| Author | Message | ||
     Aaron |
Chuck: Tims is right ... in '00 they changed that connection, from the pinion to the #2 cam. You can swap pinion gears to use older cams, or just move your drive gear using a press. Tims: Court is 100% right, confirmed with my parts books. AW | ||
| Court |
Tims: You need parts/service manual for 1997 M2? Court | ||
| Tims |
Are the cams in 1999 S-3T the same as X1 cams?? Tim | ||
| Tims |
Are the cams in an S3-T the same as in the X1s?? I'd have thought they'd be a milder cam but someone has told me these bikes run the same cam. | ||
| Aaron |
Yes. | ||
| Chuck |
Thanks Tim. Thanks Aaron  | ||
| Smadd |
I know the oil pump was upgraded in '98. Can someone refresh my memory as to subsequent upgrades? Seems to me there's been one or two improved oil pumps since the '98. If so... are they simply bolt-in... or is some modification required? Thanx! Steve | ||
| Jmartz |
Smadd: Pre 1998 the oil dripped into the sumpfrom the cam case and was removed from there. In 1998 the cam/sump passage was not drilled, the pump had a new hole to suck directly the oil in the cam area and the return gerotor was enlarged. Have you ever tried sucking a milkshake with two straws one in the fluid and one in the air? This is analogous to the 1998 set up. For 2001 (this information has not been confirmed) I believe they are allowing the the oil to drip back down into the sump and have closed the access hole to the cam area. Basically the latestest pump is the same 1998 with the pre 98 top and case drillings. Jose | ||
| Smadd |
Jose... bear with me as I try to understand and picture it in my pea-sized brain. There is a pump new to 2001... but it's the same as mine but without the access hole to the cam area. The access hole is actually *in* the pump cover itself... and that particular hole (to the cam area) is no longer there in the newest pump. Right? So... it seems that it would be a worthwhile change... and that it would be a simple bolt-in mod. Right? Steve | ||
| Hoser |
Jose: I cannot confirm your theory about the oil drain passages , I have not had a 2001 apart yet. I can say this though , the 2001 pump is the same part # but port timing has been revised for improvemet to the scavenge/retun ratio. Hoser | ||
| Peter |
Jose, What was the change they made in the 2000 models' cam cover/oil routing design? | ||
| Jmartz |
Smadd: Your are correct in your reasonng but the final truth about what a 2001 pump is has not yet been confirmed. Hoser is involved much closer than I in this business and w/o a doubt will be able to tell us as soon the information becomes available. My speculation was formulated after spending 1/2 hour going through the parts books and looking at #'s. A key # that I did not verify is that of the 2001 right case (if such a # exists). Peter: Better ask Hoser for that one. Its not one I have pursued. The way the lifters are prevented from rotation in those motors is a much better design. Don't really know what the deal with the cam cover did. Nothing substatial I presume. Jose | ||
| Al_Lighton |
I went to cut down my Cam cover withit on the bike, but it was brutally slow and not particularly attractive. I think I should take it off the bike to get the desired effect. Rumor has it you can remove the cover without removing the rocker boxes to relieve pushrod pressure. I'd like any advice on doing this. If the pushrod pressure must be removed, can the rocker box covers be removed and the rocker shafts removed by removing only the two bolts that engage the notch in the shaft? Or do the whole rocker boxes need to be removed to relieve the pushrod pressure, thus requiring new rocker box gaskets? I don't want to do anything that would damage the Cam journals, pushrods, etc. I'm guessing the "right" answer is to remove the rocker boxes, but if it can be done safely, reliably etc. without, I don't want to do more work than I need to, or replace any more gaskets than necessary. Any advice appreciated. Al | ||
| Aaron |
Al: You *could* get the cover off with the rocker boxes intact, but personally, I'd be too concerned about hurting cam bushings in the process. There's no motor position without at least one valve partially open. 5 o'clock on the timing cup notch will get you closest if you want to give it a go. I've been told by people that it can be done. In terms of pulling the rocker shafts without pulling the boxes, sure, you could do it by getting each valve closed and then letting the lifter bleed. But how you gonna get'em back in? When those lifter plungers come up they're likely to pull in some oil. AW | ||
| Al_Lighton |
DOH!!! of course, Aaron, how silly of me! Curious, what tools/bits do intake porters use to grind away so much intake/exhaust track aluminum? Any grinding wheels I've put into my die grinder are useless on aluminum in about 30 seconds. If I could get some decent grinding action on the aluminum case, I wouldn't need to take it off at all. The Zizz wheels seem to do OK but are the wrong shape for some of the contour grinding I need to do to contour the cover. I really don't want to take the cover off for this purely cosmetic mod if I can avoid it. Jeff H's bike looks bitchin without all that extra sporty cover there. Al | ||
| Aaron |
Al: There's an outfit called "Cylinder Head Abrasives" that supply stuff specifically for porting aluminum heads, most head porters use their stuff. AW | ||
| Al_Lighton |
Thanks Aaron! I looked at the website, saw the type of bits that are used, went down to the local Tool Depot (UUrrgghh!! in your best Tim Allen voice...I LOVE that store!) and bought some of those carbide bits. YES!! They chunk some serious aluminum away. Job is all done. A couple minor scars, but the cover looks great overall, I'm pleased with the change. Its a lot of work, but worth it, it looks real cool. Thanks again, Al | ||
| Tims |
Can someone please tell me the differences between lightning and thunderstorm heads? Bigger valves?, ports?, better design? All things being equal, what sort of HP advantage between the two? | ||
| Jmartz |
Tim: The most significant difference is the ugly flat black paint that chips. Other than that TS heads have larger valves, smaller exhaust ports and a larger combustion chamber. Modified motors with TS heads will make 5 to 8 HP more. | ||
| Ralph |
Tim, Thunderstorms have bigger valves. Ports are smaller (better velocities). Better design (combustion chamber), yup. More horsepower in the Thunderstorms. And they are cheap! Don't forget, you need the pistons if you switch, they are not the same. bighairyralph | ||
| Fastback69 |
Is it possible to install longer connecting rods in the XL motor? What rod/stroke ratio do the V-twins like best? | ||
| Jmartz |
Yes if you get shorter pistons. As to stroke we are limited by a 5000 fpm ave. piston speed. This is the current upper limit for pistons. This speed is reached at appox. 7800 rpm on a 3 13/13 in. stroke motor like the Buell's. IMHO a 3.5 stroke 4" bore motor would be a good compromise. This configuration would tolerate 8250 before pistons reached grenade speed and with a lightened reciprocating group the wimpy HD journal (crankpin) would also be spared. This motor would likely make 150 RWHP with Shumaker individual port heads. An S&S case with the cam cavity displace .25 in. to the right and a 1/2 in. higher deck would also be needed. Total cost about $15,000. Resale value after you are done, well, I'll reserve judgement on that one. Jose | ||
| Fastback69 |
I have often wondered why a motor with a 4" bore and shorter stroke would run. The Evo motors are reminiscent of the engines from the '30's and early '40's with their LONG strokes and small bores. I think the 100" xl motor (with S&S case) is only .22" taller than a stock Evo. It's supposed to fit the Sporty and Buell frame without mods. It's a 4" x 4" motor. How long are the stock rods? | ||
| Jmartz |
All if not most car V8's have more bore than stroke as do all high revving jap bikes. I do not believe there is a motor with as much stroke as HD being produced by any manufacturer. While low end torque is stellar these motors die rather quickly at the top. Having a wider rpm range to work with improves power delivery and the controllabilty of the deivery. W/o rpm you cannot go fast. Weakening the driveline (making the #'s low) to go faster when you have gobs of torque works at the expense of controlling the power delivery. Perhaps not a big deal except when trying to hold a line in tight curves of varying elevation. Low torque in-line 4's will go faster than a buell in most situations except when the speeds come to a creep. That is why allowing for a bit more rpm while recovering the lost torque with larger pistons would greatly improve the manners of our beloved 1957 motor. Our bikes are underpowerd and poorly competitive with the current generation of motorcycles except in circumstances that are few and far between. Off the curve and off the line, ther rest of the time we play catch up. | ||
| Aaron |
I wouldn't be surprised to see the factory move to an oversquare or at least less undersquare configuration. Look at the Blast ... 3.5" bore (literally a t-storm piston), 3.125" stroke. They clearly have it on their minds. I'm hoping the new bike has a 2 cylinder Blast type engine, just under 1000cc. If they go that way, and dual carb it, it should be a screamer. Injection starts making sense when it eliminates multiple carbs IMO, so maybe it'll be dual throttle bodies instead. 100+rwhp off the showroom floor in an air/oil cooled 1000cc pushrod motor? is it doable? AW | ||
| Ralph |
Why? What does building a twin on the Blast do aside from changing the bore/stroke ratio? If you want a better (from my point of view) ratio, big bore the motor as it is now (hm, good idea, I'll have to look into that snicker). A motor built on the Blast platform would bring nothing new. It would still be the same thing but smaller. Unless they change the crank pin, that'd help, but not enough, your still limited by the valve train. I don't see any use in the Blast motor, frankly, either in it's present guise or as a twin. Want a 1000cc push rod Buell? Go buy a less than $5000 S1 and have a fly wheel made with a shorter stroke. It'd probably cost less and out perform what the factory could do. But why? What's the use in a 1000cc Buell? Racing? It'd still suck. I'm not Buell bashing, I have to many to do that. I would honestly be peeved if Buells next entry didn't have a modern motor - over head cams, water cooling and the ability to rev over seven grand more than once in the motors life without toasting it. I would not see that as a copy, it would be a step forward into the same world as other manufacturers. Come on Aaron, change my mind. You have before, you might again. bighairyralph | ||
| Aaron |
Why? I'll tell you why ... because they only made 50 RR1000's, that's why! I need'em to make 500 so I can go stomp on that Moto Guzzi production class record! Sheesh, Ralph, I thought you knew me better than that  | ||
| Ralph |
Piffle. Is that the best you can come up with? C'mon, give me the real deal. Ron (Axtell) is sounding interested in the Blast motor and it's two cylinder capability. I didn't have a chance to nail him down (hard to do, he always runs when I pull out the hammer). All I can see with a two cylinder Blast motor is exactly what is being made now, okay, with plastic push rod covers.....woooo, big improvement. bighairyralph | ||
| Blake |
Long stroke, low RPM is mucho more efficient than short stroke high RPM no? (I once achieved over 70 mpg two tankfulls in a row on my '97 M2.) There are durn good reasons to keep the long stroke! Another? The engine simply looks wicked cool! Tall sinuous V-Twin. Also, I believe you will find that the long stroke improves emmisions performance too. If I needed 130 RWHP, I'd rather have a 100" pushrod, aircooled V-Twin than a stubby OHC 60" high revver with a radiator. Plus, I've yet to ride a high revving V-Twin that didn't buzz my arse to total numbness. Blake (If I wanted a V-Twinracer, I'd buy an RC51.) | ||
| Axtell |
boys-boys--can't we have one quiet evening without you two acting up?? |
