HOME and how to join › Forum › Open Area › General Scott topics › LFZ and LFY prefix engines
Hi,
I am trying to find out just what LFZ and LFY prefix engines were about, and information seems to be VERY thin on the ground. All I read just says approx. 1934 long-stroke, non-detachable head Flying Squirrel. Now earlier long-stroke engines were of course the much better known RZ,RY,PZ, and PY prefix type, ie. the “Powerplus” engine, which morphed into the DPZ/DPY detachable cylinder head Powerplus type.
So how do the LFZ and LFY engines fit into the equation ? Were they less “tuned” than the Powerplus ? – and if so, WHY ? Did they have cylinder-wall oiling connections like the blindhead Powerplus engines ? If not, I would expect to have seen long-stroke blindhead barrels without provision for cylinder-wall oiling, but I don’t remember ever seeing one….
Looking in the factory ledgers is of no real help because usually, engine number prefixes are not shown, something that has vexed my enquiries a few times ! I wonder how many LFZ/LFY engines were built. Probably not many at all, because production figures for most of the 1930’s were very low. Perhaps they were originally intended for non-motorcycle use, maybe for stationary engines, but escaped into bikes when the factory were even more desperate than usual.
All comments gratefully received as this topic is something of a void in my research material for the book.
Brian
Hi Brian,
I was the machine registra of the now defunct Australian Section. In the records there are four LFY engines, 3919 3956 3991 4015, all 1934 and one LFZ engine 3842 which is the first engine No. of 1933. I have not seen this engine to confirm the records are correct. I don’t know if any of this information is of any help, it would be interesting if any other 1933 numbers surface.
Regards,
Bob Mather.
Thanks Bob. Mine is LFZ 3996, so very close to the ones you mention.
Brian
One other little snippet of information…. Jim Best once told me that LFZ/LFY engines had stronger cranks than other long-stroke motors, with the disc part being thicker than usual. Again, WHY ? and of course WHAT FOR ?
Brian
Hi Brian I can`t add much only to verify that the cranks were special for that model and probably the best longstroke cranks ever made by the Scott motor cycle co,as far as I know this model only lasted one year. The cranks looked like shortstroke cranks from the back but had no oil drillings whatsoever, I have a couple in stock and could e-mail photos if you are interested, I just assume that 1933/34 was a time when Scotts older clientel were sceptical about the new detachable head engines coming on the market , and this was offered to placate them. In my mind this model would have had the input of Harry Langman who new what made a good Scott and not William Cull who was obviously a dreamer and deeply engulfed in positive big end lubrication IE the grand prix engine , the three cylinder engine, and the swashplate pump all far too complicated for a two stroke engine not forgetting of course the DPZ/DPY cranks what a backward step this was. I would also assume that the LFZ/LFY cylinders were just TT rep castings without the cylinder wall oiling machining carried out and would have had milder port timings. The reason I know about LFZ/LFY cranks is that when I bought my new Birmingham Scott in 1964 it was not only fitted with clubman special pistons it also had LFY cranks, I don`t know for sure but these could also have been used in the Swift ,unless someone knows differently ? Alan Noakes.
G’day Brian, My ’34 600 is LFY3956 ( one of the ones mentioned by Bob Mather) It has the “better” version cranks as confirmed by yourself when we gatecrashed a Pub meeting back in 2006 that you were at ! We were on holiday in UK and had just collected the engine internals from Tim Sharp who had reconditioned them while we were swanning around the country in a caravan . Mine has a detachable head (at least in theory) but don’t know if it was an original “option” or a later fitment.
Regards Peter Scott, South Australia
I wonder why on earth they didn’t stick with those stronger cranks ! If they didn’t have, or need, the oil drillings, they would have even been cheaper to make. As suggested by Alan Noakes, it may have been some internal politics, ie. Langman v Cull….
Brian
I had another LFY engine in recently and asked Brian about these engines at Abbotsholme. The case had long stroke cranks and rods and an early detachable head. It was to all intents a long stroke engine. It had undercut cranks rather than the earlier thicker type with no undercut on the back face.
mine is LFZ 4005 1934 blind head
i saw it in records somwhere that the delux bikes as they were called in 34 had the cylinder oiling mine has but there blanked off