Saving Old Seagulls

Hello everyone,
Picked up my engines today. the chap I bought them off says the 102 is a 1946. However, it has a standard oval brass tank, recoil starter, electronic ignition and a Amal 416 carb.
When typing In the serial number it comes back as a January 1973 model.
Will get pics tomorrow.

Any ideas if this is a late model, a older model with newer parts or just made of parts??

Jacob

Sounds like an ED. What is the engine number? From memory l think my ED is an '81 with a steel tank. Perhaps earier ED's had the brass tank as l have come across one b4. How many motors did you purchase?

Yep, the engine number is: EDL53AA3.
It was 8 complete engines, 2 efnr legs and gearboxes and loads and loads of parts.

Jacob

That makes it 1993 must be one of the last ever built, very interesting!

EDL53AA3

From main site: "After 1963 there was a letter and number at the end of the sequence to denote month and year A = January 3 = 1963. In 1973 the codes continued with double letters, i.e. AA 3= January 1973."

But then again didn't the CDI come out in 1980?

With the engine number being 53 it must be one of the first, not that they made many.

Quite correct Hugo.

A3 1963
AA3 1973
A3 1983
AA3 1993

It couldn't be January 1973 as it an ED no CDIs then, so it must be 1993!

Thanks to everyone who replied.
Is there a chance it has the wrong ignition, the guy said so?!
But according to the main site the ED models were from 1979-mid 80s!
Its weird how it says 1973 then says 1979-mid 80s

From main site:

Data Specific To Serial Number 'EDL53AA3'


Manufacture Date: January 1973


Engine Model Details
Long Shaft




'ED' Coded Engines
Years Manufactured 1979 to Mid 1980s
Model Name 102*
Gearbox Direct 2.5:1
Prop
Fuel Mix Ratio 10:1
Cylinder Style Long Water Jacket
HP 3.5 - 4
Gear Oil SAE or EP 140
Picture
Engine Size 102cc
*Fitted with Wipac CD ignition.

Its in a dark shed and its raining to sorry if the pics are bad quality.

Jacob

It looks exactly right, E = electronic ignition, D = fixed gear 102, L = long shaft.

There are 1 or 2 glitches with the identifier which we left in place to show, who stole it word for word & who wrote their own, you've just fallen over one!

Mine has the QB aluminion style transom bracket. Is your bracket same as your others or the later one?

It has a standard silver century bronze and aluminium transom.
So does this mean that its a 1973, 1993 or somewhere between 1979 and mid 80s???

Please can everyone let me know if I need to post any pics and if so what of.

Thanks again, Jacob

As the guys have already said, it's more than likely a 1990's motor rather than a 1970's motor.
I already have data on 2 such motors, so yours in time will be added to my list. No worries. It's a good 'un.

I'll wait until you can get some pics up on here before going into all the why's and what if's..

Jon

At this stage l guestimate that it is a 93 with an earlier tank and transom bracket but l have seen one decked out the same as yours though that one had a clutch. The WD/C102 was discontinued in 1973. There are two variants of the CDI magneto - mk3 and mk4 differentiated, l believe, with one or two grooves on the flywheel that might be telling. Which is which l cannot recall.

Another nice little tale is that an individual worker made up a motor that was for his own use and may have produced an 102 with cdi and classic transom and tank. Are the leg tubes painted or chromed?

Wipac Mk 3, smooth flywheel no grooves, white CDi.
Wipac Mk 4, single groove flywheel, black CDi.

Flywheels are CDi specific & must not be used with the wrong CDi!

Hello everyone,
Went out to the shed and took some pics today. I have just removed the oval brass tank as I'm planning to fit a steel long range tank. Although I seem to be missing some bits, can anyone post pics of how it should look? Also note the thread for a clutch stud, wrong tube I'm guessing?
The motor seems to have a weld round the exhaust tube as if it was converted to a long shaft however the serial number shows its a long shaft, any ideas??
I have also included a pic of the transom that Hugo said I should have, is this correct?

more pics: