woody

I'd guess the Miller boomerang (never had one) is the same construction as the original Bultaco item inside, except it's made of alloy not steel. The original has a perforated tube with packing, no baffles, and there is no point trying to clean these out. If the packing has clogged with exhaust goo or disintegrated the only way to repair it is to split it open, clean up the tube (the holes get blocked with carbon) and replace the packing

Sherpa 75cc and 125cc are also 6 speed

I don't think the full width weight was a Yamaha option. There were full width weights available for the Majesty but these were made by John Shirt. They were generally for the 320 not the 250. They are pretty heavy. One of those on a 250 will kill the motor and the throttle response will be really slow, the motor just won't pick up. It's interesting what you say as generally, we find that the 250 doesn't have a problem lugging at low speed but needs the standard weight skimmed or removed altogether to get any sort of urgent response from the throttle as they lack decent power and struggle to pull with the standard weight in anything other than bottom gear. I was riding a 250 Majesty at the weekend which we were setting up. The flywheel weight is skimmed to about half its normal size and the bike is fitted with electronic ignition. We started with the ignition reasonably retarded and it was flat with no pull. Moved it onto full advance and the motor was pretty lively for a 250 and would lift the front wheel in second gear off tickover speed with a twist of throttle. It lugged right down low and showed no tendency to stall. Although it is a Majesty it is a standard TY motor, they weren't tuned on normal customer bikes, only suppoted riders. As I'm pretty sure the big weight isn't a Yamaha part I think you may have trouble sourcing one. You could try Ellastone Offroad in the UK as he has TY parts and has broken Majesties in the past, so it's possible (remote though) that he may have a big weight. Or he may know of another source. I think he is on a trip to the USA at the moment though so may be away for a week or so. Craig Mawlam who bought up the remaining Majesty stuff from Shirt doesn't have any. I asked as I wanted one for a 320. Other than those two, I'm not sure there are any other options other than getting one made.

It's been a while since I looked at one but it looks like a TYZ flywheel to me too.

Bou? - Yes, and he rode back against the flow of the section. But it's WTC - anything goes

Several options: Put a wanted ad in the ads section on this site Keep an eye on ebay - they come up from time to time, more common on ebay USA and not too expensive to get something that size sent over Try the various breakers, Ellastone, Wakefield Offroad etc Get it repaired by brazing and get it rechromed if you want an as new finish, as long as it is good enough to rechrome. If the metal is thin where the hole is then the polishing may polish through it. Millers do a new replacement but it isn't a single tube bent to shape, it's several pieces welded together and isn't as good an appearance as an original. When you say a late MK2, the MK2 was only made during 74/75, the '76 green/white model with the angled shocks was a MK3 although it still had the shorter chrome front pipe. Later MK3 bikes had the long black front pipe. The Miller pipe is the short one (black though, not chrome) I'm assuming it is the chrome pipe you have. However, you can use the short or the long, there is no difference in fitting. Doubt you'll notice any change to performance with either.

There are a couple of places in Devon - they advertise in TMX (or used to)

For a fibreglass tank I think you should use only Caswells. It's a US product but they have a UK website/store. If you google it you'll find their website and contact details. Are you sure it hasn't just worn through for some reason, vibration/rubbing etc. rather than fuel eating it. It's nearly 30 years old and could have suffered all sorts of abuse. My old 325 slimline Sherpa has been used regularly for many years with no problem to the tank and I know of several other bikes with glass tanks that have suffered no problem with today's fuel. My Majesty glass tank is showing no sign of suffering from modern fuel either and it is never without fuel sitting in it.

Sizes can vary so best to buy a spoke spanner with multiple sizes on it. If the nipples are original, they may be the alloy type in which case be very careful when you try and tighten them. They can appear to be in good condition but one tweak of the spanner and they can break up if they have corroded. Best to apply penetrating oil and let it soak in for a while and also to apply heat if there is any resistance when you first attempt to turn them.

There is a farm at Shatterford, near Kidderminster, where the ownner allows riding. Can't remember the name of the farm, Birchwood maybe, but if you can find a contact number for Jeff Wells who runs the Stourbridge club he could tell you as they hold trials there. It's on the main Kidderminster to Bridgnorth Road, a mile or so past the junction with the B4189 road from Wolverley (Bridgnorth side) It's all banks cambers and roots, some pretty big banks. No rocks. When it's wet it's extremely slippery. The place at Button Oak is owned by a caravan park which I don't know the name of. Been there once but can't remember exactly where it is. I think it is the only right turn in Button Oak and then you just need to find the caravan park. The road has a fork in it and both are dead ends so you have a 50/50 chance of taking the right one first. Rock stream but nothing big in it, banks and roots. I prefer Shatterford as it is less hassle for parking which is also more secure. At Button Oak you have to leave your car/van up on the road on the grass verge which is very large but on the side of the road out of sight. Shatterford you park in the farm (it's not a farm in the normal sense, more a stables) Whatever anyone tells you DO NOT go to Kinlet as practising is not allowed there and the owner is not at all happy when he finds people have been there

Yes you can have them painted. Any decent car body shop or custom bike painters will know how to do them. Just needs the correct primer and flexible additive in the paint.

The problem with those parts is you're going to have real trouble identifying which model they have come from, could even be several, so establishing which cases they will fit in order to buy some and whether a gearbox is compatible with the clutch will be virtually impossible - until you come to assemble it all. Also, a 73mm piston is from a 250, not a 325 which is 10mm bigger in diameter. The clutch chain tensioner should have a revolving wheel, not a plastic triangular pad. If it was me, I'd look out for a complete engine as at least you know what you are starting with. If parts are missing/worn, at least you know which model it is when ordering replacement parts. They come up on ebay from time to time and Ellastone Offroad near Uttoxeter has Bultaco stuff and may be worth a try for an engine to rebuild. They are also going to the USA soon and may well be bringing more Bultaco stuff back. Lots of engines being broken for parts there (I'm assuming you're in the UK) Other issues keep coming to mind as well each time I think about it. The later clutch-side crankshaft weight is a different shape on later models and won't fit inside the earlier clutch case (up to '74) they need some metal machining off the outside edge in order to clear the inside of an earlier case. Gear selectors changed around '74 also, They got beefed up a bit and I don't think the early selectors will work with a later gearbox and vice-versa. Most of these parts look identical when looking at them individually and strewn over a bench but when you compare them side by side you notice the differences. So although nothing was a major redesign throughout the life of the Sherpa engine there are enough little differences on engines up to around '75 to make life very difficult to do what you propose. After that I'd guess they stayed pretty static. Try and get a complete engine, it's the better option

I saw Paul on it a few weeks back and it looks anything but trick, nothing like Thorpe / Calvert etc Cubs. Really pleased for him to have won, nice bloke and a good rider. Well done.

I can't say this as definite fact but as far as I know the cranks would be the same in terms of external dimensions so would fit any 325 engine, I think they were just 'beefed up'. I don't believe there were any changes to the cases. You'd be better checking with one of the Bulto specialists on this though, just to be sure One thing I forgot to mention is that there were changes to the clutch hub around the early 70s and this could cause you trouble if building an engine from sourced parts as it affects the gearbox mainshaft too. The 250 model type 49 (and 80 I think) had woodfruff key fitting for the clutch hub on the gearbox mainshaft. Sometime after that they changed the hub and shaft to a spline fitting. This may have happened on the model 91 but the next model, 124, definitely has it. You can't put the splined mainshaft/clutch hub in the earlier engine as the shaft is a larger diameter, therefore the bearings are different sizes, ID and OD. Naturally, same applies to putting earlier shaft/hub in later engine. All 325 engines will have the splined hub. The other thing to watch with the hub is that the boss on the rear which fits up against the spacer is different depending which bike it has come from. There are three lengths that I know of and if the wrong one is fitted, could throw the primary chain out of line (I'm assuming) There is the woodfruff key type with nuts to hold the springs. There is a splined type as fitted to the 92 with pins to hold the springs. There is a splined type with nuts to hold the springs as fitted to all of the later bikes. All have differing lengths. Best option is to get an engine with the clutch complete, then you don't have to worry. If you start with a pair of bare crankcases and try to build an engine from there, you may just rip your hair out trying to match clutch parts....

They didn't change much really. The early 325 motor from the model 92 to 151 (1972 - 75) was basically an overbored 250 barrel with square fins and these have a limited oversize due to the thinner liner. From 1975/76 they had internal changes to the crank, gear ratios, selectors, porting maybe, but nothing major. These engines had thicker liners and could be bored out to 340cc with the Pursang piston which you can't do on the earlier ones. Not that the 325 needs a performance hike anyway. Visually they are pretty much the same so you could use any of the 325 motors. Clutch cases changed design in about 1975, model 151 maybe, and the timing cover changed in 1979 on the 199a. However for appearance sake the older cases can be fitted to the later engine if you're bothered. The fin design on the cylinders/heads differs slightly from older to newer but it's not obvious. The later 325 engine has a larger exhaust port flange than the earlier engine so the exhausts aren't interchangeable. The earlier 325 uses the same size as the square fin barrel 250 I think. Earlier engine had an Amal, later used a Bing, these take different inlet manifolds but they are interchangeable. The most noticeable change in appearance was to exhaust systems, silencers in particular. The 250 engine changed from round finned barrel to the square fin 325 style in 1975 so the 250 from that date differs in appearance from an earlier engine. Clutch/timing cover as per 325. Early 250 uses Amal mk1, 1975 on uses Amal mk2. Inlet manifolds differ but are interchangeable. Exhaust design completely different from round to square barrel. For your bike, if you want to keep it a 325 to go with the 92 frame, apart from purists knowing the differences, any 325 motor would look ok with the older casings, even the later clutch cover, but you might not be able to get a 'period' appearance exhaust if you use a later 325 motor. You're stuck with the later exaust, unless you modify. If you use a 250 motor then you really need the round barrel model for that year frame. Ultimately, all you want is a bike to ride and enjoy so if it was me I'd use any engine I could get, none will look out of place really. There were plenty of hybrids back in their era. Originality can become obsessive and ultimately, for what purpose.

Yes, 242 Mont is a good bike. You could try TY Offroad as he had a 242 that was either for sale as a parts bike or was being broken for parts, not sure which or if it is still there. Link below. TY Offroad

My original post has gone due to the server upgrade - here's the shortened version Bike is owned by Eddie Bull and is at the Stafford show this weekend on sale at

I think they did try a 360 but not sure it ever went into production. Maurice Brayford (I think) has ridden a 360 James for as long as I can remember and it is supposed to be an original bike. Having picked it up off him in a section a good few years ago I can well believe it is original as it felt like it weighed as much as the Suzuki Bandit I had at the time. The current version of the 360 conversion has been tried by one or two people and I've heard nothing positive about it. Pete Carson was trying one and gave up with it and he has access to a lot of Villiers expertise with the people he knows. I really wouldn't bother to be honest, the 250 with modern ignition, exhaust and airbox design has more than enough power for any classic section. 360 just isn't needed - unless you just want it of course which is an entirely different matter. I'd never argue against opinion that says we can never have enough toys to play with...

It is a genuine number after all then and not a misprint. Wonder why they don't list the 700 prefix on the ID chart. My '75 350 MAR has frame/engine prefix of 43xxxx and that doesn't appear on any listings either.

As far as I know, the TR77 is the green tank, black frame model introduced in 1977 (hence TR77) The 250 has chassis number starting 63xxxx and the 350 64xxxx In '79 they painted the frame green too and called it the TR77 Verde, the last of the 'MAR' style bikes before the TR80 Gripper was introduced. The Verde 250 chassis numbers start 70xxxx and the 350 71xxxx. This tallies with the bike that AMO has and I also have a TR77 Verde 250 which starts 70xxxx. I always wondered whether the reference to chassis number prefix 72 was a misprint

The original points would have been on the right side but the Rex Caunt ignition replaces them and is on the clutch side, like a PVL so it's unaffected by the right side casing being chopped back.

You can get the lower mudguard from here TY Offroad As far as an airbox, it may be a bit more difficult to find a good used one. I don't know whether the 175 shares the same airbox but I wouldn't think so. Why not keep the alloy one? I made an alloy airbox for my Majesty and still use the fibreglass lower mudguard extension (original airbox was smasshed so no, don't have one for sale)

There is no problem painting the fibreglass tanks with cellulose, 2-pack or whatever, although I'm not a painter so can't give you any advice on the best way to do it. However if you're going to use a lacquer coating don't use it over the water based slide on type decals as they aren't made to be used with lacquer. You need decals specifically made for lacquering over (usually vinyl type) Try Bultaco UK to see if they have them.

You could fit a later rear wheel as fitted to the 1976 model 159 onwards. Or a Grimeca style rear wheel as fitted to Fantic, Armstrong etc will go in I would think. I've seen one fitted to a 340 Sherpa.

Yep, but I'm getting really frustrated at not being able to make a start on rebuilding the bits and bobs that need doing so I can get using it. Took it out once after I got it and first impression was it gripped like hell.