Wrong answer...completely different design. THe ct/la sleeve cylinder is heavily honda influenced in port design.
240+ engine kit?
- Thread starter SCUBA
- Start date
Wrong answer...completely different design. THe ct/la sleeve cylinder is heavily honda influenced in port design.
fin design...different
head design...different
boysen ports... different
mounting and studs... different
intake..different
reed cage...different
clutch cable mounting...different
head design...different
boysen ports... different
mounting and studs... different
intake..different
reed cage...different
clutch cable mounting...different
Wrong
The first time I read about the CT was in Dirtwheels November 2001 overthebars section of the mag, and YES YES CT did develope it, and dirtwheels was impressed with the dyno. CT even let them race their R&D machine, BUT i never saw the full report Dirtwheels claimed to do in a future issue..
I was about to trade in my blaster for a 400ex, then i read about the 40hp CT kit.........and started saving $$$$$$$$$$$$
im not saying there the same cylinders, they are obviously different in fin design and head design
what i am saying is that the port layout is EXACTLY the same, besides the CR reed cage intake, which can easily be casted in
Last edited:
agree to disagree
i remember the airsal cylinder in the very early 2000s
however, the cylinder was only available overseas (GB and such) and when i called about it, i distinctly remember them saying trenga helped them develop it (i had no clue trenga even existed at this time)
its the same CR style intake ports, triple exhaust ports and transfer port rough dimension, coincidence? idk
I thought the Factry7 / Airsal cylinder kits were the same as CT to, BUT LOOKING at the pics it looks like a 4 bolt reed cage, NO like the 6 bolt CR style in the CT kit. But maybe its a bad pic!!!!
Project Blaster - Online Store
AHHHH wait a second wait a second
my bad, when i called about the airsal kit, the year was late 2003 (i was 15 and my pops agreed to start building a quad to race in junior open A 2 stroke.. so i could run it when i turned 16). i cant believe i forgot when i did, it was around that ripe age of 16... hello drivers license
so this would make the CT kit older (if that dirt wheels article is correct)
my bad, when i called about the airsal kit, the year was late 2003 (i was 15 and my pops agreed to start building a quad to race in junior open A 2 stroke.. so i could run it when i turned 16). i cant believe i forgot when i did, it was around that ripe age of 16... hello drivers license
so this would make the CT kit older (if that dirt wheels article is correct)
well, i understood that the reed cage was different, but thats something that can be done by just changing the mold when casting.
i was under the impression that the 6 bolt reed cage was CTs "lil touch" to make it their own and develop more top end HP, however like i said in my above post, if that dirt wheels article is true, then CT had the cylinder first.
I thought i saw Airsal cylinder with a 6 bolt reed cage before, the pic may be wrong..
You want coincidence...hold a CT cylinder up next to one of Steve Wrights factory honda air cooled 250r works cylinders..... port layout, intake, exhaust, fin shape, head shape........
This might be a stupid question but im gonna ask anyways. The LA sleeve is already ported but is it ported for a +3 or +4 stroker crank or is it ported to stock stroke...just wondering!
No, it's not. But you don't HAVE to have a cylinder ported/modded for a +3 at least. The Vito's kit comes with a spacer plate, not sure about others. Modding the cylinder is just nicer/better.
There is some great info in this thread. Someone should sticky it.
There is some great info in this thread. Someone should sticky it.
Last edited:
From what ive read its about port timing i think & im pretty sure ive read that the vitos spacer is no good & that like u said its better to have the port timing matched with the crank stroke through a good port job. Correct me if im wrong,im still doing alot of research & learning!
Its off the shelf porting... Im willing to lay money that says there porting is nothing more than making there casting look pretty
Well half of what makes factory jug porting so effective is cleaning up the crud left behind by yahama. If the casting is done SUPER smooth to begin with there isn't any need for hand porting to "clean it up". Then grinding out the port timing to match the particular application is the porting that needs to be done but that can't be done completely from the factory because it needs to be done per the engine design goal.
Right. There is a large increase in flow and effectiveness of your engine just by "blueprinting" or bring your jug up to factory specs. The manufactures are more concerned about quantity then quality, casting flaws, too wide/narrow squish bands, misshaped ports is a large hindrance. The manufacter also allows most issues to go for reliablity reasons, a wider squish band for your cc and compression is less effective but will generally be less prone to denotation and other issues ( of course too wide and there are problems ).
Your not going to be hanging with 400's if you bring your bike up to the specs its supposed to be, but there will be a notable difference.
I agree. Its great to have a good engine conversation thats actually civil for a change. Its a great way to expand your knowledge, and fun too.
So basically the LA sleeve set up is for stock stroke which means if you went with a +3 stroker you would need a spacer to make up the difference for the port windows or pay more $ to get a port job matched to the stroker crank on a $600 top end thats brand new when it already comes ported or even the left behind casting cleaned up better? That really sucks if thats the case!
