Late model 102

[seagull101]

one more:

[Charles uk]

The hub of your prop should have 102 on it.

[headdownarseup]

Difficult to tell from the photos but i reckon the prop is wrong. It looks too big in the hub for a 102, i think it could be from an older CP model.
Have a closer look at the prop and see if it has 100P cast into it. If it does it's the wrong prop for your motor.

One of us can help you out with the correct prop i'm sure (wink)

Judging by the pics it all looks to be more or less ok so far. Point worth mentioning with the tank swap, make sure the brackets are compatible for the larger steel tanks. These later 102's have a different tank mounting arrangement similar to a century motor, but as yours has had a brass oval tank before, the swap to a steel tank should be straight forward enough.

A little word of warning though, cylinders on these later 102's are known to corrode internally, sometimes quite badly, so well worth stripping the powerhead apart for a closer look inside. You never know what might be lurking out of sight.

Jon

[Charles uk]

I think you'll find Jon if you talk to any of the Seagull senior staff members during your researches, that the last 102 cylinders made were delivered in the very early 1970's & that they had shelves full of the when they stopped production of the WC, WD & WHC around 1973, which is why they carried on making batches of them right up to 1993, just to reduce the stock levels.

So there really weren't any late model cylinders used on the 102 series models.

[seagull101]

Hello Jon,
I have a huge box of props, what markings would be on the correct prop?
Also do you know if the weld in the exhaust pipe is factory, you can see it in some of the pictures?

Thanks, Jacob

[headdownarseup]

Chas.
If you remember one of our lengthy telephone calls ( ) it was you yourself that said the metalurgy was changed somewhat compared to the earlier cylinders, hence my comment of corrosion.

Having got one or two of these later 102 cylinders myself, i can confirm the waterjackets are plenty stuffed with crud compared to anything earlier.
Bruces's late 102 bears evidence of internal hairline cracks in the bore caused by corrosion.
Do i need to go further with my explanations.

I was just expressing words of concern that's all. JEEZ

[Charles uk]

Sorry Jon I thought you'd understood what I meant by late model cylinders using a different grade of cast iron & suffering more from lack of TLC from their owners, as your studying all the data on 102's.

Perhaps I should explain again.

It seems that during the late 1970's the type of cast iron that the foundry that cast the Silver Century & the QUB cylinders used we're told, changed to a grade that wasn't as good at resisting salt water corrosion & a lack of owner TLC, though flushing properly after every salt water use, seems to avoid much of this problem.

170 & 102 cylinders don't seem to suffer as badly from the same ailment in my experience, but use them in salt water for a couple of hours, avoid the bother of a fresh water flush & then park in the shed for 2 or 3 years & you too, might be able to join the cracked cylinder gang!

As all models of Seagull outboards use cast iron cylinders, they can all suffer from the same problem, but a little TLC & they could last longer than we will!

[headdownarseup]

Let's start again shall we.

Charles:
I have no access to previous BS employees so this path of exploration for me is a non-starter.
I'm fully aware that over the years the uses of slightly different materials during the entire lifetime of the company will (and probably has) change/d at some point. Cylinders aside for the moment, they don't make 'em like they used to. (probably down to costs again i expect)
I'm a firm believer in that if you happen to use your ancient Seagull in the salty stuff, you'd be wise to flush as much as possible of all traces of the nasty salt. Time takes it's toll when it comes to corrosion, and it's something that often rears it's head in discussions on here. We've seen plenty of evidence of this over the years, and as you say a little bit of tlc goes a very long way.
This much we can both agree on


Back to late 102's then.
Props
As far as i can gather there could be a few choices here seeing as this could have been manufactured during the 90's. What they are exactly i'm not entirely sure.(to date including yours seagull101 i have data on 4 such motors, so not very much to go on as yet, but every little scrap of evidence adds up) Suffice to say that the more common hydrofan 4 bladed version is probably going to be one of them. Most props designed for use on a 102 will have the numbers 102 cast somewhere into the prop hub itself. On occasions this might be hidden underneath layers of paint so you might have to go digging to see those numbers.
Hope this helps

I would put up some pics but my camera is not playing the game at the moment

Jon

[Charles uk]

I think your missing the point Jon, these ED's were not manufactured in the 80's & 90's they were assembled from parts that sat on the slow moving spares racks or the current product rack i.e. CDI's & recoil starters.

Often these were sold at the spare partshop at the factory in Poole, though obviously the Australian distributor must have ordered a few for so many to turn up there.

At the end in 1994 there were only 4 or 5 full time staff.

When Charles & I started our parallel researches we had no access to any ex staff members it had closed 10 years before, we had to go out & find them, often by getting a name from the local Seagull dealer, then by searching the Poole phone directory for every body called Andy Capp & then ringing them to see if they were the Andy Capp who worked at Seagull as the stores manager, one ex member of staff often led to several others who remembered differing amounts, some of whom I still talk to.
I think it was the other Charles who found 2 people who'd signed customer letters that he'd been given, I think one was the lady who applied the logos to fuel tanks.

Don't rule anything out otherwise you risk getting nowhere.

[seagull101]

Another question:
How do I tell if the Amal 416 carb has been converted to 25:1?

Jacob

[headdownarseup]

Charles
Alright i'll re-phrase my earlier comment of manufactured to "put together". Does this make more sense now.

Not missing the point at all.
You guys did most of the donkey work back then, i'm just going over a few things that are of interest to me as a 102 guy.
I never rule anything out, i'm normally quite optimistic as a rule.


I do apologise for all this Jacob. This was supposed to be your thread
I think all the Amal 416 carbs are already designed to run at 25:1 so there's nothing to do here except for a good clean.

Jon

[Nudge]

How do I tell if the Amal 416 carb has been converted to 25:1?

It comes that way.... now saying that, have a look and see what jet it has (more than likely a 95 but could be a 100)
I have happly run my silver with a 416 carb on 10:1 because that is what I had. I have also run it on 15 ~ 16:1.

I now run it on 20:1 easy to mix, good amount of oil not a lot of smoke.