8/8/2019 Oil Premix 6

1/6

TWO-STROKEOIL

ZEN PHILOSOPHY SAYS "LESS IS MORE,"and we'd agree that probably is true ofsermons, rhubarb tonic and irreversiblyplatonic relationships. However, we dohave doubts about the efficacy of Zen inthe art of motorcycle maintenance, partic-ularly when i t involves applying the less-is-more precept to two-stroke engine lubri-cation. This places us among motorcy-cling's heretics: majority opinion insiststhat oil is the enemy of two-stroke perfor-mance and advises adding the stuff to fuelwith an eye-dropper. We've heard ridersboast of running engines on a 50 :l fuel/oil mixture and becoming downcast, evenenvious, when told that others have founda new oil that works at an 80: l mix ratio.All these people seem utterly convincedthat in premix-lubricated two-stroke en-gines, less oil does yield more horse-power and will also reduce the ring-sticking tendency so prevalent in the type.

We've watched this high mix-ratio trenddevelop and have regarded it, like allthings trendy, with cautious pessimism.Despite all the glowing reports and enthu-siastic endorsements, we've been unableto find any satisfactory answer to a funda-mental question we keep asking: Whywould any engine, a collection of busy,fretful moving parts, work better with lubri-cation reduced? All our experience withtwo-strokes indicated the opposite to betrue; these engines seem to run harderand happier for us when we pour a lot ofoil through them. The hardest kind ofexperience has shown us what happenswhen lubrication fails: pistons ceasepumping, wheels stop turning, enduroriders become enduro walkers, and roadracers consider themselves lucky if theysurvive a sudden engine seizure able towalk at all.

So we haven't been greatly impressedwith the notion of scanty lubrication fortwo-stroke engines. However, it's hard tohalt a trend with nothing but the subjec-tive evidence provided by experience. Weneeded hard numbers and solid factswhich would either confirm the conclu-sions drawn from experience or-horridprospect-oblige us to admit we've beenwrong. Our problem was that it's a worldeasier to speculate about the results of oiltesting than to devise and conduct asatisfactory test program. Simpl; ~ a k i n gup sample batches of premix at 4 irledFEBRUARY 1978

I S LESS. MORE?I S MORE. LESS?IS MORE. MORE?I S LESS. LESS?

By G ordon Jenningsfuel/oil ratios and trying them in five-minute dynamometer runs did not seemto be a procedure that would settle any-thing. We suspected that oil migratesthrough premix-lubricated engines ratherslowly, which meant running long enoughto stabilize our test engine at an oil con-tent level normal to each premix ratio.Brief test periods, we thought, might blurany power differences that otherwisemight emerge. Further, it was almost cer-tain that short-duration dynamometerruns would tell us nothing about the rek -

tionship between premix ratio and pistoncleanness, and this aspect could not beignored. If there were short-term powergains with more oil in the engine's fuel,and these became losses due to ringsticking after 15 minutes of running, thenless would indeed be more: sustainedperformance is what counts.

Thanks to the Society of AutomotiveEngineers, we didn't have to launch intoour oil tests totally blind. We obtained oneSAE paper that reported the results oftests performed to determine the behaviorof oil in crankcase-scavenged engines,and this paper provided information inval-uable in planning test-run duration. Thepaper's authors switched a running en-gine, very briefly, to a supply of premixwith oil containing a radioisotope, tritium,then continued to run the engine on anuntagged premix. Radioactive oil beganto appear in the exhaust gases almostimmediately, reached maximum con-centration within two minutes, and onlyafter a half-hour of 2500-rpm running didit dwindle to a last-traces level. Therefore,we could anticipate running our own testengine for at least 30 minutes just to getthe oil content stabilized.

Another SAE paper provided directionwhen we were attempting to decide upontest severity. Experience, of a dishearten-ing sort, had shown that it's entirely tooeasy to produce piston seizures in air-cooled two-stroke engines merely in rou-tine dynamometer running. We've dis-covered that it's necessary to use athermocouple washer to register sparkplug temperature and to avoid exceeding . .plug-washer temperatures of 425 to 450 -degrees F. This second SAE paper was a . ' .great encouragement because it outlinedan accelerated, severe oil test procedure.in which the cylinder head,,temperaturesmentioned were very well aligned with ourown appreciation of the disaster thresh-old for two-stroke engines. What the pa-per's authors said, in brief, was that it'spossible to learn a lot about an engine'slubricated condition without getting in-volved in hundred-hour tests. Lengthytesting is required when you're attemptingto differentiate between closely matchedoils or nearly equal premix ratios; we wereinterested only in the two-level testing of abroad concept: would more of a suitablereference oil cause an engine to produce

53

8/8/2019 Oil Premix 6

2/6

more power or less, and would ring stick-ing be reduced or made worse?The choice of test engines was basedon practical considerations, foremost

among them reliability. We didn't wantsome mechanical failure to abort a test.And we wanted to use a 250cc single-cylinder engine because that's a repre-sentative size-and because a single pre-sented the fewest problems in terms oftop-end dismantling. The plan was to runa new piston in each series of tests sowe'd have no confusion over which pre-mix ratio created the most varnish and/orcarbon deposits around the top of thepiston and the ring grooves. Finally, wehad to consider the possibility of a seizuresevere enough to damage the cylinderbore, something that would require a cyl-inder replacement.

20:l Our baseline premix ratio produced 26.9 bhpand the light coatmg of piston varnish seen here.This final consideration brought us to

the Suzuki PE250: the manufacturingprocess used in making its cylindersyields a superior part, with fairly precisealignment of ports and port windows, andlittle variation between individual cylin-ders. Changing cylinders between testswould compromise the overall results andwas to be avoided if possible, but Suzuki'snearly-identical cylinders would allow usto continue testing. Finally, we opted forthe PE250 because we know it's veryreliable, and while not as vigorous as amotocrosser powerplant, the engine doeswork up more than enough power to giveits oil something to resist.

We chose Castrol40R as our referenceoil, knowing that this choice would be54

'ROHE 011 PREMIX RRTIOSwidely criticized. Castrol "R " is a castor-base lubricant, bean oil, and if you askracing's sharpest tuners about it, they'lltell you it's the worst stuff in the world-except for everything else. Talk to theCastrol people, and they'll give you adozen reasons for using their petroleum-or synthetic-base two-stroke oils insteadof the castor bean uice, before admittingcastor provides last-ditch-stand lubrica-tion that the other, less difficult oils can'tquite match. Bean oil is horrible stuff, andtreacherous (more on this later), but it willdo the job under the most severe condi-tions, and that's precisely what we hadplanned for our oil tests. Besides, it has amarked,tendency o cook into varnish andsludge on pistsns; consequently, castorwould very quickly give us a good indica-tion of a particular premix ratio's influenceon cleanness.

Cycle's routine dynamometer work isdone at Webco, but for our oil testing weelected to use Jerry Branch's facilities.Jerry's dyno has an old-fashioned water-brake absorption unit with controls thatrequire its operator to have more armsand eyes than a Hindu idol, but it is fine forcomparative horsepower checks, and it issurrounded with just the sort of hardwareneeded for our premix tests. Jerry's dynoroom has three hurricane-force coolingblowers and instrumentation to meter ev-erything from fuel flow to exhaust gastemperature. The only thing it lacks is atelevision set, which we soon learned wasneeded to relieve the boredom of waitingwhile the engine lunged against the dyna-mometer load for the required hours.Suzuki had loaned us a new PE250 forour oil testing, and we began this projectwith an hour of break-in running duringwhich engine speed and load were cycledup and down to approximate the recom-mendations given by the owner's manual.This running was done on a 20:l premixratio, per Suzuki's recommendations, withCastrol 40R carefully blended with 98octane premium-grade fuel (the latter wasobtained, in bulk, from a single source sothat a shift in fuel quality would not biastest results). With the break-in completed,

from the standard setting) and made twomore power runs-both of which showedthe engine output had been raised to 26.9bhp at 7000 rpm.With the above horsepower baselineestablished the endurance testing (for usand the Suzuki) was begun. We some-what arbitrarily decided to run the engineat 5500 rpm, and throttle and load werejiggled to bring plug temperatures into the390-400 degree F. range. The load re-, ,. ..

30:l Reducing the fuel's oil content caused heavyscuffmg, more varn~sh nd a 12 percent power loss.

a full-throttle power test was made-ad-justing the dynamometer's load until thehighest torque reading showed on -itsscale and then noting engine speed. Whatwe had was 25.9 brake horsepower at7000 rpm, about what Ws'd expected ofthe stock PE250 engine. Unfortunately,this brief full-throttle blast had sent thespark plug washer temperature soaringup into the 435 degree F. twilight zonevery rapidly. Subsequent examination ofthe spark plug indicated there was a bittoo much timing advance, which we thenset about correcting. After a couple of

quired to hold the above readings wasequal to a modest 8.8 bhp, or a third ofmaximum output. Our reason for choos-ing a 5500-rpm engine speed was that itmade testing relatively painless work. Atthat speed, we found, the throttle and loadsettings did not require constant adjust-ment and the engine seemed happy. Also,we wanted to see whether this conditionwould be stable in the still relatively newengine: if it became necessary to increasethe load to hold the speed and plugtemperature readings constant, then we'dhave to assume that an hour of break-inrunning wasn't adequate. In fact, therewas no shift in settings or readings duringthe test phase ust described. The Suzukidroned on, and on, and on, as though itwould continue forever; we let it continuefor a half-hour.Earlier we'd decided to run for 30 min-utes with plug-washer and cylinder-head

tries we got the ignlt'On tlm'ng more 15 1 Addmg or1 reduced varnrshmg and raysed therearly opt~m~zedretarded four degrees outpu: 3 7 bhp over that obtamed on 30 1 premrxCYCLE

8/8/2019 Oil Premix 6

3/6

temperatures well into the danger zone,and with the moderate-duty phase com-pleted we began the severe-duty testing.There was no question of trying a half-hour run at 7000 rpm and full throttle;neither the PE250 nor any of its cousinswill operate at maximum output for morethan 15 seconds without melting a piston.But we quickly found that the enginewould hold 6000 rpm and a dynamometerload equal to 9.6 bhp without requiring toomuch coaxing at the controls, and thiscombination brought the plug tempera-ture up into the 410-420 degree F.bracket-which experience has shown tobe a severe test of a two-stroke engine'slubrication. With that plug-washer tem-perature, cylinder head readings (takenwith a thermocouple under the blind plugthat closes the head's compression-re-lease hole) were in the order of 385-390degrees F. We could not measure pistontemperature but presumed it to be highenough, at the engine load, to tell ussomething about the lubrication.

And so it went, for another half-hour,without any indication of distress from theengine. Then, the severe-duty phasecompleted, the engine was throttled backto bring its plug-washer temperaturedown to 350 degreesF.,held there for two

entire cycle of break-in, moderate-dutyand severe-duty running was repeated. . . after a lot of fiddling with carburetorjets. When you feed an engine 20:l pre-mix, only 95 per cent of the fluid passingthrough the carburetor is fuel; five percent is oil, which does not burn. In switch-ing to a 30:l premix, we dropped the oilcontent to 3.3 per cent and changed thefluid's viscosity in the bargain, whichmeant the engine's air /fuel ratio would bechanged unless corrective measureswere taken. We took those measures,flowing premix through main-jets into thedark of one night and almost to thelunchbreak of the following day, until wehad achieved fuel-flow parity between the20:l and 30:l gasoline/oil mixtures.A funny thing happened during thebreak-in period of the 30:l premix test: atalmost precisely the half-hour mark,which is the time the SAE paper said wasrequired for a complete oil exchange, wenoticed that engine output sagged slight-ly. The break-in runs included quickpower checks at 5500 rpm and holding a350-degree F. plug-washer temperature,and we found that the dyno load corre-sponding to these readings was a triflelower. We became very curious about thedifference in maximum power, if any, but

None Of these plugs fouled; the one used in testing 1 5 1 premix did acquire a heavy coaPof deposits.minutes, and two more 7000-rpm powerchecks made. Again, after all the teeteringon the edge of thermal disaster, thePE250 gave us the same 26.9 bhp, and wehadn't even changed the spark plug.Suzuki's manual says the PE250 shouldbe run on a 20:l mixture of gasoline andcastor oil, and there was nothing in theresults of this first test to suggest other-wise. The plug was reasonably clean aftertwo hours of continuous running, andwhen we removed the piston it too wasclean-despite the presence of "deathash" on the underside of its crown, whichis a certain sign of dangerously highpiston temperatures.

We installed a fresh pistonhn thePE250, with new rings, and a batch of30:l premix carefully prepared. And theFEBRUARY 1978

we resisted the temptation to depart fromthe test procedure we'd set for ourselvesand waited until the one-hour break-inperiod was finished before giving the en-gine a full-throttle blast. And when we did,the engine produced 24.5 bhp at 7000rpm, which was almost 10 per cent belowthe power obtained from 20:l premix.This appeared to be clear evidence that inthe relationship between premix oil con-tent and horsepower, less is less.The post-break-in power run was fol-lowed with the same 30-minute moderate-duty and severe-duty periods, as in the20:l premix testing, and finished off withthe same two-minute cool-down (to a 50-degree F. plug temperature). Then camethe final power check, two maximum-effort blasts at 7000 rprn, and the final

word on the 30:l premix ratio: a drop to23.6 bhp, for an overall power loss of 3.3bhp or 12.2 per cent. Also, on the secondof these power checks, engine outputsagged perceptibly, so we were not sur-prised to find that the piston was markedby scuffing. The piston didn't seize, but i tobviously had ben at the ragged edge ofseizure. Further, ~twas very much dirtierthan the one we'd run on 20:l premix. Soon both counts, power and cleanness,less was less.

After the 30:l testing had been com-pleted and we had taken the PE250's topend apart for a new piston and rings, wehad a difficult decision to make. Not onlyhad the piston been scuffed, the cyl inderbore had suffered, and we were forced toconsider switching to a new cylinder. Thatoption finally was discarded, becauseeven though the testing to follow-sched-uled for a 151 premix ratio-would surelygive results made a bit worse by the poorcondition of the cylinder bore, we knewthat a new cylinder could not be sub-stituted without raising a chorus of "AhHa's" from the less-is-more adherents.We did ultimately scrub the worst of therough spots out of the wounded bore withemery paper and, with time running out(others were waiting to use Branch's dynofacility), slammed it all back together witha new piston and resumed running.

Again, we changed the carburetion tomaintain the original effective air /fu elmixture. The 15:l premix, which has a 6.7per cent oil content, is appreciably moreviscous than 20:l or 30: l premix andrequired raising the jet needle one notchto get the part-throttle mixture right as wellas a main-jet adjustment. And again wedid an hour of break-in before attemptinga full-throttle power check, and we couldalmost hear the engine heave a sigh ofrelief as its oil supply began to increase.Then came the pre-endurance powercheck, and we were pleased to get 26.6bhp at our 7000-rpm checking speed outof this somewhat unhealthy engine. It wasdown 0.3 bhp from its best performanceon 20:l premix, and we just didn't know ifthat was a function of the scored cylinder,or if Suzuki's mix-ratio recommendationsimply was in all ways best for the PE250.Anyway, we continued to run, proceedingthrough the moderate-duty and severe-duty phases, and finished the test pro-gram with a final power check with the15:l premix. To our astonishment, thehour of running had improved the suffer-ing engine's health, and it then gave usthe highest power reading we obtained inthe course of this project: 27.3 bhp at7000 rpm, an output only 0.4-horsepowerhigher than the Suzuki's best effort on20:l premix, but no less than 3.7 bhPabove the performance on 30 :l premix.(Continued on page 712)

55

8/8/2019 Oil Premix 6

4/6

Complete Machine Shop ServiceElectronic Balancing Resleeving

Boring Rebuilt Crankshaft Exchang~ONE DAY SERVICE!111 N.E. Union Portland, OR 97232

INVENTORY IN U.S. I- .

OLlCE SCIENCES INSTITUTE Dept. EAOIFACTS 4401 Btrch. Newoort Beach. CA 97663

OIL RATIOS ...........Continued rom page55

. - -----Rush free facts on how I ca n learn ta be a Securaty Pro for01a few dollars a month.No obldgatlon No salesman wdl call.AGE __

DDRESS--_ --ClTY- STATE ___ ZP-------------------

When your points wear out this time, replace them with a Dyna Il l solid-stateignition system.Install it in minutes, set it and forget itOnce you "dial it in," the timing and elec.tronically controlled dwell never change.No adjusting . . . no replacing. And DynaIl l is guaranteed for 5 full years.Available for Honda Fours includin~GL1000, Kawasaki Fours, Suzuki Fours,and all 1970 and later BMW and Harley-Davidsons.To find out more about Dvna Ill.write us.We'll.send youliterature explain-ing the system aswell as currentlvpublished test ;eports.$98.50 (LSee them at vour -++local dealer drorder d~rectfrom.

K.V. PRODUCTS -- j /1062 East Cypress Ave , Cov~na.C A 91724(213) 331-6202

!andDlice:om-Iand,sngBUSBable.lilieswe$.andstale

The horsepower difference we foundbetween runs on 30:l and 15 :l premix is,we think, conclusive evidence against theentire less-is-more heory. There always isexperimental error to be reckoned with inthis kind of testing, but when you find a3.7-bhp difference, when you have Sam-ple B giving a result 15.7 per cent betterthan that of Sample A,.then there simplyisn't a lot of room for argument.

We did everything we could to avoidproducing a bias in favor of our pre-testposition: we found an ignition setting theengine liked and left it alone; we went togreat lengths to erase air/fuel mixturedifferences when running the three pre-mix samples; we used the NGK BBEVspark plug recommended by Suzuki in alltesting, and the same plug stayed in thesngine for the entire duration of eachsample test-from the beginning of break-n right through the last power check; weneasured the pistons used in the test tonake sure they were all precisely thesame size; and we followed the samexocedures for all the tests, monitoring3lug, head and exhaust temperatures to3e very sure all conditions but lubrication'emained the same. Maybe, with all the~ 0 r ke did, the only sure thing is that the'E250 engine we tested, running on amixture of premium-grade gasoline and2astrol 40R oil, did make appreciablynore power when the premix's oi l contentwas raised from 3.3 to 6.7 per cent and all~ the r hings were kept equal. Maybehat's all we can say we've proved-butNe can say that much with the assurancehat comes from hard facts.

Only a little less firmly-factual was thelattern of cleanness that developed in our)il testing, and what we're pretty sure weound is going to blow your minds. Therevas no evidence of ring-sticking with any~f he premix samples tested, but we thinkhat would have occurred if we'd ex-ended the severeduty testing from 30ninutes to a couple of hours. Why do wehink that? Because one of the premixiamples left a lot of varnish on its piston.Yhich one? Surprisingly (for anyonevho'd neverseen it happen before), it washe 30:l premix with the lowest oil con-ent. The cleanest piston, by a slight andhus disputable margin, was the poor,lbraded devil that ran last, in a scored:ylinder, on the 15: l premix. Judging fromhis piston's skirt, which was covered withertical scratches, we hadn't been suffi-:iently careful in washing out grit from themery paper. Still, it had given us the bestlorsepower and did seem to be slightlyleaner than the piston from the 20:llremix testing; both were much less var-ished than our 30 :l piston. So it appearsiat piston cleanness actually improvess the percentage of oil in premix is)creased, at least in the 15:l to 30 :l mlx-atio range. Our results might have beenlore clear had we been more careful in

that cylinder clean-up, but we think thebasic relationship between oil volume andpiston cleanness was reasonably well de-fined by our test program.

Our oil testing kept Branch's dyna-mometer facility tied up for a week anddevoured more man-hours than theThirty-Years War, and the results can begiven in a single, brief sentence: "Engineoutput and piston cleanness improves aspremix oil content is increased." We'vealready presented the necessary qualifi-ers to that statement, and though it maybe a touch wobbly at the knees the state-ment stands. We think what we have hereis a fundamental truth, and anyone whowould change our minds will have to do atleast as much hard investigative work aswe have done. Personal opinion and con-clusions drawn from random experiencewere what we had before we made theinvestment in mixing fluids, twirlingwrenches and, above all, in enduring theinfernally noisy purgatory of Branch's en-gine-test cell. Anyone who would proveus wrong will have to make the sameinvestment and come up with something alot more solid than an opinion voiced bythe service manager of Bud's Cycle Cen-ter in Meadow-Muffin, Iowa.Of course, the oil testing we did was anarrow-spectrum effort, with narrowgoals and narrow results. We know itleaves questions hanging in the air, andtwo of these are worth our consideration:first, what would have been the result ifwe'd conducted our tests with somethingother than a castor-based oil; and sec-ond, how did the whole less-is-more rendget started if the concept had no merit?Answers to both questions are to befound by studying the history of the spe-cialized oils developed for two-stroke out-board-marine and chain-saw engines,and in those units the requirement for oilsis not so much centered on lubricity asfreedom from spark plug fouling.

Oil, of almost any sort, does tend tocause the formation of fouling deposits onspark plugs, which in turn creates cold-start problems and misfiring and a wholehost of posterior pains. That's a fact, asyou probably are aware, and it also is afact that the plug we used in testing 30:lpremix is a lot cleaner than the one fromthe 20:l test, etc. It's a fact, too, thatpeople who operate outboard and chain-saw engines generally don't know any-thing about any kind of engine; for thebass fishermen st rp de d in the middle ofa lake, fouled plugs might as well be abroken crankshaft. High mix-ratio oils, likethe 100:l stuff compounded by Mc-Culloch back in the early 1960s, wereinvented to keep plugs clean and the bassfisherman happy.Today's high mix-ratio oils, like thosedeveloped years ago, use a base stock-which may be refined petroleum or syn-thetic in origin-heavily fortified with addi-tives that improve lubricity and promote

(Continued on page 121)CYCLE

8/8/2019 Oil Premix 6

5/6

OILRATIOS . .. . Continued from page 112cleanness. The additives can be anythingfrom a petroleum substance called"bright stock" to polymeric chemicalcompounds. And they can do anythingfrom a wonderfully effective job to bring-ing about an almost immediate disaster.The best of them are very nearly as goodas castor in terms of hard-grunts lubricityand are vastly superior when enginecleanness is taken into considbration.Also, most (but not all) of the petroleumand synthetic based "additive package"lubricants do not have castor oil's dan-gerously short shelf-life.'Mix castor withgasoline and/or leave it exposed to air,and its lubricating qualities quickly de-grade; you can use today's batch of cas-tor/gas premix for tomorrow's racing butit's no good for the next weekend. Oldcastor premix will coat spark plugs withblack, tar-like deposits, and its lubricatingquality isn't worth zilch, which is why theCastrol people would really rather haveyou use their less-touchy, easier-to-live-with, and entirely-adequate conventionaladditive-package oils.Why didn't we use one of the non-castor, additive oils? Actually, for what weplanned hat wasn't possible, because wewanted to try different mix ratios, anddoing that with additive-package oils isjust asking for trouble. These oils' additivecontents presumethat the user will followthe directions on the can. If the makers'plan for a 50:l premix ratio, they may usebright-stock to provide scuff resistance,but they won't include much of it in theadditive package because it's very dirty,and they'll toss in an extra dash of adetergent chemical to keep the bright-stock from collecting like so much blackglue. Now after all that juggling of addi-tives they may have a terrific oil, but itwon't be anything we can use in testingpremix ratios. If we mix it at 20:l instead oftheir 50:1, we'll be pouring more thantwice as much bright-stock over our testengine's piston as is healthy, and thedoubled amount of detergent chemicalmay not help, because some of thoseactually become a dirtying agent abovecertain levels of concentration. Finally, wecouldn't be sure that an additive-packageoil would be the same from one bottle tothe next, even if all had the same brand-name. We know that these oils' additivecontents do get changed without anyannouncement being made. Some of theadditives are expensive, some are in shortsupply, and changes do occur.

For the reasons just given, we wereobliged to do our testing using castor oil,which w-dmit is horrible stuff in everyway but two: it does the job when oilsdepending on a chemist's slight-of-handwon't, and it let us shoot a couple of bigholes in less-is-more Miracle-Oil trendi-ness. Less, in the context of premix lubri-cation, isn't more; it's less, just as logicalways insisted. @FEBRUARY 1978

---ake your Kawasaki 21-900/10W et look like a jetMonocoque with a monocoque body by Tracy. One piece conrtruc-:ion using aircraft qual ity fiberglass insurer strengthand beauty for your motorcycle.Monocoque features an integral 3.5 gal. fuel

I! with custom vented cap. removable foam seatrhionection,hat centerl low ofccessravityo a3"loveower1oxhann hetock.ail14 Ibr. total weight, a black high glorr fuelresistant finish, and mounts in minutes with-out frame modifications. Common handtools are all that's required. Molwcoqueuti l-izes stock Kawasaki tailight and fuel petcock.$269.95.Also available for Honda 750 now, and

other makes.roon.See local dealer first or i f not available in you rarea, write for free brochure to:

4 Tracy Design MC 2Port Off ice Box 5112Santa Barbara. California 93108 IzJmonocoque

. Bodyurhion that all ow access to a glove box in he tailsection, a center of gravity 3" lower than stock.14 Ibr. total weight, a black hiah qlorr fuel I

4 Tracy Design MC 2Port Off ice Box 5112Santa Barbara. California 93108

8/8/2019 Oil Premix 6

6/6