Hey guys I need a head stay for 1976, 167, 250 Pursang. I have one for a 120
-136.They are just a little bit different. I have not tried any of the Bultaco
parts
suppliers yet. I thought I would try the group first. Any help would be great.
I live in the Phoenix area.
  Thanks Glen  99y

Anyone know of a M18 Bandito for sale anywhere ?  Had to let my last
one go (Mo's Album), and miss having one to play with.  Probably will
be at Diamond Jim's, so could pick up there.  Don't care what
condition, but would like the numbers to match.  Mo

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "friesen_dave" <davefriesen@...>
wrote:
>
> I don't think there is a battery. Lights are run off the lighting
coil. I think.
>
> While I suppose you could buy a wiring harness, there just aren't
that many wires so you
> could almost make your own for less trouble.
>
> --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "dan wolfe"
<daninwalkercounty@> wrote:
> >
> > Restoring 74 350 and can not find reference to battery.  I
thought
> > these used the tiny 6volt placed behind the sidecover.
> > Any resources for wiring harness?
> > Dan Wolfe
> > Riverside, Tx.
> >
>Thanks I finally received the Manual..Dan

I think the key here is that AHRMA made a dividing point when it set
up the vintage classes and that was 1974 for the most part. That was
because 75 saw the first long travel suspensions. They made the "like
design" rule to include a few 75 models that were the same. For
example the 75 135 engine was exactly te same as the 74 120 engine,
so it is legal. The 136 engine is not the same engine as the 136, so
it is not. It is a competitive bike in the Historic Open class, however.

At 11:54 PM 3/28/2008, you wrote:

>Gary:
>
>I was looking at starting back up with a 136 and ran into the same
>issue you did. Was told it was not allowed because of
>it's "performance potential" over a 121 (wide cylinder studs allowing
>bigger ports and such).
>
>Gimme a break - I now have a 73 CZ400 ported, reed valved - I doubt a
>136 has more performance potential than that, and that is no putdown
>to the 136 - just doesn't seem to make sense (nor does the 74.5
>Maico, or Falta, or 75/76 KX 250 being sportman legal when the 136
>isn't)
>
>--- In
><mailto:TeamBultaco%40yahoogroups.com>TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com,
>"Gary Davis" <gdinsurance@...>
>wrote:
> >
> > My first race bike when I started vintage racing in 2003 was a
>136.
> > I was on a crusade a couple of seasons ago to get the
>136 "legalized"
> > for vintage racing and had the same question myself. What I found
> > out was that the spacing on the cylinder stud bolts are wider than
> > those on the 121 and prior machines. The 136 spacing is the same
>as
> > that used on all 360-370 machines afterwards and the 1979 model, I
> > believe, used a reed valve jug. So, the concern is that the reed
> > valve jug could be set on the 136 lower end. The bore and stroke
>are
> > a bit different as well but this issue was not as key as the reed
> > valve. Obviously there are no differences in the frame that the
> > modified swingarm can't fix.
> > The curious part about this is that there are so many CZs,
>Elsinores,
> > etc. that have been modified to accept reed valves.
> > BUT, as it was put to me by the Mann himself, "you do believe that
>we
> > have to have a cutoff somewhere, don't you?" To which I
>said, "well,
> > yes, there has to be a cutoff somewhere." To which he said, "Well,
> > this is the cutoff" To which I said, "yes sir".
> > It seems too easy to just disallow a 136 with a reed valve but.....
> > Thanks for allowing me to insert my observation. I would love to
> > hear any viewpoints on this issue, agreeing or disagreeing with
>mine.
> > Gary Davis 42u
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:TeamBultaco%40yahoogroups.com>TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com,
> "Fred Ziglar" <fredz43@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:TeamBultaco%40yahoogroups.com>TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com,
> "Mike Linan" <linan@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:TeamBultaco%40yahoogroups.com>TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com,
> Fred Ziglar <fredz43@>
>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this a 250 or 360? It is best with Buls to refer to the
> > model
> > > > > number rather than the year. In 75 the 250 is the M135 and
>the
> > > 360
> > > > is
> > > > > the M136. This is important if you intend to ride vintage
> > classes
> > > > in
> > > > > AHRMA. The 135 is legal for vintage, but the 136 is not, even
> > > with
> > > > > the 1974 swingarm. The 135 engine was unchanged from the 120,
> > but
> > > > the
> > > > > M136 engine was different than the 121, therefore not legal
>for
> > > > > vintage per AHRMA. It is legal in the post vintage classes,
> > > however.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hugh makes replacement AHRMA legal swingarms for this model
>for
> > > > about $300.
> > > > >
> > > > > At 10:45 AM 3/18/2008, you wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Hello, just got this Pursang and want to race it in AHRMA. I
> > will
> > > > > >need a 1974 swingarm if anyone has one they can afford to
> > sell. I
> > > > > >also need to know the eye to eye length of the stock 1974
>rear
> > > > shocks.
> > > > > >Does anyone know where a good service manual for this bike
>can
> > be
> > > > > >obtained? Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Fred Z.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > > Yeah Fred, it's a model 136. In response to your comments
>about
> > > the
> > > > 136 not being AHRMA legal, I called them and was told the book
> > > reads
> > > > that the 1975 model 136 frame can be used to replace the
>previous
> > > > year's frame if used with 1974 or prior swingarm and as so he
> > said
> > > I
> > > > would be legal, but that doesn't address your comment about the
> > > > engine. It looks as though I would have no problem racing it,
> > but
> > > if
> > > > you wouldn't mind telling me what you've heard about the 136
> > engine
> > > > that excludes it from eligibility. Thanks. PS. does no one
>know
> > > the
> > > > stock shock length of the 1974 360 Pursang, model 121?
> > > >
> > > Mike, you are correct about the 136 frame being legal if you
>change
> > > the swingarm, as well as other frames, such as the 143, 152.This
>is
> > a
> > > recent rule change. However the 136 engine had changes from the
>121
> > > engine and has been illegal for vintage classes since day 1.
>There
> > > are changes relative to cylinder stud spacing that makes them
> > > stronger, I believe,as wel las other minor changes that make it
> > > not "like design",therefore not legal. It has been explained here
> > > before by Lobodave, who is a national AHRMA rep. Bottom line is
> > that
> > > although the later frames such as 136 and 143 are legal with
> > swingarm
> > > changes, neither the 136 or 143 engines are legal. If you got a
>136
> > > frame, 121 spec swingarm and a 121 engine you could run it,
> > otherwise
> > > you can't.
> > >
> > > I am out of town for a few days, but can measure my 121 swigarm
> > when
> > > I get back next week.
> > >
> >
>
>

Fred Z.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gary:

I was looking at starting back up with a 136 and ran into the same
issue you did.  Was told it was not allowed because of
it's "performance potential" over a 121 (wide cylinder studs allowing
bigger ports and such).

Gimme a break - I now have a 73 CZ400 ported, reed valved - I doubt a
136 has more performance potential than that, and that is no putdown
to the 136 - just doesn't seem to make sense (nor does the 74.5
Maico, or Falta, or 75/76 KX 250 being sportman legal when the 136
isn't)

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Davis" <gdinsurance@...>
wrote:
>
> My first race bike when I started vintage racing in 2003 was a
136.
> I was on a crusade a couple of seasons ago to get the
136 "legalized"
> for vintage racing and had the same question myself.  What I found
> out was that the spacing on the cylinder stud bolts are wider than
> those on the 121 and prior machines.  The 136 spacing is the same
as
> that used on all 360-370 machines afterwards and the 1979 model, I
> believe, used a reed valve jug.  So, the concern is that the reed
> valve jug could be set on the 136 lower end.  The bore and stroke
are
> a bit different as well but this issue was not as key as the reed
> valve.  Obviously there are no differences in the frame that the
> modified swingarm can't fix.
> The curious part about this is that there are so many CZs,
Elsinores,
> etc. that have been modified to accept reed valves.
> BUT, as it was put to me by the Mann himself, "you do believe that
we
> have to have a cutoff somewhere, don't you?"  To which I
said, "well,
> yes, there has to be a cutoff somewhere."  To which he said, "Well,
> this is the cutoff"  To which I said, "yes sir".
> It seems too easy to just disallow a 136 with a reed valve but.....
> Thanks for allowing me to insert my observation.  I would love to
> hear any viewpoints on this issue, agreeing or disagreeing with
mine.
> Gary Davis 42u
>
>
>
>
> --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Ziglar" <fredz43@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Linan" <linan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, Fred Ziglar <fredz43@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is this a 250 or 360? It is best with Buls to refer to the
> model
> > > > number rather than the year. In 75 the 250 is the M135 and
the
> > 360
> > > is
> > > > the M136. This is important if you intend to ride vintage
> classes
> > > in
> > > > AHRMA. The 135 is legal for vintage, but the 136 is not, even
> > with
> > > > the 1974 swingarm. The 135 engine was unchanged from the 120,
> but
> > > the
> > > > M136 engine was different than the 121, therefore not legal
for
> > > > vintage per AHRMA. It is legal in the post vintage classes,
> > however.
> > > >
> > > > Hugh makes replacement AHRMA legal swingarms for this model
for
> > > about $300.
> > > >
> > > > At 10:45 AM 3/18/2008, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Hello, just got this Pursang and want to race it in AHRMA. I
> will
> > > > >need a 1974 swingarm if anyone has one they can afford to
> sell. I
> > > > >also need to know the eye to eye length of the stock 1974
rear
> > > shocks.
> > > > >Does anyone know where a good service manual for this bike
can
> be
> > > > >obtained? Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fred Z.
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > Yeah Fred, it's a model 136.  In response to your comments
about
> > the
> > > 136 not being AHRMA legal, I called them and was told the book
> > reads
> > > that the 1975 model 136 frame can be used to replace the
previous
> > > year's frame if used with 1974 or prior swingarm and as so he
> said
> > I
> > > would be legal, but that doesn't address your comment about the
> > > engine.  It looks as though I would have no problem racing it,
> but
> > if
> > > you wouldn't mind telling me what you've heard about the 136
> engine
> > > that excludes it from eligibility.  Thanks.  PS. does no one
know
> > the
> > > stock shock length of the 1974 360 Pursang, model 121?
> > >
> > Mike, you are correct about the 136 frame being legal if you
change
> > the swingarm, as well as other frames, such as the 143, 152.This
is
> a
> > recent rule change. However the 136 engine had changes from the
121
> > engine and has been illegal for vintage classes since day 1.
There
> > are changes relative to cylinder stud spacing that makes them
> > stronger, I believe,as wel las other minor changes that make it
> > not "like design",therefore not legal. It has been explained here
> > before by Lobodave, who is a national AHRMA rep. Bottom line is
> that
> > although the later frames such as 136 and 143 are legal with
> swingarm
> > changes, neither the 136 or 143 engines are legal. If you got a
136
> > frame, 121 spec swingarm and a 121 engine you could run it,
> otherwise
> > you can't.
> >
> > I am out of town for a few days, but can measure my 121 swigarm
> when
> > I get back next week.
> >
>

I agree with your comments on Trials and AHRMA (and Trials bikes).  I
spent last year trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.  I
tried to convert a street Bantam to a Trials bike.  There were just to
many issues and I spent most of my time working on the bike (both at
home and during competition).

I have gotten a lot more riding time in with the Bultaco (even though
I DNFed in my 1st outing with it).  Even for a very poor rider the
difference in what you can clear is noticeable.  Hopefully I've gotten
over the "shake-down" and am ready to ride some Trials.

Ed Peacock is a great guy and I think he and his wife will be great
for AHRMA Trials.  Tony Downs is making an effort in the Western
Sector so all in all it should be a good year.  If you haven't heard
it before please understand that we all appreciate the effort all of
you put into this.

Alan

Ditto...bought the set for my M99 a good while back from Bud's
Bultaco, and they have worked great.

Billy

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Shannon"
<forpetesaketuna@...> wrote:
>
> I have the Barnet in a model 85 with the pin type.
> No problems.
> Robert
> --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "steve elms" <selms@> wrote:
> >
> > I think I'm going to put a Barnet clutch in my M85 Alpina. Does
> anyone
> > know if it'll work okay with the pin-type clutch spring retainers, or
> > will I need the adjustable type?
> >
> > Also, should I get some new steel plates at the same time? My old
> ones
> > are pretty rough.
> >
> > Steve Elms
> >
>

The official name for the class your bike is in is Modern Classic in AHRMA.

"13.1.5 MODERN CLASSIC: Any unit-construction machine up to and including model
year
1979. Examples:

Bultaco 5-speed 125-350
Suzuki RL250 & TS models,
Beamish Suzuki,
Montesa Cota 123-348,
Ossa 250-350 MAR & BLT,
Yamaha TY175-250 & AT/CT/DT models,
Kawasaki KT250 & enduro models,
Honda TL125-250 & SL/XL models,
GRM Maverick rigid frames with four-stroke engines.
TMI framed Hondas and Frazier frames are eligible
Modifications and major components limited to those of the era, typical of
machines of the
mid-'70s."

There is no weight description. You are running up against bikes all of the way
to the
M199 series.

There is a discussion on Trials Central about "rules" and there I said that I
think a post-79
class is a possibility, and although shot down in the past, if someone were to
try hard
enough, it can be done.

There are some new folks for AHRMA trials and I think they may be more
receptive.

The two things that I want to see in AHRMA trials are:

Rider Grading
Twin Shock (79-86) class

Easy, eh? ;-)



One of the guys on our team had a TL125. He easily came in first in most events.
I would
not describe him as "lightweight" but he is a very good rider. This was in a
wide variety of
terrain here in the West.

Trials is less about the bike and more about the rider's skill. I think I've
said it before,
better to have a good running bike and get better at riding than fret about a
making a
great bike and not know how to ride. Worse thing you can do is have a poor
riding bike
and try to get better (I should know as that's how I started out, sorting the
bike instead of
learning to ride).



--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "Alan Burger" <ab400@...> wrote:
>
> Always an interesting topic:  I am running a Model 92 Sherpa T.  AHRMA
> calls it a Modern Classic Lightweight.  There is an upgrade (mine is a
> 71/72) that is also allowed to run the same class but that is the last
> one.  I run against Honda 125's which sure have a lot less power and
> not nearly as good a frame geometry.  They are usually a couple of
> years newer than my bike but I sure don't think they have an advantage.
>
> I guess the best thing you can say about AHRMA is that they really do
> try to keep it fair.  They need to make some decision about the 80ies
> bikes.  Several of the organizing bodies just classify by model (as in
> twin shock/vs/mono).
>
> Then you have the issue of internal modifications and on and on....
>
> Alan
>

Always an interesting topic:  I am running a Model 92 Sherpa T.  AHRMA
calls it a Modern Classic Lightweight.  There is an upgrade (mine is a
71/72) that is also allowed to run the same class but that is the last
one.  I run against Honda 125's which sure have a lot less power and
not nearly as good a frame geometry.  They are usually a couple of
years newer than my bike but I sure don't think they have an advantage.

I guess the best thing you can say about AHRMA is that they really do
try to keep it fair.  They need to make some decision about the 80ies
bikes.  Several of the organizing bodies just classify by model (as in
twin shock/vs/mono).

Then you have the issue of internal modifications and on and on....

Alan

At what point do you make a distinction? Bultaco was notorious for making
running
changes and evolving their product (just as everyone else was).

The idea in vintage (especially AHRMA) is to try to draw that line, and you will
find it to be
different from manufacturer to manufacturer.

The 136 is obviously a transitional model, which makes it all the more tricky to
categorize.
Which side of the fence to you toss it, Vintage or Post-Vintage? While someone
apparently
made the argument that the frame is the same as pre-136, you can't make the same
call
on the engine. I think allowing the frame to be used as a replacement (with the
older
swingarm) is a good compromise, but I can say that no being an owner of one of
them.

So it comes back to what do you want out of vintage racing? Do you want to be at
the
front of the pack or do you just want to finish? The rule of thumb to be at the
front
appears to be, "Get the newest bike for the class". The 136 just happens to not
be the one
for this.

Hugh's is advertising their new swingarms as being able to be used on 136s and
making
them legal. I've written for clarification. I doubt I'll get it. We'll just have
to wait until
someone is disallowed with a High's swingarm and see what happens.

Reed valve are allowed in the Sportsman classes, with no note about modifying an
engine
to accept them. So I suppose that might counter the "later engine" issue, at
least when it
comes to reed valves.

(If I seem to be on a rules-kick, it's because I've been updating the AHRMA
Rulebook to
get it online. Staring at the rules for hours on ends will make you a little
batty).

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Davis" <gdinsurance@...> wrote:
>
> My first race bike when I started vintage racing in 2003 was a 136.
> I was on a crusade a couple of seasons ago to get the 136 "legalized"
> for vintage racing and had the same question myself.  What I found
> out was that the spacing on the cylinder stud bolts are wider than
> those on the 121 and prior machines.  The 136 spacing is the same as
> that used on all 360-370 machines afterwards and the 1979 model, I
> believe, used a reed valve jug.  So, the concern is that the reed
> valve jug could be set on the 136 lower end.  The bore and stroke are
> a bit different as well but this issue was not as key as the reed
> valve.  Obviously there are no differences in the frame that the
> modified swingarm can't fix.
> The curious part about this is that there are so many CZs, Elsinores,
> etc. that have been modified to accept reed valves.
> BUT, as it was put to me by the Mann himself, "you do believe that we
> have to have a cutoff somewhere, don't you?"  To which I said, "well,
> yes, there has to be a cutoff somewhere."  To which he said, "Well,
> this is the cutoff"  To which I said, "yes sir".
> It seems too easy to just disallow a 136 with a reed valve but.....
> Thanks for allowing me to insert my observation.  I would love to
> hear any viewpoints on this issue, agreeing or disagreeing with mine.
> Gary Davis 42u

My first race bike when I started vintage racing in 2003 was a 136.
I was on a crusade a couple of seasons ago to get the 136 "legalized"
for vintage racing and had the same question myself.  What I found
out was that the spacing on the cylinder stud bolts are wider than
those on the 121 and prior machines.  The 136 spacing is the same as
that used on all 360-370 machines afterwards and the 1979 model, I
believe, used a reed valve jug.  So, the concern is that the reed
valve jug could be set on the 136 lower end.  The bore and stroke are
a bit different as well but this issue was not as key as the reed
valve.  Obviously there are no differences in the frame that the
modified swingarm can't fix.
The curious part about this is that there are so many CZs, Elsinores,
etc. that have been modified to accept reed valves.
BUT, as it was put to me by the Mann himself, "you do believe that we
have to have a cutoff somewhere, don't you?"  To which I said, "well,
yes, there has to be a cutoff somewhere."  To which he said, "Well,
this is the cutoff"  To which I said, "yes sir".
It seems too easy to just disallow a 136 with a reed valve but.....
Thanks for allowing me to insert my observation.  I would love to
hear any viewpoints on this issue, agreeing or disagreeing with mine.
Gary Davis 42u




--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Ziglar" <fredz43@...> wrote:
>
> --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Linan" <linan@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, Fred Ziglar <fredz43@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is this a 250 or 360? It is best with Buls to refer to the
model
> > > number rather than the year. In 75 the 250 is the M135 and the
> 360
> > is
> > > the M136. This is important if you intend to ride vintage
classes
> > in
> > > AHRMA. The 135 is legal for vintage, but the 136 is not, even
> with
> > > the 1974 swingarm. The 135 engine was unchanged from the 120,
but
> > the
> > > M136 engine was different than the 121, therefore not legal for
> > > vintage per AHRMA. It is legal in the post vintage classes,
> however.
> > >
> > > Hugh makes replacement AHRMA legal swingarms for this model for
> > about $300.
> > >
> > > At 10:45 AM 3/18/2008, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hello, just got this Pursang and want to race it in AHRMA. I
will
> > > >need a 1974 swingarm if anyone has one they can afford to
sell. I
> > > >also need to know the eye to eye length of the stock 1974 rear
> > shocks.
> > > >Does anyone know where a good service manual for this bike can
be
> > > >obtained? Thanks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fred Z.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > Yeah Fred, it's a model 136.  In response to your comments about
> the
> > 136 not being AHRMA legal, I called them and was told the book
> reads
> > that the 1975 model 136 frame can be used to replace the previous
> > year's frame if used with 1974 or prior swingarm and as so he
said
> I
> > would be legal, but that doesn't address your comment about the
> > engine.  It looks as though I would have no problem racing it,
but
> if
> > you wouldn't mind telling me what you've heard about the 136
engine
> > that excludes it from eligibility.  Thanks.  PS. does no one know
> the
> > stock shock length of the 1974 360 Pursang, model 121?
> >
> Mike, you are correct about the 136 frame being legal if you change
> the swingarm, as well as other frames, such as the 143, 152.This is
a
> recent rule change. However the 136 engine had changes from the 121
> engine and has been illegal for vintage classes since day 1. There
> are changes relative to cylinder stud spacing that makes them
> stronger, I believe,as wel las other minor changes that make it
> not "like design",therefore not legal. It has been explained here
> before by Lobodave, who is a national AHRMA rep. Bottom line is
that
> although the later frames such as 136 and 143 are legal with
swingarm
> changes, neither the 136 or 143 engines are legal. If you got a 136
> frame, 121 spec swingarm and a 121 engine you could run it,
otherwise
> you can't.
>
> I am out of town for a few days, but can measure my 121 swigarm
when
> I get back next week.
>

Greetings VMX Fans!

The Writers at McCookRacing.com have shifted into Overdrive with what
has become our most Dangerous, Biggest  and Best issue yet!

   Rocketing out of the first turn is a must read revealing interview
with AVDRA's Dave Boydstun! Hot on his heels, we have Fred-900-Guidi
giving us the vision of the future of AHRMA and Raucous Rick
Doughty's Top Ten, featuring his ten best and ten worst people in
VMX.....Dangerous! Firko clues us in on his ever changing moods and
Charlie Oxford give us a dose of reality! 'Souper' Steve Clark makes
his professional writing debut with 'From Soup to Nuts' and Terry
Frazier launches an outrageous 12-step VMX program to help those of
us needing serious therapy!

   Vet racer Robert Haag takes us back to 1972 with a true story, 'The
Husky Hooker Headers Mystery', and the eloquent David Russell brings
together the brilliance of 'The Motorcycle as Art'. Tech guru Fritz
Guenther teaches us how to play nice and keep our bearings, along
with Rich Fogel's words of wisdom on plastic restoration. We welcome
Tom Long to our editorial fold with 'Everything Happens for a
Reason', and Siege takes us inside Hammer & Tongs in this issues' VMX
Club profile!

   PJ Read, Nigel Hollingsworth and Trent Farlowe, cocktail us behind
the scenes and reveal the brilliant masterminding of the most sought
after MX bike in history and follow along as McCookRacing.com, MCMX
Racing, Vintage Iron and MX Restorations collaborate on the race
restoration of a 79' YZ250F to terrorize the Northeast!

   Add to all of this, The most comprehensive listing of VMX racing
schedules, Classifieds and a Links page big enough to choke a
Bing!.....Oh, I almost forgot....the winner of the World Famous
McCookRacing.com Caption Contest is.....Jeez, C'mon over and see for yourself!




Cheers,
Michael #41
<http://www.mccookracing.com/>www.McCookRacing.com
It's Your Site, Run with It!

McCookRacing.com Contributing Editors:Steve Clark #309D,Fred '900'
Guidi,Dave Russell #832,John Nicholas #12,Charlie Oxford #20E,Rich
Fogel,Terry Frazier #71E,John Putkey #253,Fritz Guenther #22T,Al
Conte #48J,Giles Nelson #665,Bruce Rounsaville #9J,Marcus Fresco
#77Y,Mark Hayzlett #85M,Perry Sconzert #99D,Tom Long #20B,Robert Haag
#74Y,Stu Osborn #657,'Firko' Mark Firkin #53,Randy Smith #24,Mark
Jarecki #45Q,Rick Doughty,Joe Abbate #43F,Siege #306,Joey Poole
#962,P.J. Read #357,Nigel Hollingsworth #356,Michael McCook
#41,George Lookenbill #84,Chris Sunkin#1

Please Visit Our Sponsors
<http://www.tickco.com/>
[]
   <http://www.mxrestoration.com/>
[]
  <http://www.amsracing.com/>
AMS Racing

<http://www.vintageiron.com/>
[]
   <http://www.bayimagery.com/>
[]
  <http://www.tonydmxschool.com/>
MotoLift

<http://www.joeabbatescycletherapy.com/>
[]
   <http://williamson-design.com/>
Williamson Design Web Sites



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What model #?
I have a model 85 that has a battery but it is because I added it.
Teh lights are run off the lighting coil on mine except that the brake
light was run off the ignition.  The ground was lifted off and the
ignition coil sought ground through the rear light.  That resulted in a
foot operated brake switch when the bulb was burned out.
I swaped that wire for the ground side of the lighting coil and brougnt
out the second lead from the lighting coil and dropped those two accros
A full bridge rectifier.  I tied the DC ground of that to the frame and
the other to my new DC circuit.  That uses all the lighting coil has to
offer.
I will have to scan that drawign and post it.
Robert
--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "dan wolfe" <daninwalkercounty@...>
wrote:
>
> Restoring 74 350 and can not find reference to battery.  I thought
> these used the tiny 6volt placed behind the sidecover.
> Any resources for wiring harness?
> Dan Wolfe
> Riverside, Tx.
>

I don't think there is a battery. Lights are run off the lighting coil. I think.

While I suppose you could buy a wiring harness, there just aren't that many
wires so you
could almost make your own for less trouble.

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "dan wolfe" <daninwalkercounty@...> wrote:
>
> Restoring 74 350 and can not find reference to battery.  I thought
> these used the tiny 6volt placed behind the sidecover.
> Any resources for wiring harness?
> Dan Wolfe
> Riverside, Tx.
>

Restoring 74 350 and can not find reference to battery.  I thought
these used the tiny 6volt placed behind the sidecover.
Any resources for wiring harness?
Dan Wolfe
Riverside, Tx.

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Linan" <linan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, Fred Ziglar <fredz43@> wrote:
> >
> > Is this a 250 or 360? It is best with Buls to refer to the model
> > number rather than the year. In 75 the 250 is the M135 and the
360
> is
> > the M136. This is important if you intend to ride vintage classes
> in
> > AHRMA. The 135 is legal for vintage, but the 136 is not, even
with
> > the 1974 swingarm. The 135 engine was unchanged from the 120, but
> the
> > M136 engine was different than the 121, therefore not legal for
> > vintage per AHRMA. It is legal in the post vintage classes,
however.
> >
> > Hugh makes replacement AHRMA legal swingarms for this model for
> about $300.
> >
> > At 10:45 AM 3/18/2008, you wrote:
> >
> > >Hello, just got this Pursang and want to race it in AHRMA. I will
> > >need a 1974 swingarm if anyone has one they can afford to sell. I
> > >also need to know the eye to eye length of the stock 1974 rear
> shocks.
> > >Does anyone know where a good service manual for this bike can be
> > >obtained? Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Fred Z.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> Yeah Fred, it's a model 136.  In response to your comments about
the
> 136 not being AHRMA legal, I called them and was told the book
reads
> that the 1975 model 136 frame can be used to replace the previous
> year's frame if used with 1974 or prior swingarm and as so he said
I
> would be legal, but that doesn't address your comment about the
> engine.  It looks as though I would have no problem racing it, but
if
> you wouldn't mind telling me what you've heard about the 136 engine
> that excludes it from eligibility.  Thanks.  PS. does no one know
the
> stock shock length of the 1974 360 Pursang, model 121?
>
Mike, you are correct about the 136 frame being legal if you change
the swingarm, as well as other frames, such as the 143, 152.This is a
recent rule change. However the 136 engine had changes from the 121
engine and has been illegal for vintage classes since day 1. There
are changes relative to cylinder stud spacing that makes them
stronger, I believe,as wel las other minor changes that make it
not "like design",therefore not legal. It has been explained here
before by Lobodave, who is a national AHRMA rep. Bottom line is that
although the later frames such as 136 and 143 are legal with swingarm
changes, neither the 136 or 143 engines are legal. If you got a 136
frame, 121 spec swingarm and a 121 engine you could run it, otherwise
you can't.

I am out of town for a few days, but can measure my 121 swigarm when
I get back next week.

I have the Barnet in a model 85 with the pin type.
No problems.
Robert
--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "steve elms" <selms@...> wrote:
>
> I think I'm going to put a Barnet clutch in my M85 Alpina. Does
anyone
> know if it'll work okay with the pin-type clutch spring retainers, or
> will I need the adjustable type?
>
> Also, should I get some new steel plates at the same time? My old
ones
> are pretty rough.
>
> Steve Elms
>

Do be aware that you have less plates with a Barnett clutch.  They are
thicker and you can't put as many in the basket.  They are sold in
sets that will fit in the original basket.

Alan

I think I have them on my M49 (pin-type) without any problem.

I would treat the clutch like you'd treat the chain, replace all of the parts
that come in contact
or you'll just end up wearing the new parts out faster.

So, and especially if you suspect a part is worn, replace.

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "steve elms" <selms@...> wrote:
>
> I think I'm going to put a Barnet clutch in my M85 Alpina. Does anyone
> know if it'll work okay with the pin-type clutch spring retainers, or
> will I need the adjustable type?
>
> Also, should I get some new steel plates at the same time? My old ones
> are pretty rough.
>
> Steve Elms
>

I think I'm going to put a Barnet clutch in my M85 Alpina. Does anyone
know if it'll work okay with the pin-type clutch spring retainers, or
will I need the adjustable type?

Also, should I get some new steel plates at the same time? My old ones
are pretty rough.

Steve Elms

Thanks for the info.  I wonder what it is about the 136 engine that
disqualifies it.  Do you know?



   _____

From: TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of friesen_dave
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:13 AM
To: TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [TeamBultaco] Re: 1975 Pursang Info needed



Per the engine:

If you follow the logic, you'll understand that the engine is the one thing
that is not
allowed in Vintage.

If you have a 136 it is not eligible.

If you have a Vintage-legal bike you can use the 136 frame (but not
swingarm).

So, a pre-136 engine is legal. A pre-136 swingarm is legal. A 136 frame is
legal.

Nowhere does it say that if you have a 136 bike that if you use a prior
swingarm that it
will be Vintage-legal.

Thus a 136 engine and swingarm are not legal.

If you use either of these parts you are going to be in Post-Vintage.

My guess (according to the Progressive and Works Performance sites) is
13.5", which
sounds right.

--- In TeamBultaco@ <mailto:TeamBultaco%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
"Mike Linan" <linan@...> wrote:

> Yeah Fred, it's a model 136. In response to your comments about the
> 136 not being AHRMA legal, I called them and was told the book reads
> that the 1975 model 136 frame can be used to replace the previous
> year's frame if used with 1974 or prior swingarm and as so he said I
> would be legal, but that doesn't address your comment about the
> engine. It looks as though I would have no problem racing it, but if
> you wouldn't mind telling me what you've heard about the 136 engine
> that excludes it from eligibility. Thanks. PS. does no one know the
> stock shock length of the 1974 360 Pursang, model 121?
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Per the engine:

If you follow the logic, you'll understand that the engine is the one thing that
is not
allowed in Vintage.

If you have a 136 it is not eligible.

If you have a Vintage-legal bike you can use the 136 frame (but not swingarm).

So, a pre-136 engine is legal. A pre-136 swingarm is legal. A 136 frame is
legal.

Nowhere does it say that if you have a 136 bike that if you use a prior swingarm
that it
will be Vintage-legal.

Thus a 136 engine and swingarm are not legal.

If you use either of these parts you are going to be in Post-Vintage.

My guess (according to the Progressive and Works Performance sites) is 13.5",
which
sounds right.

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Linan" <linan@...> wrote:

> Yeah Fred, it's a model 136.  In response to your comments about the
> 136 not being AHRMA legal, I called them and was told the book reads
> that the 1975 model 136 frame can be used to replace the previous
> year's frame if used with 1974 or prior swingarm and as so he said I
> would be legal, but that doesn't address your comment about the
> engine.  It looks as though I would have no problem racing it, but if
> you wouldn't mind telling me what you've heard about the 136 engine
> that excludes it from eligibility.  Thanks.  PS. does no one know the
> stock shock length of the 1974 360 Pursang, model 121?
>

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, Fred Ziglar <fredz43@...> wrote:
>
> Is this a 250 or 360? It is best with Buls to refer to the model
> number rather than the year. In 75 the 250 is the M135 and the 360
is
> the M136. This is important if you intend to ride vintage classes
in
> AHRMA. The 135 is legal for vintage, but the 136 is not, even with
> the 1974 swingarm. The 135 engine was unchanged from the 120, but
the
> M136 engine was different than the 121, therefore not legal for
> vintage per AHRMA. It is legal in the post vintage classes, however.
>
> Hugh makes replacement AHRMA legal swingarms for this model for
about $300.
>
> At 10:45 AM 3/18/2008, you wrote:
>
> >Hello, just got this Pursang and want to race it in AHRMA. I will
> >need a 1974 swingarm if anyone has one they can afford to sell. I
> >also need to know the eye to eye length of the stock 1974 rear
shocks.
> >Does anyone know where a good service manual for this bike can be
> >obtained? Thanks.
> >
> >
>
> Fred Z.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Yeah Fred, it's a model 136.  In response to your comments about the
136 not being AHRMA legal, I called them and was told the book reads
that the 1975 model 136 frame can be used to replace the previous
year's frame if used with 1974 or prior swingarm and as so he said I
would be legal, but that doesn't address your comment about the
engine.  It looks as though I would have no problem racing it, but if
you wouldn't mind telling me what you've heard about the 136 engine
that excludes it from eligibility.  Thanks.  PS. does no one know the
stock shock length of the 1974 360 Pursang, model 121?

I'm going to try to deepen the groove too. I bought some new C-clips, I'll see
how they
do.

For anyone in the PNW, you just can't beat Tacoma Screw. I went in, bought my
usual
small pile of stainless hardware and also the C-clips. They didn't have them in
stock so
they UPS'ed them to me the next day.

I bought like 6-7 of the little buggers. They probably lost $4 or more in the
deal. But I got
them.

That and they don't care if you buy one or one million pieces. Don't even blink.
It does
help when I go in with a part number list (they gave me one of their catalogs
and I use it).

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "steve elms" <selms@...> wrote:
>
> Steve J.,
>
> Sounds like a GREAT idea. I checked my lock ring pliers and one has
> the little hole but has pretty wide blades. The other has nice narrow
> blades but no hole. So --- I'll either buy another pair or try to
> grind a little hole in the narrow pair with a Dremel tool. I've put
> Bultaco kick starters together before but never with such a strong
> spring. It oughta work great once I get it together.
>
> As far as the snap ring coming out; I've had it happen too. Maybe I
> went a little overboard but what I did was drill a hole through the
> arm right on top of the groove and secured the lever with a 1/8th
> inch cotter key. I had to grind a little off the lever but that
> sucker's never coming apart in the middle of a trial again. I had to
> ride about half the last loop without shutting the engine off. Push
> starting an Alpina geared 11/58 is a bitch!
>
> Wish us luck, Krista's gonna ride her first ever motocross and I'm
> riding the trial at the AHRMA Texas National at Diamond Don's in two
> weeks.
>
> Steve E
>
> --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "ossaguy1975" <ossaguy@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "steve elms" <selms@> wrote:
> > >
> > > What's the trick to replace the detent ball and spring for the
> kick
> > > starter? So far I've lost two balls trying to put it together.
> > >
> > > Also, how much fork oil is recommended for a '72 350 Pursang,
> model
> > > 104? I've looked it up in two manuals and found two different
> answers.
> > >
> > > Steve Elms
> > >
> > Hi Steve,
> >      I've had good luck using a pair of "Lock Ring" pliers.If you
> have
> > never seen a pair,they are sorta like retaining ring pliers,except
> they
> > have almost square,skinny jaws,that move outward,when you squeeze
> the
> > handles.on the outside of each jaw,there is a round dimple that is
> made
> > for the lock ring on a shaft to sit in,and keep the clip from
> popping
> > out.That dimple fits the ball,and a dab of grease holds it in
> place.So
> > just go in from the top,and when you squeeze the handles,they
> compress
> > the ball and spring flush,and just pushing down on the swing-out
> lever
> > pops it in really slick! The pair that Sears sells for about $12.00
> > will work.This tool is handy to have in the tool box,as it is nice
> to
> > push little things apart.My kicker swing-out lever had the circlip
> that
> > held it in place,and at the worst time,it would fly out of it's too-
> > shallow groove.I used a mini thin flat file and made the groove
> > deeper,with a super sharp edge,and that solved that problem.Hope
> this
> > helps.  Steve Johnson
> >
>

Steve J.,

Sounds like a GREAT idea. I checked my lock ring pliers and one has
the little hole but has pretty wide blades. The other has nice narrow
blades but no hole. So --- I'll either buy another pair or try to
grind a little hole in the narrow pair with a Dremel tool. I've put
Bultaco kick starters together before but never with such a strong
spring. It oughta work great once I get it together.

As far as the snap ring coming out; I've had it happen too. Maybe I
went a little overboard but what I did was drill a hole through the
arm right on top of the groove and secured the lever with a 1/8th
inch cotter key. I had to grind a little off the lever but that
sucker's never coming apart in the middle of a trial again. I had to
ride about half the last loop without shutting the engine off. Push
starting an Alpina geared 11/58 is a bitch!

Wish us luck, Krista's gonna ride her first ever motocross and I'm
riding the trial at the AHRMA Texas National at Diamond Don's in two
weeks.

Steve E

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "ossaguy1975" <ossaguy@...> wrote:
>
> --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "steve elms" <selms@> wrote:
> >
> > What's the trick to replace the detent ball and spring for the
kick
> > starter? So far I've lost two balls trying to put it together.
> >
> > Also, how much fork oil is recommended for a '72 350 Pursang,
model
> > 104? I've looked it up in two manuals and found two different
answers.
> >
> > Steve Elms
> >
> Hi Steve,
>      I've had good luck using a pair of "Lock Ring" pliers.If you
have
> never seen a pair,they are sorta like retaining ring pliers,except
they
> have almost square,skinny jaws,that move outward,when you squeeze
the
> handles.on the outside of each jaw,there is a round dimple that is
made
> for the lock ring on a shaft to sit in,and keep the clip from
popping
> out.That dimple fits the ball,and a dab of grease holds it in
place.So
> just go in from the top,and when you squeeze the handles,they
compress
> the ball and spring flush,and just pushing down on the swing-out
lever
> pops it in really slick! The pair that Sears sells for about $12.00
> will work.This tool is handy to have in the tool box,as it is nice
to
> push little things apart.My kicker swing-out lever had the circlip
that
> held it in place,and at the worst time,it would fly out of it's too-
> shallow groove.I used a mini thin flat file and made the groove
> deeper,with a super sharp edge,and that solved that problem.Hope
this
> helps.  Steve Johnson
>

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "steve elms" <selms@...> wrote:
>
> What's the trick to replace the detent ball and spring for the kick
> starter? So far I've lost two balls trying to put it together.
>
> Also, how much fork oil is recommended for a '72 350 Pursang, model
> 104? I've looked it up in two manuals and found two different answers.
>
> Steve Elms
>
Hi Steve,
      I've had good luck using a pair of "Lock Ring" pliers.If you have
never seen a pair,they are sorta like retaining ring pliers,except they
have almost square,skinny jaws,that move outward,when you squeeze the
handles.on the outside of each jaw,there is a round dimple that is made
for the lock ring on a shaft to sit in,and keep the clip from popping
out.That dimple fits the ball,and a dab of grease holds it in place.So
just go in from the top,and when you squeeze the handles,they compress
the ball and spring flush,and just pushing down on the swing-out lever
pops it in really slick! The pair that Sears sells for about $12.00
will work.This tool is handy to have in the tool box,as it is nice to
push little things apart.My kicker swing-out lever had the circlip that
held it in place,and at the worst time,it would fly out of it's too-
shallow groove.I used a mini thin flat file and made the groove
deeper,with a super sharp edge,and that solved that problem.Hope this
helps.  Steve Johnson

Doesn't matter. Just as long as they are legible.

Here's how I did mine. Ran them at the Chehalis National. No one said anything,
of course
I was easy to spot as I was moving so slow.

http://tinyurl.com/3xutyg

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "steve elms" <selms@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Dave, I'll get, or maybe make one of those tools.
>
> On another note for the same bike. I'm just the wrench on the bike,
> the owner/rider is going to ride her first ever motocross at the
> AHRMA National at Diamond Don's in Texas next month. What shape
> should the front number plate be? I thought I saw in the rule book
> where it should be rectangular but all the photos show oval plates.
>
> Steve
>
> --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "friesen_dave" <davefriesen@>
> wrote:
> >
> > That's funny. I just had the same problem. btw, the balls are 4mm
> (I think) so if you get
> > tired of paying $1 for them from the dealer you can try a local
> bearing place.
> >
> > So I finally smartened up ('bout time some would say) and go the
> damn ball in. If I was
> > smarterer I would have taken pictures but I was so excited to not
> loose another ball I
> > wasn't about to take it back apart.
> >
> > So what helped me was a special tool, it's for messing with
> electrical connectors, typically
> > those found on GM cars or computers. It's like a screwdriver but
> it's a hollow tube about
> > 3mm in diameter. Like a metal straw. I think it's called a Molex
> Connector Pin Extraction
> > Tool. I *think* I got mine from NAPA, but you want to try a
> computer hobby shop.
> >
> > The ball will sit on the end, especially with a bit of grease.
> >
> > Now, assuming the spring is in place, put it together so that the
> spring is resting on top of
> > the kickstart lever. Now from the top put the ball and tool on the
> end of the spring. The
> > hollow of the tool will hold the ball. Push the ball into the hole,
> while at the same time
> > putting a little force on the kickstart lever. As soon as the ball
> goes in the hole pull the
> > tool out and the lever will go on.
> >
> > Now, after reading all of that you can understand while I did all
> of this from the inside of a
> > plastic bag, as I was sick of loosing the balls when they shot into
> forbidden corners of the
> > garage. But it went on so nicely I wouldn't need the bag next time.
> >
> > So, most electronic places will have a Molex Connector Pin
> Extraction Tool (just Google
> > the last four words). They ain't expensive.
> >
> > I don't know what else might work but it's basically got to hold
> the ball until you can slip it
> > back in the hole. I tried a screwdriver but that didn't work.
> >
> > No idea on the oil, sorry.
> >
> > --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "steve elms" <selms@> wrote:
> > >
> > > What's the trick to replace the detent ball and spring for the
> kick
> > > starter? So far I've lost two balls trying to put it together.
> > >
> > > Also, how much fork oil is recommended for a '72 350 Pursang,
> model
> > > 104? I've looked it up in two manuals and found two different
> answers.
> > >
> > > Steve Elms
> > >
> >
>

Thanks Dave, I'll get, or maybe make one of those tools.

On another note for the same bike. I'm just the wrench on the bike,
the owner/rider is going to ride her first ever motocross at the
AHRMA National at Diamond Don's in Texas next month. What shape
should the front number plate be? I thought I saw in the rule book
where it should be rectangular but all the photos show oval plates.

Steve

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "friesen_dave" <davefriesen@...>
wrote:
>
> That's funny. I just had the same problem. btw, the balls are 4mm
(I think) so if you get
> tired of paying $1 for them from the dealer you can try a local
bearing place.
>
> So I finally smartened up ('bout time some would say) and go the
damn ball in. If I was
> smarterer I would have taken pictures but I was so excited to not
loose another ball I
> wasn't about to take it back apart.
>
> So what helped me was a special tool, it's for messing with
electrical connectors, typically
> those found on GM cars or computers. It's like a screwdriver but
it's a hollow tube about
> 3mm in diameter. Like a metal straw. I think it's called a Molex
Connector Pin Extraction
> Tool. I *think* I got mine from NAPA, but you want to try a
computer hobby shop.
>
> The ball will sit on the end, especially with a bit of grease.
>
> Now, assuming the spring is in place, put it together so that the
spring is resting on top of
> the kickstart lever. Now from the top put the ball and tool on the
end of the spring. The
> hollow of the tool will hold the ball. Push the ball into the hole,
while at the same time
> putting a little force on the kickstart lever. As soon as the ball
goes in the hole pull the
> tool out and the lever will go on.
>
> Now, after reading all of that you can understand while I did all
of this from the inside of a
> plastic bag, as I was sick of loosing the balls when they shot into
forbidden corners of the
> garage. But it went on so nicely I wouldn't need the bag next time.
>
> So, most electronic places will have a Molex Connector Pin
Extraction Tool (just Google
> the last four words). They ain't expensive.
>
> I don't know what else might work but it's basically got to hold
the ball until you can slip it
> back in the hole. I tried a screwdriver but that didn't work.
>
> No idea on the oil, sorry.
>
> --- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "steve elms" <selms@> wrote:
> >
> > What's the trick to replace the detent ball and spring for the
kick
> > starter? So far I've lost two balls trying to put it together.
> >
> > Also, how much fork oil is recommended for a '72 350 Pursang,
model
> > 104? I've looked it up in two manuals and found two different
answers.
> >
> > Steve Elms
> >
>

That's funny. I just had the same problem. btw, the balls are 4mm (I think) so
if you get
tired of paying $1 for them from the dealer you can try a local bearing place.

So I finally smartened up ('bout time some would say) and go the damn ball in.
If I was
smarterer I would have taken pictures but I was so excited to not loose another
ball I
wasn't about to take it back apart.

So what helped me was a special tool, it's for messing with electrical
connectors, typically
those found on GM cars or computers. It's like a screwdriver but it's a hollow
tube about
3mm in diameter. Like a metal straw. I think it's called a Molex Connector Pin
Extraction
Tool. I *think* I got mine from NAPA, but you want to try a computer hobby shop.

The ball will sit on the end, especially with a bit of grease.

Now, assuming the spring is in place, put it together so that the spring is
resting on top of
the kickstart lever. Now from the top put the ball and tool on the end of the
spring. The
hollow of the tool will hold the ball. Push the ball into the hole, while at the
same time
putting a little force on the kickstart lever. As soon as the ball goes in the
hole pull the
tool out and the lever will go on.

Now, after reading all of that you can understand while I did all of this from
the inside of a
plastic bag, as I was sick of loosing the balls when they shot into forbidden
corners of the
garage. But it went on so nicely I wouldn't need the bag next time.

So, most electronic places will have a Molex Connector Pin Extraction Tool (just
Google
the last four words). They ain't expensive.

I don't know what else might work but it's basically got to hold the ball until
you can slip it
back in the hole. I tried a screwdriver but that didn't work.

No idea on the oil, sorry.

--- In TeamBultaco@yahoogroups.com, "steve elms" <selms@...> wrote:
>
> What's the trick to replace the detent ball and spring for the kick
> starter? So far I've lost two balls trying to put it together.
>
> Also, how much fork oil is recommended for a '72 350 Pursang, model
> 104? I've looked it up in two manuals and found two different answers.
>
> Steve Elms
>

What's the trick to replace the detent ball and spring for the kick
starter? So far I've lost two balls trying to put it together.

Also, how much fork oil is recommended for a '72 350 Pursang, model
104? I've looked it up in two manuals and found two different answers.

Steve Elms