*Cox Engine of The Month* Submit your pictures! (Aug 2013)

I agree IAN1954 s Thermal Hopper is great looking, well presented and a serious contender

BUT rules is rules  "Cox engines using aftermarket or handmade parts and multi-cylinder engines are allowed as long as they feature Cox made crankcase(s) and cylinder(s). "

It may be that the cylinder of this is a highly modified COX "made" part, and if so the engine should qualify. But if it was not machined/modified from a original Cox Cylinder then the rules exclude the entry

my .02c

fredvon4 wrote:I agree IAN1954 s Thermal Hopper is great looking, well presented and a serious contender

BUT rules is rules  "Cox engines using aftermarket or handmade parts and multi-cylinder engines are allowed as long as they feature Cox made crankcase(s) and cylinder(s). "

It may be that the cylinder of this is a highly modified COX "made" part, and if so the engine should qualify. But if it was not machined/modified from a original Cox Cylinder then the rules exclude the entry

my .02c

While the piston, con rod, crankshaft (Bee heavy duty crankshaft) and crankcase (shortened to accomodate the bee crankshaft) are Cox - the cylinder isn't and it is not a modified Cox cylinder.

It is machined to accomodate a contra piston for true diesel running and longevity.

I'll let Jacob decide on this.

I think it is Cox enough from my perspective of what the engine of the month is supposed to illustrate

If I had an entry I would not grumble about this excellent piece of engineering beating my offering

Why not have 2 separate E.O.T.M. contests. One for Unmodified / Stock Cox engines and one for Custom / Modified Cox engines.
That way engines like the Ian's modified Thermal Hopper won't be questioned.

Just me 2 cents.

Shawn

I am very happy that the Thermal Hopper was not rejected, I have felt very guilty that my first post caused issues.

I was very pleased with the discussions that followed and the comments.

I asked the question because I would like to enter one month and had been studying the rules.

It was also interesting that Ian1954 did not object to the posting and openly conceded that the cylinder was not Cox even though it could have been a modified one.

The camradery in this forum is amazing. I am more of a spectator than a participant as I collect and display
Cox 049 engines. Nothing smaller, nothing larger

I saw these dieseled Thermal Hopper advertised by Ronald Valentine a while ago. Not many have been made but Ronald, in the description, acknowledged a designer. From the postings on the forum, the name and the collection of engines displayed in "other engines" - particulary the twin Nano - I would hazard a guess that the quoted designer who supplied the idea was supplied by Ian1954.

All the engines in the competition are wonderful but some presentations and pictures are better than others. It is still difficult to decide which to vote for.

Hey JanPar, WELCOME!
I don't think you stepped on anyone's toes.
That was a legitimate question.
That aside, I'm glad you decided to join the fold.
You know your way around here, so I'm looking
forward to your posts and photos.
 
Bob