Lil Indian #10352

[LouieM]

Have not been on in years. Recently moved and decided it was time to restore the lil Indian I have been sitting on for years. IF I REMEMBER . Last time I spoke with Regis he believed it was a 62? If so what engine was correct for that year? It doesn't have the bracket for the KH brake setup. What brake should it have? THANKS IN ADVANCE GUYS. Any help/info would be greatly appreciated. THANK YOU

Louie

 

[tyleryamaha]

I had a new 1962 LiL Indian , they came with a Clinton A-400 2 cycle . Same engines that were used on many go karts back then, Also hands wheels that were also used on karts. The brake was a internal drum inside of the sprocket hub.

 

[LouieM]

I had a new 1962 LiL Indian , they came with a Clinton A-400 2 cycle . Same engines that were used on many go karts back then, Also hands wheels that were also used on karts. The brake was a internal drum inside of the sprocket hub.

Thank you..can't seem to find a pic of that brale setup

 

[markus]

10*** number usually would have been around 1967, got any photos? you can tell an early 60's from a later one as there were changes in the frame and forks with dimensions and mount points etc... for instance an early bike had smaller tubing on the forks/handlebars, 3/4" rear axle but 5/8 front axle, no spring on the front headtube, the frame kicked in at the front of the engine plate and the footbar was mounted inside the frame, shorter height in the center of the frame and more angle at the rear of the frame etc...

 

[LouieM]

10*** number usually would have been around 1967, got any photos? you can tell an early 60's from a later one as there were changes in the frame and forks with dimensions and mount points etc... for instance an early bike had smaller tubing on the forks/handlebars, 3/4" rear axle but 5/8 front axle, no spring on the front headtube, the frame kicked in at the front of the engine plate and the footbar was mounted inside the frame, shorter height in the center of the frame and more angle at the rear of the frame etc...

I will get a pic when I get home from work. It has the footbar on the outside so your probably right its a later 60's. Thanks for the info, I know you know these things very well..

 

[LouieM]

 

[LouieM]

View attachment 243894 View attachment 243894

10*** number usually would have been around 1967, got any photos? you can tell an early 60's from a later one as there were changes in the frame and forks with dimensions and mount points etc... for instance an early bike had smaller tubing on the forks/handlebars, 3/4" rear axle but 5/8 front axle, no spring on the front headtube, the frame kicked in at the front of the engine plate and the footbar was mounted inside the frame, shorter height in the center of the frame and more angle at the rear of the frame etc...

Finally got the pic posted....if it's a 67-68 what would be the correct engine? Thanks

 

[OND]

Correct engine would be a Briggs engine and probably a 3hp . markus would know for sure ! Looks to be 1969 or older .

 

[capguncowboy]

I thought the Briggs engine bikes had a hole in the engine plate?

 

[OND]

Andrew its the Tecumseh engine frames that have the hole in it .

 

[capguncowboy]

Andrew its the Tecumseh engine frames that have the hole in it .

Gotcha! Glad I could confuse everyone

 

[LouieM]

Correct engine would be a Briggs engine and probably a 3hp . markus would know for sure ! Looks to be 1969 or older .

Guessing a 67 or 68

 

[Jjtwospeed]

Should be a 3hp Briggs model number 80212.

 

[markus]

Yea that appears to be more of a later 60's frame. fender mounts, sprung headtube etc... That number does put it in the middle of recorded numbers from lil indian for 1967, That's not always been 100% accurate way to id, but I have found that to hold pretty solid and close.

Almost looks like grinding was done on the right side, of the frame so it may have been a 600 in another life. but its pretty hard to tell as it has some work done to to it all over the place.

They used Briggs at that point only, The offered a 2 1/4hp on the 400 and a 3hp on the 450-500-600 bikes in both 67 and 68, If its a '67 it would have usually used a larger brake caliper, with the standard wider bolt spacing (K-H/H-H 200) of course those are just about as hard to find as the 1968-72 style with the smaller spacing anymore in correct configuration. The bracket is a little taller than the norm with a half moon cutout in it. They appeared to transition into the smaller 1" bolt spacing brake going into 1968 IIRC

 

[LouieM]

Yea that appears to be more of a later 60's frame. fender mounts, sprung headtube etc... That number does put it in the middle of recorded numbers from lil indian for 1967, That's not always been 100% accurate way to id, but I have found that to hold pretty solid and close.

Almost looks like grinding was done on the right side, of the frame so it may have been a 600 in another life. but its pretty hard to tell as it has some work done to to it all over the place.

They used Briggs at that point only, The offered a 2 1/4hp on the 400 and a 3hp on the 450-500-600 bikes in both 67 and 68, If its a '67 it would have usually used a larger brake caliper, with the standard wider bolt spacing (K-H/H-H 200) of course those are just about as hard to find as the 1968-72 style with the smaller spacing anymore in correct configuration. The bracket is a little taller than the norm with a half moon cutout in it. They appeared to transition into the smaller 1" bolt spacing brake going into 1968 IIRC

As Always Markus thanks for all the information and input. You are the Guru when it comes to these bikes. Yes it does have a bunch of rewelds all over the place. Although it does not appear that there was any welding where the bracket for the brake would be. Of course I can. be wrong. Will know more in the next couple days as it goes to the sandblaster.

 

[dipper]

i have a white 2hp briggs model 60102, model year 1974 that I may sell if you are interested. It is off a reel mower that i bought a few years ago and just been kind of sitting.