Re: Valve Clearance

[Ben Barkow <dr.ben@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't have the experience to be a trustworthy poster, but I have been 
running about 8 and 14 micromunchkins. My fun factor, with those modest 
increases doesn't seem much impaired but maybe it is just my beautiful 
baritone Leo Vince exhaust masking the clatter.

I think it was Lentini who suggested increasing gaps. Although I can't 
figure the change in degrees, I suspect there are a few degrees of 
change even with just two thou or so added, comparable to the fiddling 
between models or model years. Anybody know for sure? For sure, I don't 
give a hoot for HP at 7500 rpm but any extra low rpm grunt is a real 
benefit, esp. with tall first gears (required by DOT??). That's the 
purpose of slowing the valves.

I believe the downside is the extra hammering the valves get - not sure 
if this is significant.

BTW, I am delighted with my NGK iridium, super shaved, extended tip, 
and tiny pointy plugs (more spark exposure to the breeze): BKR 7 EIX 
(8)

Want a look at my dyno curve? Drop me a line.

Ben
1999 R1100S


On 2005 Nov  13 , at 4:47 AM, oilheads-digest wrote:

> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:05:30 -0600
> From: "Tom Brown" <tbrown@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Valve Clearance
>
> Andrew:
>
> I tried some bigger clearances on my '99RT.   I hated it.  Much less 
> power.
> The increased valve noise was ridiculous.   I don't think it will hurt 
> the
> bike, but it sure hurt the fun factor.
>
> - -TB
>
>
>> From: Andrew Johnson <sundiaL@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Valve adjustment - looser settings
>
> Has anyone gone as far as 0.30mm on intake clearances? Or out to 0.35 
> or
> 0.40mm
> on exhausts? Would these looser settings (perhaps in combination with
> appropriate TPS, BBS, and throttle stop screws settings) tend to 
> improve
> low-end grunt and overall smoothness? Are Oilheads at long-term risk 
> from
> looser valve settings?

------------------------------