TOPIC:

Well doing the conversions, according to my calculations. The exhaust side is right in spec. Cylinder 4 being right at the cusp..
I haven't got proper measurement of intake yet because the head is still off..which ill be installing when I get it back from girlfriends dad..would tight intake clearances cause starting problems?

loudhvx wrote: I've found shims can vary by almost .02mm. That's almost halfway to the next size. The mic lets you measure the center spot where the valve makes actual contact. Rather than the perimeter thickness that a caliper measures.

Me too. Always mic them.
It seems they are nearly never the size stamped and are off by +-1/4 to a +-1/3 of their intended dimension.
Is that critical....LOL,,, no. But I do it anyhow.

Hey guys! Still waiting for the head gasket for the 550. And while I wait, I'm back with another question. This time is for my bigger bike the 81 kz750. I'm checking the clearances on this one and a couple are just out of spec. The others are right at the limits (.08) my question is should I change those shims out too? Or worry about it next season? I've gotta take the cams off anyway. So I'm just looking for advice.

If some are at the tight limit I would swap them out for shims that put them near the center of the range while it's apart. Ed

I'd leave them.
Steve

Cool, thanks guys, since I'm doing two bikes the 550 is priority, it's having some starting issues. Never did get an answer if tight intake clearances would cause starting problems or not?? Depending on what I've got left over from the 550, if it'll bring me to a middle range with the shims I'll swap them out.

kayodash wrote: Cool, thanks guys, since I'm doing two bikes the 550 is priority, it's having some starting issues. Never did get an answer if tight intake clearances would cause starting problems or not?? Depending on what I've got left over from the 550, if it'll bring me to a middle range with the shims I'll swap them out.

Not if the "tight" valves have at least minimal clearance and fully sealing when the engine is cold.

Good Fortune!

Minimal clearance? As in within spec? I just got another set of feelers that go to. .002 inches I couldnt fit .005 so when the head gasket comes in I will recheck the 550.

Just got done with a valve checking experiment.

Checked the valves 3 ways:

Factory Kawasaki method
180 degree method
Suzuki method (two adjacent valves on the base circle and check both at same time).

Drum roll........

The measured results all depended on where the adjacent cam lobe was pointing. Both the 180 and Kawasaki method had some positions where the adjacent valve was depressed (thus pushing up on the cam) and others where the adjacent valve was on the base circle.

In the positions where the adjacent valve was pushing up the clearance was .001-.002" greater than the same valve measured where the adjacent valve was on the base circle.

The Suzuki method was the most consistent, since none of the adjacent valves were pushing up, but at the end of the day the method used probably doesn't matter since the results were all within .002" or less.

I would expect the point away method is the least repeatable since there is no actual mark to gauge against. It's mostly done by eyeball... not exactly the most precise method.

If the Suzuki method is written for a Suzuki, I would expect that should be the way to do it on a Suzuki.

I would still use the Kawasaki method on a Kawasaki , since that is presumably what they were using to test what they wanted for valve clearance. When the two adjacent lobes are not pressing down, that half of the camshaft is just sort of floating. Then the amount of force you use on the feeler comes into play.

By having the adjacent lobe pressing down, it solidifies the camshaft position in the bearings.

But whatever. As you said they were all within .002".

I just found the point-away method difficult to repeat precisely. A few degrees one way or another would sometimes let in the next feeler size.

loudhvx wrote: I would expect the point away method is the least repeatable since there is no actual mark to gauge against. It's mostly done by eyeball... not exactly the most precise method.

If the Suzuki method is written for a Suzuki, I would expect that should be the way to do it on a Suzuki.

I would still use the Kawasaki method on a Kawasaki , since that is presumably what they were using to test what they wanted for valve clearance. When the two adjacent lobes are not pressing down, that half of the camshaft is just sort of floating. Then the amount of force you use on the feeler comes into play.

By having the adjacent lobe pressing down, it solidifies the camshaft position in the bearings.

But whatever. As you said they were all within .002".

I just found the point-away method difficult to repeat precisely. A few degrees one way or another would sometimes let in the next feeler size.

With the Kawasaki method sometimes the adjacent valve is pushing up and sometimes not. That method is inconsistent. With the 180 degree method, same thing. The Suzuki method, which works perfectly on a Kawasaki, is by far the most consistent method because the adjacent valve is never pushing up on the cam.

Hey, this is getting absolutely nuts!

Any of the FSM methods, and pointing the lobe 180 deg. away, will work just fine as long as you are sure you are on the base circle of the damn cam! I know of dozens of professional mechanics servicing all types of machinery, trucks, cars, and toys who use and swear by all/ any / their favorite of the above methods.

Just be meticulous (measure twice, cut once?) and remember that having the valves a little loose is far better than having them a little tight! Trying to get a silent top end from an air cooled Kawasaki is as likely as striking oil in your back yard (start digging - good luck with that...). You are better off trying to synch your carbs perfectly (good, yes, perfect? Again - good luck at that).

Inconsistency? I've measured small (under 0.001") differences in all the methods on my bikes and cars. It comes into play with varying oil film on the parts, and the lifters and springs and cam bearing positions, and even carbon build-up on the seats and faces of the valves. Getting to know how to feel the correct amount of (very slight) viscous drag on the feeler / thickness gauge is just as, if not more, critical than measuring 0.0005 -0.001" inconsistency IMO. Can you imagine if this thread was discussing screw and locknut adjusters??????