Why Extend Carburetor?

Oldschool

Oldschool

New Member
#41
#41
Mini Motors said:
Mine are painted green. But the plot thickens. I found the date code on the 220 no problem. "1 61", which I assume means Jan. 1961. The 242, however, only has "11", and it's justified to the right, to match the year position of the 220. One thing I have done is underestimated the condition of the paint. I am getting access ta a sand blaster for an old Briggs resto, so I guess I'll be looking for some Coleman Green, unless you think I can polish up the brass. That would be much nicer. I got some pitting on the bottom, but not much. And I can take care of any rust in the tank.
Click to expand...
NO!!!!

If you must paint it use a chemical stripper.
Sadblasting will ruin the fount

Hm... 11 only eh? and this is a 242C?
That would place it before 1948 but no older than 1943 but they made no 242C in those years.

So you may have a 242B ( Jan of 41 )....

Look at the rest between the burner frame and the tank for more information.

American dating system is odd you need to know the model production years to figuere out the decade and then the years and month for that run.

I have never actualy handled a US made 242. But I suspect with only a few cosmetic differences they are identical. No suprises in working on it and if you want the vent repaired there is a company in the USA called independence Porcelin that has experience restoring these ( I think it 35 bucks good deal ).

Painted not nickle plated.
Thats also odd.
Not sure why....
Might be an ecconomy version since I don't think the US was at war at the time.
Nickel may have been rationed in the USA at the time. I don't know but up here essential war material were diverted from civilian production and nickel exports to the USA would have been very limited because of the need to make armour plate and super alloys for the war effort. Production would have continued though since these lanterns themselves were essential products for both military and civilian use.
 
Last edited:
Mini Motors

Mini Motors

Member
#42
#42
That ring clearly says 242C. And that ring, as well as the burner frame is steel. Can I blast that? I didn't look at the vent too closely. I didn't notice it was porcelain. It has chipped and is rusting. I just thought it was either thick paint, or it was being lifted up by the rust.

Okay, so I can't afford that much to re do the vent. I haven't worked in a few years. So, I'll treat the tank nice, but will you be mad at me if I blast the vent? :grind: I know I'm the new guy around here, but just this short exchange has given me some respect for you, and I wouldn't want to tick you off.:shrug: I was perusing Google Images and I hope it is at least nickel. I like the nickel with the red.

Oh, and I was talking with some friends, and one guy says he'll give me 3 or 4 old Coleman's he has.
 
Oldschool

Oldschool

New Member
#43
#43
Mini Motors said:
That ring clearly says 242C. And that ring, as well as the burner frame is steel. Can I blast that? I didn't look at the vent too closely. I didn't notice it was porcelain. It has chipped and is rusting. I just thought it was either thick paint, or it was being lifted up by the rust.

Okay, so I can't afford that much to re do the vent. I haven't worked in a few years. So, I'll treat the tank nice, but will you be mad at me if I blast the vent? :grind: I know I'm the new guy around here, but just this short exchange has given me some respect for you, and I wouldn't want to tick you off.:shrug: I was perusing Google Images and I hope it is at least nickel. I like the nickel with the red.

Oh, and I was talking with some friends, and one guy says he'll give me 3 or 4 old Coleman's he has.
Click to expand...
The burner frame should not be steel and the rest has to be brass.
The only think I can think of is maybe this has some war surplus parts in it.


Looking again at the 247 ( this just happens to be the only pictures I have to show you. ) and you can see some brass showing through.
http://s426.photobucket.com/albums/pp344/Dougwp/Coleman stuff/?action=view&current=100_8916.jpg

If these were steel they would look like this thing...
http://s426.photobucket.com/albums/pp344/Dougwp/Coleman stuff/?action=view&current=100_9824.jpg
This is a Canadian 200 with brass fount and a rust buicket burner frame because its cheaply made stamped steel.

Look here.
Coleman stuff :: Franken Scout picture by Dougwp - Photobucket
Left you see modified 247 on a steel tank from a US military lantern right you see an as built 247 of around the same vintage as your 242C.
Left you see the nickle removed with a combination of acid and polishing.
Right you see as built brass fount with nickle plate, brass rest with nickel plate and brass burner frame again in nickel plate......

This is the only all steel burner frame I know of that does not turn into a rust bucket the Canadian 335 ( not sld in the USA ). Its a special alloy and has a special coating to resist rust. This was never done on any US lanterns that I am aware of, the exception being some US 202 had stainless teel parts, 530 stove had stainless steel too but for the most part steel was avoided.

Can you take some pictures of this thing?
http://s426.photobucket.com/albums/pp344/Dougwp/Coleman stuff/?action=view&current=100_9616.jpg
BUT I don't own any American Coleman products other thana 530 stove.
Might be thats the way the C model was made.

This is the only all steel burner frame I know of that does not turn into a rust bucket the Canadian 335 ( not sld in the USA ). Its a special alloy and has a special coating to resist rust. This was never done on any US lanterns that I am aware of, the exception being some US 202 had stainless teel parts, 530 stove had stainless steel too but for the most part steel was avoided.

Can you take some pictures of this thing?
http://s426.photobucket.com/albums/pp344/Dougwp/Coleman stuff/?action=view&current=100_9616.jpg
BUT I don't own any American Coleman products other thana 530 stove.
Might be thats the way the C model was made.
 
Last edited:
65ShelbyClone

65ShelbyClone

Well-Known Member
#44
#44
Jeff Clark said:
In all honesty I would be interested in your statement, I have done R&D dyno and design work for 12 years straight every day all day for various MFG's, in intake flow and design for supercharging and honest opinions are always nice. I do not do it for a living any longer but I still love input.
Click to expand...
If I may inquire, what kind of R&D? That seems to be the Twilight zone where some things that should work somehow don't and things that shouldn't work somehow do. I guess the fun part is finding out why(and writing an SAE report about it). :laugh:

Highly doubtful I know anything new to you at this point, though. I was razzing ~JM~ because he has plenty of attitude and couldn't(or wouldn't) explain why his examples illustrate his argument(and when they do not).
 
Mini Motors

Mini Motors

Member
#45
#45
Okay, the burner frame and the ring between it and the tank are clearly unfinished steel. I can tell by the rust, like in that 200 you posted. The vent also screams steel from the rust under the peeling paint. The tank bottom had some pitting, and because you said it was steel, I took a wire wheel to it. Don't worry, I didn't touch the rest of the tank. But there are a few very fine scratches in the paint on the side of the tank, and I think it may be brass. I was somewhat impatient, so I did take that wire wheel to the burner frame and ring. It looks better, but I think blasting will make it much better. And I can't get into the tight places with the wheel.

I'll try to get some pics in the next day or so. For an unemployed man, I am quite busy.

So, what was the production run for the 242C? The code is clearly "11", not "1 1", so I'm not thinking Jan '41.
 
Oldschool

Oldschool

New Member
#46
#46
Mini Motors said:
Okay, the burner frame and the ring between it and the tank are clearly unfinished steel. I can tell by the rust, like in that 200 you posted. The vent also screams steel from the rust under the peeling paint. The tank bottom had some pitting, and because you said it was steel, I took a wire wheel to it. Don't worry, I didn't touch the rest of the tank. But there are a few very fine scratches in the paint on the side of the tank, and I think it may be brass. I was somewhat impatient, so I did take that wire wheel to the burner frame and ring. It looks better, but I think blasting will make it much better. And I can't get into the tight places with the wheel.

I'll try to get some pics in the next day or so. For an unemployed man, I am quite busy.

So, what was the production run for the 242C? The code is clearly "11", not "1 1", so I'm not thinking Jan '41.
Click to expand...
Run a magnet across everything just to be sure.

I'm not too sure on US production runs but I think the 242 probably ended around 1950.
I am trying to think of any American Collectors I know that could verfiy the date.
Here's a link to Terry Marsh's site.
Coleman US lanterns 1946 - 1960
He says 42 to 50.
Maybe take a picture and ask him.
 
Mini Motors

Mini Motors

Member
#47
#47
Wow. What a site. A buddy of mine gives me a hard time about how much Coleman equipment I have. I'm sending him that link for sure.

Good idea on the magnet.
 
mr.modified

mr.modified

New Member
#48
#48
:biggrin: Do you guys all live out in the sticks or something? Electricity has been in wide spread use since at least the early 40's in the U.S., so theirs no need to have a really efficent gas lantern. If you lose the power for a few days, light up a few candles or your grandmothers old oil lamp. That kerosene lantern you have out in the garage will provide enough light to make it the the out house...:laugh:
 
D

Dual-500

Member
#49
#49
mr.modified said:
:biggrin: Do you guys all live out in the sticks or something? Electricity has been in wide spread use since at least the early 40's in the U.S., so theirs no need to have a really efficent gas lantern. If you lose the power for a few days, light up a few candles or your grandmothers old oil lamp. That kerosene lantern you have out in the garage will provide enough light to make it the the out house...:laugh:
Click to expand...
Maybe they do a lot of camping?

If not camping, around the house this works well:

 
Oldschool

Oldschool

New Member
#50
#50
Big black out of 03 lead me to look for a good lantern just incase it ever happened again.

Since they don't actualy make a good lantern anymore I was forced to find some antiques.

My preference to this day remains the 230 and 240 series because of their reliability and ability to burn anything from gasoline to diesel.

They are also cheaper to run and much less fussy than a generator. OLD stale gasoline is fine....

Other considerations:
The Ice storm of 98 reminded me of the need for heat. A 230 series will provide the equiv of 1800 w of electric heat for 8 hours on one tank.

They are also realy cool to restore.

I have some generators too.
My Champion 3000w, my 1961 Onan LK205 and Petter PHW1 ( bore and stroked to 1 litre ) witha Stamford 5000w what head ( military version piston for gasoline or diesel ).
 
D

Dual-500

Member
#51
#51
^ I hear ya on the power blackouts. I had a pretty good one earlier this year, about a day and a half without power and that was enough for me. Had been wanting a generator for a long time and the last blackout was just that, the last blackout. :smile:

No mas.
 
Mini Motors

Mini Motors

Member
#52
#52
For me, it's mostly about camping, even if I only get to go once a year, but also about stuff that's old. There's a little part about stuff that was my Dad's. Like OldSchool says, they're cool to restore. But the same could be said of just about anything old. Like mini bikes. Or the engines they use.

I should probably apologize for hijacking the thread. And I know I played a part when I mentioned that "vapor lock"(gas boiling) would be a reason to extend a carb. Sorry.
 
Mini Motors

Mini Motors

Member
#54
#54
Fair. Being the new(ish) dude with a whopping 34 posts, I was not fully aware of that. But I did egg you on a bit with all my questions. But I saw nothing that didn't "go any place".
 
T

therepairguy

New Member
#56
#56
One other reason that we extend the carb away from the engine is for better atomization of the fuel, the better it is "mixed" with the intake air the better more completely it burns, and ignites better.
 
Mini Motors

Mini Motors

Member
#58
#58
I remember seeing many years ago a thing that went below the carb on a car that promoted turbulence, thereby enhancing the atomization process. It seemed to disappear when fuel injection became popular. But I wonder if something like that would do something with these motors?
 
65ShelbyClone

65ShelbyClone

Well-Known Member
#59
#59
therepairguy said:
One other reason that we extend the carb away from the engine is for better atomization of the fuel, the better it is "mixed" with the intake air the better more completely it burns, and ignites better.
Click to expand...
Whatever doesn't stick to the runner walls, perhaps. That will also mean more fuel on the runner walls is available to vaporize when the throttle is shut, making the rich decel condition last longer(which may or may not be desirable) Longer intakes also have more volume that reduces pressure signal on the carb. Port fuel injection puts fuel right on the intake valve and unless it's sequentially injected, the fuel just sits there until the valve opens.

If anything, it would probably be more ideal to leave the carb close to the head and put a velocity stack(of appropriate resonant length for the engine rpm) on the inlet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top