guy53 Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 What is the difference between a Can Am Armstrong and a SWM, on a picture that I have they look the same. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 The Armstrong was branded Can-Am in the US and Canada. They are the same bike The SWM is a different bike altogether but has the Rotax engine in common with the later Armstrong/Can-Am bikes. See here for pictures http://www.ataq.qc.ca/galerie/index.php?folder=/Mus%E9e/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy53 Posted March 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Thank's Woody, I took a good look at the picture and I should have seen the differences , even the 350 Rotax is not the same, do you know if they are close in performance? Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 They are all very capable bikes but have their own characteristics and it's hard to compare directly as there were a few different models of the SWM spanning '78 to '83. They were all Rotax powered and the best of the lot has to be the 350 Jumbo although for lesser riders the smaller 240 engine in the Jumbo frame would be a very good bike. The last of the line, the Jumbo had a very nimble chassis with quick steering. However, clutches on the Rotax engine can be a pain in the neck to sort out. Armstrong ran from '81 to '84 and had the 250/310/320 Hiro engined bikes originally followed by the 240/350 Rotax engines. I think the 320 Armstrong was probably the best of them. Out of them all, a well set up 350 Jumbo would be the most competitive bike but they aren't for novices. Next to that I'd put the 320 Armstrong. But they'll all do the job easily on today's classic sections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idmcc_sec Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 However, clutches on the Rotax engine can be a pain in the neck to sort out. Nah! Rotax engines (I used to race them in karts) and SWM was how I got into trials many years ago. Yes, when I got the first one, a 280, the clutch was horrendous. A few tweeks later by modifying the inner clutch arm, the basket and running TQF in the box, I'd swear the clutch was as light as a modern bike! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 But generally the problem is that the internal actuator in the casing doesn't have sufficient throw on it to fully release the plates causing drag. If you adjust the clutch to remove the drag it then slips in higher gears or under abuse. Lengthening the internal arm gives a lighter action but can exagerrate the clearance problem. Best solution is the Aprilia casing with the external arm which has sufficient movement and resolves the problem. It does seem though that the problem (or tolerances) vary from bike to bike as I have ridden one with an unmodified clutch that worked pretty well - naturally enough, it wasn't mine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy53 Posted March 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Woody, I had the pleasure yesterday to test ride what I think is a Jumbo ( 350cc motor and the aluminium swingarm ) and I was realy surprise with the power and how quick the bike is. I was also please with the leading axle front end, as I was talking to the owner of the beast, he told me that a 320cc model with the same frame and swingarm was for sale in our area, Do you have any input on that. Thank's in advance Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 You can tell the Jumbo engine straight away as the inlet port is conventional style into the back of the barrel, although it is actually part case reed induction too, as well as into the barrel. The 240 / 280 motors have the inlet cast into the clutch case due to the disc controlled induction. The very last 240 and 280 (the 280 is also called the 320...) models used the Jumbo chassis and again, this is easy to identify due to the lack of a forward facing frame tube from footrest to front of seat. The last bikes of the previous model (which had a blue frame as well, like the Jumbo) also had an aluminium swingarm, so just because it has an aluminium swingarm, it doesn't mean it is the Jumbo chassis. It's easy to mix them up if you're not familiar with them. Whichever model it is, either the Jumbo frame or the previous model, it will be a good bike. The Jumbo frame is the sharpest handling but the older version is perfectly adequate too. The 280/320 motor is very good, plenty of power and lots of torque. I've never tried the 280 Jumbo framed bike but having owned a 350 Jumbo and ridden a couple of 280 earlier models, I can see no reason why the 280 Jumbo framed bike would not be a very good tool for the job. Best take a look at this site and study the different models so you can be sure which bike it is that is for sale, should you go to take a look. http://www.motoswm.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.