Tauras engine prices
 

Anyone have any knowledge of what the Taurus 2.4 or 39cc engine price is from the dealer he has no prices listed or any other out let where i can get them ect thanks Bruce

Taurus Price list
 

They are really nice guys, but you must contact them for the price list....??? Don't know why..The motors are great motors and light,also...Brian

Tauras engine prices
 

Ok thanks for reply i got a email in to them but havent received any answer they are probably at a trade show out East

re:Taurus prices
 

Hi Bruce,

First, they don't sell the 2.4 anymore. Their Web site is out-of-date(what else is new in this industry) and still shows the 2.4 up there(they're working on a revamped site with correct info, and prices). It weighed the same as the 2.6 so they dropped it and just have the TS-42 (42cc, 2.6 cu in) now. It costs $529 shipped(no muffler) and is worth every penny of it. They have a pitts-style muffler available and also a 3 downtube exhaust diverter. I don't have the prices on these. The best way to get info from them is call. They will return e-mails promptly too. The parent company Southgate Aero has been in business for many years producing high-end engines for a variety of applications. They know how to build quality motors.

These motors are gorgeous. They are basically custom built for each customer, and take about 3 weeks to get one...though I might know where to find one in stock if you need it quickly.

I've had several brands of small gas engines over the years(BME, FPE, Quadra, Zenoah), and some big ones too, and these are the best built and highest quality I have seen. I have the 2.6 and it is exceptionally smooth because of the lower-end design and has superior power compared to the other 2.x engines out there. Their weight is on par with the other lightweight offerings. They weigh 4lbs 1oz complete with muffler, ignition and mount. The FPE and ZDZ are a few ounces lighter, but not enough to be significant and don't match up in other areas.

Bill

Taurus Engines
 

I have heard lots of good things about these engines but have no direct experience with them.I do have a new 60cc ZDZ which is the finest gasser I have owned in every respect.Bill you say they dont measure up to Taurus in some ways.....would you care to name one?
How are we to compare anything with Taurus when they dont publish the weight,it isnt clear whether the weight of the ignition,battery,and switch is included or not,they publish HP ratings which are meaningless,they dont say whose ignition they are using and what type,they dont say whether the ignition is shielded or not etc etc......
They may be as good as some other modern engines from a tech point of view,but dont you think their marketing needs a lot of work?

Taurus
 

Hi Kevin,

>>I do have a new 60cc ZDZ which is the finest gasser I have owned in every respect.

First, I have heard mostly only great things about the ZDZ's and my comment is the result of a well known engine builder that has torn them down and was disappointed in the internal finish quality and the quality of the bearings used. Other than that comment I have heard nothing bad about the ZDZ's. The only other issue, from the data I have collected, the Taurus 2.6 appears to pull a few hundred more RPM on an equivilant prop than the ZDZ40.

>>How are we to compare anything with Taurus when they dont publish the weight,

You're right, but none of the manufacturers publish weight information that is useful. They never specifically say what the weights do or don't include. That's why I started a movement to come up with real weights for these engines, complete with engine, muffler, mount and ignition. The database for this has been taken over by rcfaq.com, with a form to add data on the home page of their site. The DB has not been put up yet, but will be soon. I have a lot of numbers if you want reality, which is why I posted the numbers above.

>>they publish HP ratings which are meaningless

Agreed.

>>,they dont say whose ignition they are using and what type,

CH auto-advance ignition

>>They may be as good as some other modern engines from a tech point of view,but dont you think their marketing needs a lot of work?

You won't get any argument from me. I've been hammering on them for months. For me there's no excuse for it but unfortunately they are the norm in this industry and not the exception. As I mentioned they are at least working on a new site with complete information and prices.

Here are a couple of other example sof poor marketing, BME has had their 50 out for months and there's still no mention of it on their site and ZDZ publishes thrust numbers derived from a thrust calculator. Talk about worthless.

So, nobody's perfect, and that's why these forums are so valuable. You can get real facts and reality from people that own these engines.

Thanks for the input. If you have any more questions or comments, feel free to fire away.

Bill

Tauras engine prices
 

Thanks for the info will check them out

Tauras engine prices
 

Actually, the engine with most complete data on the web is ZDZ. Their engine weights are bare, without ignition or muffler, and don't include the prop bolts. The weights are dead on for the ZDZ-80 twin, and I'd bet for other engines I didn't check. They also tell you the weights of the various ignitions (twin or single). Amelung Modellbau gives a data table full of rpm measurements with a very wide range of props for each engine. They also tell you what exhaust system and length was used. I haven't heard of any ZDZ owner complaining that he couldn't duplicate the published rpm figures with the same props. As for other measurements, they also show complete dimensions for all of the engines, so you know the mounting bolt spacing and backplate to thrust washer and plug to plug dimensions. Good luck finding this info for other brands.

The ZDZ motors also have the advantage of a shorter, stiffer, and more durable crank. They feature a screw-in prop stud. If you have a prop strike, you replace a $10 stud, not a $200 crankshaft. Replacement bearings are a common size and inexpensive. They cost less than the bearings in an OS 40 FX (under $10 each) . And I haven't heard of anyone needing to replace their bearings because they wore out prematurely. The story I heard is that the ZDZ engineers used to work in the Aerospace industry before the collapse of communism. Their engines appear to be well thought-out modern designs that don't borrow components from industrial motors.

Check out "power overview" and "measurement" for yourself in the link below.

http://www.zdz-motor.de/html/engines.html

zdz motors
 

The only thing i see i dont care for on the zdz motors is the carb mounting looks like it goes inside motor box or behind firewall that is a negative for me

Taurus vs the world
 

Bill,Im glad you understood I wasnt knocking Taurus or any other engine.....as you say we really dont have hard facts other than personal experience to do these comparisons,and Im always suspicious of anyone on these threads who doesnt allow room for opinion.You will seldom see a true expert put his/her neck out that far.....they know better!
I must say that the overall apparent quality and inovation evident in the ZDZ engines is what attracted me,and service from the factory and RCS has been golden so far......Im talking about things like the sealed ignition unit,totally shielded ignition lead to the plug,with a small plug cap locked in place with an allen screw.Rear rotary induction which is so smooth in transition and easier to fit in narrow cowls,etc.......If your friend with the opinions on machining and bearing quality is correct the marketplace will find out fast and sites like these will tell all,which is the way it should be isnt it?
Thanks for the background,its really interesting...

Tauras engine prices
 

The rear mount carb is really not a problem. It also keeps the carb away from swirling air in the cowl so the mixture strength is consistent - linear throttle. This link shows how others have mounted the engine with the rear carb.

http://www.rcshowcase.com/user_picture_gallery.htm

Tauras engine prices
 

Iwas just looking at rcs website the 30 size i am looking at for the pt19 by dynaflite would be perfect it has motor mount that entails the carb so i wouldnt have that problem i was talking about earlier of carb position looks good to me

re: Diablo and Kevin
 

Hi Diablo:

First, I'm really not trying here to argue who has the best Web site, only who has the best motors. I think they're all pretty bad, and I would agree ZDZ does a better job than most of the others, though there's still a lot of room for improvement.

>>I haven't heard of any ZDZ owner complaining that he couldn't duplicate the published rpm figures with the same props.

As far as the prop numbers quoted on the Amelung site for the ZDZ 40(Mejzlik 22X10 and 22X12), I haven't seen anyone run either of these props (in the US) they're quoting on this motor. I have found that Amelung numbers are typically with a tuned pipe/can, not the typical pitts-style muffler we run in the US(this opinion is based on numbers on rcfaq.com that they've reported, not their site).

>>They also tell you what exhaust system and length was used.

I couldn't find that on their site, can you tell me where that info is please.

>>The ZDZ motors also have the advantage of a shorter, stiffer, and more durable crank.

Uuuuh, the crank is what I like least about the ZDZ40. They use a cantilever crank that I view as a step to reduce cost, not the optimal setup for one of these engines. Taurus uses a double web, forged, single throw, fully counter-balanced crankshaft. IMHO, this design is vastly superior to the ZDZ cantilever designs, both for strength and lack of vibration.

>>They feature a screw-in prop stud.

If you're talking about the 40, they use use a six bolt prop hub, as is typical on many larger motors, which is of questionable value in this size engine, and a real pain. The Taurus uses a single screw in bolt, so it has the same advantages you were quoting.

>>Replacement bearings are a common size and inexpensive. They cost less than the bearings in an OS 40 FX (under $10 each) .

I don't see this as an asset. It sounds like the engine builder I quoted was right. The Taurus uses very expensive single-row pre-loaded front and rear bearings on the crank. (I've included a picture of the crankcase and crank below)

BTW, after reviewing the ZDZ sites I noticed I quoted the weight incorrectly for the 40. It appears from their numbers that the ZDZ40 is a bit heavier than I thought, and weighs about a 1/2 oz under 4lbs with a pitts-style muffler(assuming 9oz for the muffler) which makes it only 1.5 oz less than the Taurus. They're a lot closer in weight than I thought.

I'd like to emphasize here that I am not trying to put down the ZDZ, only build up the Taurus. The ZDZ is an excellent motor with a lot of potential. I think they do have an advanced design in some areas, such as rotary valve induction, but I also don't like their crank design. Again, I am only talking about the 40, I have not examined the particulars of their bigger motors, which all have excellent reputations.

I am a self-admitted evangelist for the Taurus. I have not known about them for very long, and I have only had one of their motors for a few months, but I've been involved in R/C for decades and have owned a lot of brands of motors and I was so impressed with the Taurus I just had to spread the word.

Hi Kevin:

>>Rear rotary induction which is so smooth in transition and easier to fit in narrow cowls,etc

I agree completely with your view on this....though as far as smoothness of transition, the Taurus has the smoothest and fastest throttle response of any engine I've owned. I have no way to quantify this, or compare it to the ZDZ, but I can't imagine how it could be better.

>>.......If your friend with the opinions on machining and bearing quality is correct the marketplace will find out fast and sites like these will tell all,which is the way it should be isnt it?

You're absolutely right about this, and it definitely hasn't happened yet. I've only heard good things...but ZDZ's also haven't been in widespread use for very long either, so we'll just have to wait and see. Just for clarification, it was not a friend of mine whose opinion I mentioned. It was a well known engine builder/supplier that I have communicated with, and his opinion on this was totally unsolicited. In fact I was singing the praises to him about the Taurus....which kind of fell on deaf ears, since he thinks his motors are the best too....which I agree they are excellent(no more hints). In fact the new motors he's coming out with soon might kick everybody's b..ts.

Bill

Tauras engine prices
 

Well I for one appreciate all the talk amungst ourselves,even if it raises a few eyebrows. I do have quite a number of years with engines,but not many with RC engines and glad to hear those opinions with vast experience,I definately don't have the bucks to just jump out there and buy the first one. all this talk with the numbers and hands on is priceless. I am curruntly researching everything for my first gasser.from what i've read so far it's pretty close for five or six of these manufacturer's. but from what i can tell so far(IMO) is that the TAURUS seems to be the smoothest running engine. And I definately don't won't to shake my ship apart. Yes I'm looking for weight,throttle response,pwr to weight,reliability,warranty and whatever else I can find.I am enjoying learning aero-3d with smaller planes and looking forward to larger ones. So far it would appear to me that TAURUS is what I want. I'm all ear's.

Warranty
 

Hi 2lo,

You're doing exactly the right thing and trying to soak up all the data you can before making a decision. A lot of people only have one shot for budget reasons (and I'm one of them) and want to make sure they're making the right decision.

Good luck with your decision. If you have any more questions on the Taurus that I can answer, feel free to write me directly. I did a ton of research before buying mine and I have a lot of data stored away on it.

BTW, the Taurus has a 3 year warranty.

Bill

Re: Taurus Engines
 

Hi Kevin!

The ZDZ-60 is the finest small gasser I have flown, too. I have the Taurus 3.2, as well. Nice motor... very smooth. But, the ZDZ-60 was even smoother. The Taurus 3.7 (60) is around 8oz heavier than the ZDZ-60 if I remember right, too.

Engine Specs
 

Maybe it's time for us as a community of engine users and customers to define a standard set of engine specifications that should be quoted by the manufactures.

If we draw up a standard and ask the manufactures to present their data in this standard way we could now make intelligent decisions. Also, if the manufactures choose to not use this standard, we as consumers can assume that specmanship is important to them and send our money elsewhere.

We could call this standard something like "The RC Universe Engine Specification Standard".

If there is interest in this I'll be happy to formalize it and sent it to all the engine manufactures and their web masters.

I'll start a list off the top of my head:

-Displacement in c.c. and c.i.
-Fuel type:
Gas:
-Octane
-Oil mixture
-Oil type
Glow:
-Percentage of Nitro and Oil
-Oil mixture

-Ignition type and manufacture
-Carburator type and manufacture
-Propeller mounting details
-Engine mounting details
-A standard prop should be defined for each engine size class. I would use APC as a standard so that everybody uses the same prop for RPM specs.
-Engine weight in gms and oz, with muffler, carb, ignition, and standard prop, ready to fly.
-Engine weight in gms and oz with all optional parts not mounted.
-RPM using at least the the standard prop. The fuel, air temp, and altitude should be noted.
-Optionally, HorsePower. The method use to determine the HP must be included. In other words, it can't just be 10% more than their competitors.
-A side and front view of the engine with the major dimensions shown. The overall height and width. The distance from the firewall to the back of the prop. The distance from the centerline of the prop shaft to the mounting surface.

Ken Galer

More on ZDZ Data
 

The Amelung Modellbau website used to state that the ZDZ rpm/prop numbers were derived from engines using tuned pipes set at full length - not optimized (shortened) for max power. Since they don't sell or use in-cowl mufflers in Europe, it doesn't really make any sense for them to quote power figures with the kind of exhausts we use in the US. Still, most users are able to duplicate their results using the J&A mufflers. On the other hand, RCShowcase could provide more info on their website for the in-cowl mufflers (a wider selection of prop numbers). Since Imac is driving us towards the European noise standards, the European style pipes and tuned cans are likely to become much more popular in the US.

Here's some more data from Topmodel. Click on pricelist, ZDZ, specs, then click on performance propeller chart.

http://www.topmodel.fr/cat/a_catalog_frame.htm

re: Ken and Diablo
 

Diablo:

Thanks for the additional input on ZDZ. I don't really agree that pipes will be standard in the US with engine sizes under 80cc or so. It is a big pain to install a pipe, and over here, pipes are expensive. It is unlikely the average non-contest modeler is going to be installing a pipe on their engines in the near future(which is the majority, by far). Also, the independent numbers I have seen posted for the ZDZ40 that do not have a tuned pipe, are 2-500 RPM less on the same prop than the one's Amelung and Top Model have posted on their sites and rcfaq.com with tuned pipes.

I hope you'll understand that I put very little stock in numbers posted by manufacturer's. Even if they are being honest about it, I can guarantee you they're posting the best numbers they've ever obtained under ideal conditions and experts tuning them. I prefer many numbers being posted by the average modeler on the street so a pattern can be derived.

Ken:

On your proposal, I think it has good merit. Whether you can get manufacturer's to take note is another matter. I too would love to see something like this. It's certainly worth a try.

Here are a couple of points of input:

-Engine mounting details
*** including recommended mounts if not included

-A standard prop should be defined for each engine size class. I would use APC as a standard so that everybody uses the same prop for RPM specs. - Not sure about the APC.
*** These are not very widely used in the larger motors.
*** Maybe for different size range motors, a different brand prop could be used - Menz's are widely used from 18" on up, so maybe that could be the standard for the larger motors.

-Engine weight in gms and oz, with muffler, carb, ignition, and standard prop, ready to fly.

*** I would rather see the weight with muffler(specified and weight given), ignition, prop nut and washer, plug and mount, if included(weight of mount if separate from motor). I do not agree with the prop, that is too variable, and I would not include the battery on an electronic ignition motor because that is also a very big variable. (carb is assumed since it is part of the bare motor)

-Engine weight in gms and oz with all optional parts not mounted.
*** Bare weight is also a useful number.

-RPM using at least the the standard prop. The fuel, air temp, and altitude should be noted.
*** I agree with this, but it would be of little value since manufacturer's are going to published optimized numbers at the very least.

-Optionally, Horsepower. The method use to determine the HP must be included. In other words, it can't just be 10% more than their competitors.
*** This would be a fairly useful number if derived from a dyno, but I know all the manufacturer's don't have one, and some are actually quoting numbers right now derived from a thrust calculator. So I don't have much hope this would be a valuable piece of info in most cases.

-A side and front view of the engine with the major dimensions shown. The overall height and width. The distance from the firewall to the back of the prop. The distance from the centerline of the prop shaft to the mounting surface.

*** This is always useful info, and should be on every site.

Great job Ken, I hope we can make something of this. I will be glad to help present it to a couple of the engine manufacturer's I have contact with. I think since the manufacturer's, or distributors in the US, as the case may be, are relatively small, and their customers are typically in touch with the people in charge, so I think there is a good chance they could be influenced to post consistent numbers like this on their Web site.

Bill

Tauras engine prices
 

Some pretty strong comments-
The business about the crankshaft comparisons really seems odd tho -
Let me see if I understand that part only-
We take a 5 piece crank
1.front shaft 2.throw plate 3. rod journal 4.throw plate 5 . rear rear shaft.
and we install all of the pieces togather --including the con rod.
OK let me back up - lets sat the front shaft and the plate are machined from one piece - ditto for the rear shaft and throw.
now we have a three piece crank.
OK we assemble all of this.
then align it
Do we weld it togather?
If we get a bad crash - will the 5 pieces or three pieces get out of line?
The chain saw engines I have seen over the years - do get out of line or bent or both at this part of the assembly.
Is this assembly stiffer than a properly designed cantilever single crank?
If so - how?
Lets do a firing cycle and look at what is going on.
the piston is at the top and the firing occurs.
the downstroke now applies a bending load to each side plate (counterweight - whatever you choose to call them,.
each shaft front and rear now deflects up at the ends.
OK -you say "no it does not!"
How can you prove it?
If the prop is horizontal when the piston fires (90 degrees to it)
- the prop offers no stabilizing load .
If the prop is in line with the crankthrow - it will help stabilize the bending load.
If this test assists in reducing vibration, how did it do it
Hmmmmm?

On some twin cyl designs which had no dual bearings on the front of the crank - this shaking and the fix was noticable.
Perhaps not all of them - but it occurred on the ones I saw.
We are concerned here with the single cyl engine- so-- I will stick with that.
Now lets look at a modern cantilever crank for a single.
The typical one is first machined from a chunk of steel - the whole thing.
Some are made from one chunk -minus the prop screw
Some are machined, then the crank pin is forced into place.
Anyway - the "crank assembly" is now ground and hardened -and polished to extremely tight tolerances -
This assembly is fitted into two bearings -which hold the shaft in line.
Now the firing force does push down and -yes slightly of the rear bearing center.
can this shaft bend?
Where -?
So - is this the off center load which makes this an inferior balance setup?
Have you looked at a modern cantilever crank having additional heavy metal inserts which overbalance to provide smoothness?
All of the smooth vs not smooth I have tracked down on single two strokes (two cycle)-has proven (to me) to originate in
A-the compression
B- the prop/spinner -etc.
C-improper timing and or fuel.
That is Gas -or Glow
Please note I am not condemning the chain saw type cranks - these work -and have worked for years.
I am just asking WHY you can consider them to be an advantage .
Now here comes the hard part - but I will say it anyway.
From an evolutionary standpoint -in single cyl model engines the cantilever style crank is the accepted current setup for all of the high performance designs I have seen.
If you take note of any of the most modern European -or Japanese model two strokes - again the same setup.
However--IF we had con rods with end caps which would allow the removal /replacement of the rod assy's --and also permit the final assembled 5 piece (3piece crank/) to be perfectly ground -hardened balanced - I would say - it is a set up for models engines I would like.
As far as power output - I will not comment except to say that the trend to quiet efficient exhaust systems are the wave of the future for some - and the current setup for many others .
the "downspout" exhausts are fading fast -and for engines with high cylinder pressures - will fade even faster - why ? Noise
For lower power output stuff - low compressions and low exhaust bark - they will be more acceptable.

Cranks, etc.
 

Hi Dick,

Your views on one-piece cranks are well known to some of us, and you make strong arguements, but I think the bulk of the designs of engines being non-cantilever speaks volumes. It seems that a lot of engine designers don't share all your views.

BTW, I don't really agree with your label for double-bearing cranks at chainsaw cranks. The majority of engines from all 2-stroke applications(motorcycles, karts, etc) use this type of design in one way or another. It has nothing at all to do with chainsaws.

>>n single cyl model engines the cantilever style crank is the accepted current setup for all of the high performance designs I have seen.
If you take note of any of the most modern European -or Japanese model two strokes - again the same setup

I assume you're talking about small glow motors, which I don't agree is an accurate comparison. I think karts and motorcycles are much closer related to our gas motors than model glow motors.

>>the "downspout" exhausts are fading fast

How do you mean? This is certainly not true in any significant numbers. Only contest flyers are typically concerned about this at this time(and this trend just started) and they make up a very small percentage of the R/C population. I don't know one person at my field that is using anything but "downspout" exhausts. Virtually no one has tuned pipes or cans that I know of at any field I've been at. I would guess that less than 1/2 of 1 percent(I certainly pulled that out of of my...the air), but I know they aren't fading fast.

It's a matter of cost, difficulting in installation, and most people wouldn't even know where to look for a tuned pipe, let alone which one to buy. Dick, you're just about the only one on the Web that I have seen that knows anything about tuned pipes. I know that is different in Europe, but we are talking about the US aren't we.

I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing against this movement, I love the sound(or lack of) of having tuned pipes and cans being readily available at reasonable costs. I'd love to use one. I'd love to see it happen, but I think it will be many years before it takes over, maybe never.

BTW Dick, if either DA's new 50 or BME's new 50 come out with cantilever cranks I'll seriously reconsider my position.


Bill

Tauras engine prices
 

You really surprised me on the exhaust system comments!
Noisy engines are acceptable in your area?
We simply remind noisy fliers that we operate at the pleasure of the surrounding community.
Also--
Were all of your kart engines made with one piece conrods?

Just say no to noisy exhausts!
 

Hey Dick,

>>You really surprised me on the exhaust system comments!
Noisy engines are acceptable in your area?

Not at all, did you miss the last paragraph of my post. I'm in total agreement with the need for these, I just don't think it's going to happen soon. I'm one that will have one in the near future, I'm totally pro tuned cans and quiet pipes. My only point was that I didn't think it was going to happen any time soon.

>>Were all of your kart engines made with one piece conrods?

Hmmm, you've made me think about that. It's been awhile since I've torn one down, but I know the Yamahas were one piece, and I think all the others were too. I remember it was a big deal to press the crank apart and a really big deal to get it back together perfectly.

Bill

Cranks
 

McCulloch and West bend rods are two piece, with loose rollers..
A&M cantilever cranks were poorly designed and balanced, and gave cantilevers a bad name..

Tauras engine prices
 

Somewhere at the beginng of this thread the guy asked about Taurus Engine pricing.

Hows about this apples to oranges comparison:

Mercedes = Taurus

ZDZ = Volkswagon

Nuff said...