Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

You can talk about almost anything here

Moderators: John@sos, charlesp, Charles uk, RickUK, Petergalileo

User avatar
Collector Inspector
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:32 am
Location: Perth Western Australia
Contact:

Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby Collector Inspector » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:19 am

If anyone remembers I got a mess via Ebay in 2009.

Took me quite some time to recondition fully mechanically. (Not Restored.......I hate that).

Anyway I am away/off to The Donnelly in Rakali with this as ballast. I have a new rego stika for my river dinghy (Pretty Blue the stika) as well so all good.

The only thing apart from fuel and check GB oil is a new cork in tap...............sorted when I get there.

It is my sweetest runner of a couple that I have.

This one is rivals a couple of LS that I have for smoooooooooooooooooooth.

Pics

20180122_165323_HDR.jpg


20180122_164258_HDR.jpg


20180122_164249_HDR.jpg


More to come when I get back to coverage.

BnC


EDIT: Last run accountable March 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5rot6PVRQ
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Just took a leaflet out of the letterbox, saying that there's no reason I can't have good sex at 65.

Brilliant - because I live at no. 49 so it's not far to walk home afterwards!

Keith.P
Posts: 2823
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:43 pm
Location: Hertfordshire
Contact:

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby Keith.P » Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:50 pm

A tidy looking motor.
Last edited by Keith.P on Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

headdownarseup
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:26 pm
Location: bristol

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby headdownarseup » Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:35 pm

There's something about a little gull that i find quite charming.
I have SJM210 (circa 1955 vintage) which also is surprisingly smooth compared to my bigger gulls. Runs really sweet too, dare i say it probably better than some of my 102's which i have a fondness for.

I hope it runs better for you than it did last time B :oops: (a loose carb was it?)

Jon

User avatar
Collector Inspector
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:32 am
Location: Perth Western Australia
Contact:

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby Collector Inspector » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:04 pm

Indeed it was a loose carb Jon, it was sorted but sadly video of it running correctly was lost.

Another go.

If anyone has a comment about the "L" which should not be there, please chip in aye.

BnC
Just took a leaflet out of the letterbox, saying that there's no reason I can't have good sex at 65.

Brilliant - because I live at no. 49 so it's not far to walk home afterwards!

headdownarseup
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:26 pm
Location: bristol

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby headdownarseup » Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:36 pm

Question for you Bruce.
When do you think your SJM was made?

I would say 1965, but i'd like to hear your side of things first.

Jon

User avatar
Hugz
Posts: 2970
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby Hugz » Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:32 am

There has been some debate whether they used "L". It seems they did. L= November.

User avatar
Nudge
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:43 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby Nudge » Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:50 am

I thought "M" was November?
Is it better to over think, than not think at all?

User avatar
Hugz
Posts: 2970
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby Hugz » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:12 am

ABCDEFGHJKLM

L = 11 = November. Am I wrong?
" i " is omitted.

User avatar
Nudge
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:43 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby Nudge » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:28 pm

You are probably right.
I was just going off the identifier

The interisting thing was when it came back with an error. So I changed the letter in the code

L5.JPG


Changed the "L" for am "M" and it showed up as November

m5.JPG


error in the identifier?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Is it better to over think, than not think at all?

headdownarseup
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:26 pm
Location: bristol

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby headdownarseup » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:42 pm

I think there will be some irregularities with the identifier. Charles has mentioned this quite a bit in the past.

All depends on where you look as well.
Look at this
http://www.britishseagullparts.com/identification.htm

The fact that Bruce's serial number has the letter L in it does suggest his featherweight was made towards that latter end of 1965. (possibly November 65)


Jon

User avatar
Charles uk
Posts: 4232
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:38 pm
Location: Maidenhead Berks UK

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby Charles uk » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:26 pm

All the British Seagull paperwork does say the the L & I were not used!

Though adding 2 stamped characters (L5) would make this motor appear 10 years younger!
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.

headdownarseup
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:26 pm
Location: bristol

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby headdownarseup » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:19 pm

Well, if the letters "L" and "I" weren't used, then how do you explain this one Chas.?

The letter "i" i can say with a fair amount of certainty i've never seen anywhere in a seagull serial number.
The letter L can at times throw up some confusion it has to be said, but in the context we're all used to seeing it in would depict a "Long shaft".

Why not as a month dating character?
For example, if Bruce's featherweight was manufactured as a long shaft (i know it wasn't) it would read as SJML661 which in that respect would make his engine appear 10 years older than it is. Who's seen a long shaft featherweight before? Nobody....

With the letter L towards the end of the serial number (L5) this makes things a little bit clearer as far as dating the engine goes, although not quite as clear as we'd like it to be.
It's clear enough for me though. November 65

If what i've read before has any truth about it, pre '63 motors had a slightly different format in the serial number layout where the letter L only ever indicated a "long shaft" whereas post '63 motors adopted the use of the letter "L" as a month indicator and the number afterwards was the year of manufacture. So, going back to Bruce's engine again SJM meaning "sealed jacket minus", 661 being the number of engine off the production line, the letter L in this case meaning November and the number 5 meaning '65.

From 1973 the use of double lettering to indicate a month identifier seems normal, and then a switch back and forth from 1 letter to double lettering for each decade thereafter.
Read this again only properly this time
http://www.britishseagullparts.com/identification.htm


Jon


Is this the kind of information the engine serial number identifiers are based around?

User avatar
Charles uk
Posts: 4232
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:38 pm
Location: Maidenhead Berks UK

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby Charles uk » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:45 pm

Jon please.
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.

User avatar
seagull101
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:30 pm
Location: Scottish islands

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby seagull101 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:34 pm

headdownarseup wrote:
The letter "i" i can say with a fair amount of certainty i've never seen anywhere in a seagull serial number.


I have: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6301

I know its been re stamped but the font would suggest it was done by seagull.

headdownarseup
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:26 pm
Location: bristol

Re: Taking SJM 661L5 For a Run

Postby headdownarseup » Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:06 pm

No, come on Charles.
Explain to us why the letter L in an engine's serial number to some folks appears to be wrong somehow.

In this particular instance i see nothing wrong with Bruce's featherweight, nor the serial number stamped into it. The letter L very clearly is a letter L that hasn't been tampered with in any way, and the number 1 of 661 is very clearly a number 1.

I have absolutely no idea why Bruce would think the letter L shouldn't be there at all?


Jacob
That was a fudged up stamping if ever i saw one :roll:


Return to “General Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests