Suzuki 2 Strokes

Hello All, I'm new to the forum, not having much Suzuki experience, so please excuse me if this query have been discussed in past. I have couple of questions. GT250 seems to have 2 dissimilar points however T250, T500 etc seem to be on similar points for both cylinders. I'm wondering what could be the reason why Suzuki moved to dissimilar points? Also the lubrication seem to have moved from twin canister type to simple single felt type. If you are able to share your experience would be much appreciated.

I believe all the 2 stroke twins had two sets of points. For certain the T350 did and the triples have three set of points.

It makes sense. However my query is around GT250 why it moved to one small and one large point?

Suzuki had two electrical component part suppliers: Kokusan & Nippon Denso.

Which one they used varied from model to model. On the GT triples, they even used both.

A 72 GT550 is a good example. Kokusan & Nippon Denso provided alternator & points assemblies. The assemblies are interchangeable. But the individual parts on those assemblies are different.
See: https://www.partzilla.com/catalog/suzuk ... indy-gt550

jabcb wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 3:58 am Suzuki had two electrical component part suppliers: Kokusan & Nippon Denso.

Which one they used varied from model to model. On the GT triples, they even used both.

A 72 GT550 is a good example. Kokusan & Nippon Denso provided alternator & points assemblies. The assemblies are interchangeable. But the individual parts on those assemblies are different.
See: https://www.partzilla.com/catalog/suzuk ... indy-gt550

Thank you for your response.

But my question is why Kokusan moved from similar points in T series to dissimilar point in GT series.

I tried very hard to understand, can’t think of any logical reason. It’s not package space, it’s not cost, it’s only adding complexity if nothing to assembly line. Did we have any issue where right point on T series was compromised?

Engineering was very different in the 1960s than it is now. They could have had what seemed to be a very logical reason at the time.
Perhaps they had separate production lines for each of the point designs and they were just trying to keep the various lines busy.
Electrical & ignition systems were pretty marginal by today’s standards — perhaps they thought there was some advantage.

For a bit of perspective…

Expensive slide rules were popular when my older brother was in college. He had a Dietzgen Microglide 1734.
I still have it — a very professional product that engineers were using back then.
https://americanhistory.si.edu/collecti ... ah_1320190

In the mid 1970s when I was in college, I bought a rather expensive HP 35.
It was the hot ticket for engineers when it came out.
https://hpmuseum.org/hp35.htm

In the 70s, Suzuki didn't do logical.
Sometimes stuff was changed because it was 'Wednesday' - or something.....
Just go with it and try to smile, even though it's difficult at times