly, if you tear down a good condition ski motor you should have 1/4" or so of oil in the cases. if you dont, I would up your oil ratio. more oil makes more power. makes everything live longer. all the people who think 50:1 is ideal for every situation are ignorant at best.
 
oil migration times are completely, 100% depend on RPM/ air velocity. anywhere under ~2000 rpm oil is falling and/or stationary. so anytime it is at idle the bearings are getting additional oil.
Mind sharing the article, video or other source of reference to back this up? Not to be a dick, but I'm more interested in seeing the evidence of this claim. I enjoy watching these types of super slow-mo videos.

I mean someone, somewhere must have documented this.
 
oil migration times are completely, 100% depend on RPM/ air velocity. anywhere under ~2000 rpm oil is falling and/or stationary. so anytime it is at idle the bearings are getting additional oil.

If running correctly, if you tear down a good condition ski motor you should have 1/4" or so of oil in the cases. if you dont, I would up your oil ratio. more oil makes more power. makes everything live longer. all the people who think 50:1 is ideal for every situation are ignorant at best.

Wait what? Are you saying that the oil should separate from the gasoline, or are you saying that there should be 1/4" of gasoline premix in the bottom of the case of your running motor? If the oil is not separating from the gas, then why would changing your oil ratio change the amount that is in the bottom of the case?
 

88kawi5fiddy

pew pew lazers!
Location
So Utah
Wait what? Are you saying that the oil should separate from the gasoline, or are you saying that there should be 1/4" of gasoline premix in the bottom of the case of your running motor? If the oil is not separating from the gas, then why would changing your oil ratio change the amount that is in the bottom of the case?
the oil should be separated. it still has some lower vapor pressure petroleum products in it and is quite runny, but it is in there. the higher vapor pressure components vaporize when they hit that hot crank/cases/bearings/sleeves/piston.

Mind sharing the article, video or other source of reference to back this up? Not to be a dick, but I'm more interested in seeing the evidence of this claim. I enjoy watching these types of super slow-mo videos.

I mean someone, somewhere must have documented this.
It's not a video. It is tested and verified with radionuclide quantification.

I can't recall the dyno charts off the top of my head, but 16:1 makes the MOST power. But is sloppy in throttle response. 24:1 has the best power to throttle response and longevity, but can and will load up and foul plugs if you dont absolutely wail on the engine.
It's not that different from 4 stroke engine oil pressure and RPM. you start slinging a 454 at 6500 rpm with 30lbs of oil pressure vs 60ish, which motor you think is gonna die first?
 
It's not a video. It is tested and verified with radionuclide quantification.

I can't recall the dyno charts off the top of my head, but 16:1 makes the MOST power. But is sloppy in throttle response. 24:1 has the best power to throttle response and longevity, but can and will load up and foul plugs if you dont absolutely wail on the engine.
It's not that different from 4 stroke engine oil pressure and RPM. you start slinging a 454 at 6500 rpm with 30lbs of oil pressure vs 60ish, which motor you think is gonna die first?

I've read the references you sited, and they all speak to oil migration, and quite frankly all from Harry Klemm @ group K, except for the oil calculator. Specifically the two articles speak to the amount of premix required at a given rpm to equal a constant amount of oiling.

And while they are decent reads, they are far from any sort of documented study on flow within a 2 stroke crankcase and they are from a single source, that does not list any repeatable testing or site any work from others.

I can't find anything to substantiate your claim below.

"oil migration times are completely, 100% depend on RPM/ air velocity. anywhere under ~2000 rpm oil is falling and/or stationary. so anytime it is at idle the bearings are getting additional oil."

Especially the phrase "anywhere under 2k rpm, oil is falling or stationary"

Can you please clarify?
 
Last edited:

88kawi5fiddy

pew pew lazers!
Location
So Utah
I can't find anything to substantiate your claim below.

"oil migration times are completely, 100% depend on RPM/ air velocity. anywhere under ~2000 rpm oil is falling and/or stationary. so anytime it is at idle the bearings are getting additional oil."

Especially the phrase "anywhere under 2k rpm, oil is falling or stationary"

Can you please clarify?
Seadoos after 1998 or so don't even inject oil at idle. aka the oil is not migrating. neither do most sleds. or at idle they are injecting appox 100:1 if not lower, while for a typical 8000 rpm 800cc twin they typically inject about 32:1 ratio.

I'm a chemist with a strong background in physics, and some mechanincal engineering, don't believe it then, i dont really care. Air velocity in a two stroke is garbage below 3-4000 rpm. Use some critical thinking about it; at 1000 rpm a two stroke fires about once every 7-8 rpm, thats how bad their low speed airflow is.
 
Yep thanks for derailing..............I'm surprised it took this long.

A lil' Google goes a long way....

Does the Society of Automotive Engineers have enough credibility for ya?


I sure do, but since these articles require a subscription, I cant access them. Mind screenshotting the part where "anywhere under 2k rpm, oil is falling or stationary" is mentioned? Again not trying to be a dick, just not totally sold on this.

For the record I never once made any mention of premix ratios.

" at 1000 rpm a two stroke fires about once every 7-8 rpm"

You mean Air/Fuel Mixture Combustion?

From a bad Air/Fuel Mixture? Because of Spark misfires? CDI/Ignition Coil Charging Time (~3 mili-sec)?

1000 rpm /60 sec = 16.7 rev/sec or 0.060 secs/rev

0.060 secs/0.003 secs ~ 20 Sparks could be released in that .060 Time Window

Maybe 10,000 rpms? Same as 166.7 rev/sec or 0.006 sec/rev

Again, Spark Charging Time is about 3 miliseconds, so 0.006/0.003 ~ 2 Sparks possible in that 6 milisecond Window, enough to fire every Rev @ 10k RPM.

Must be the Air/Fuel Mixture then...

" at 1000 rpm a two stroke fires about once every 7-8 rpm"

This is another claim that needs serious explanation and verification citing some references. Otherwise I call BS. Use some critical thinking, if the engine fires only 1/7th to 1/8th of the time at 1000rpm does the flywheel/rotating assembly have enough inertia to overcome the pumping losses on the non-firing strokes? In other words, would the engine even idle? And quite frankly firing only once out of every 7 strokes would be obviously audible.

Regardless of whether the engine fires or not, it still consumes air. At 16.7 revolution per second, the single cylinder of a 701 consumes 5.8 Liters of air per second (math below).

So if we consider the relatively small volume of the crankcase between the closed reeds and the closed transfer ports, and the fact that air/fuel charge gets replaced every 0.06secs (adding to the total 5.8L/sec). We are talking about a substantial volume of air moving through a relatively small volume of crankcase. This is what leads me to question the statement put out there as fact "anywhere under 2k rpm, oil is falling or stationary".

Math
1000 rpm x 350cc= 350,000 cc/min *assumes 100% volumetric efficiency (even at 85% VE still ~5.0L/sec)
350,000 cc per min / 60 minutes per hr = 5833 cc/sec or 5.8 L per sec
 

88kawi5fiddy

pew pew lazers!
Location
So Utah
Youre assuming 100% volumetric efficiency with no vacuum from the closed carb butterfly? Thats a gross error at anything except a certain rpm with WOT.
 
Top Bottom