valve adjustment

Thanks already ordered some and installed

Two ways of doing it, both work just fine,

I prefer the factory manual way, the results are more consistent. Positioning exactly 180 degrees away from the valve is a bit hit and miss, also variances in the base circle depending where it is measured will affect your numbers.

Tyrell Corp wrote: Two ways of doing it, both work just fine,

I prefer the factory manual way, the results are more consistent. Positioning exactly 180 degrees away from the valve is a bit hit and miss, also variances in the base circle depending where it is measured will affect your numbers.

+1

I bought my bike new. When it had only a couple hundred miles on it I bought the manual and checked the valve clearances using the instructions in the manual. They checked out fine against the specs, and I recorded the readings in the back of the manual. Since then whenever I check the valves I record the reading in that manual so I have a full record of any changes (which are very slight). I figure if using the instructions in the manual yielded the "in spec" numbers when the bike was new and presumably in spec, then that method yields accurate numbers. I suppose if I had used the 180* method I might have gotten the same numbers, but why bother when the prescribed method works? Ed

650ed wrote:

Tyrell Corp wrote: Two ways of doing it, both work just fine,

I prefer the factory manual way, the results are more consistent. Positioning exactly 180 degrees away from the valve is a bit hit and miss, also variances in the base circle depending where it is measured will affect your numbers.

+1

I bought my bike new. When it had only a couple hundred miles on it I bought the manual and checked the valve clearances using the instructions in the manual. They checked out fine against the specs, and I recorded the readings in the back of the manual. Since then whenever I check the valves I record the reading in that manual so I have a full record of any changes (which are very slight). I figure if using the instructions in the manual yielded the "in spec" numbers when the bike was new and presumably in spec, then that method yields accurate numbers. I suppose if I had used the 180* method I might have gotten the same numbers, but why bother when the prescribed method works? Ed

Me too... with respect to my only bike, my KZ1000a, which I bought new.
With a total of about +37,000 miles on it... I have replaced exactly three shims in that +37,000 miles and those shims "just barley" needed to be one size ".001 to .002" smaller then the stock ones that were in it.
It has only been since I had a valve job done on my extra 1015cc head that I've had to buy substantially smaller-thinner shims to get the gap closer to .002"-.004". The machine shop must have really sunk the cutters in because I had to pick up one 215, and some 220s and 225s, which are a number of sizes smaller then stock shims I have in hand.

That's the problem with shops that don't work on these things. That's why I lap the valves, then decide what to do.
Steve

missionkz wrote:

650ed wrote:

Tyrell Corp wrote: Two ways of doing it, both work just fine,

I prefer the factory manual way, the results are more consistent. Positioning exactly 180 degrees away from the valve is a bit hit and miss, also variances in the base circle depending where it is measured will affect your numbers.

+1

I bought my bike new. When it had only a couple hundred miles on it I bought the manual and checked the valve clearances using the instructions in the manual. They checked out fine against the specs, and I recorded the readings in the back of the manual. Since then whenever I check the valves I record the reading in that manual so I have a full record of any changes (which are very slight). I figure if using the instructions in the manual yielded the "in spec" numbers when the bike was new and presumably in spec, then that method yields accurate numbers. I suppose if I had used the 180* method I might have gotten the same numbers, but why bother when the prescribed method works? Ed

Me too... with respect to my only bike, my KZ1000a, which I bought new.
With a total of about +37,000 miles on it... I have replaced exactly three shims in that +37,000 miles and those shims "just barley" needed to be one size ".001 to .002" smaller then the stock ones that were in it.
It has only been since I had a valve job done on my extra 1015cc head that I've had to buy substantially smaller-thinner shims to get the gap closer to .002"-.004". The machine shop must have really sunk the cutters in because I had to pick up one 215, and some 220s and 225s, which are a number of sizes smaller then stock shims I have in hand.

Take the head back and tell them to tip the valves to 1.475 - 1.480" installed height. That's with the tappet bore empty...no spring seat.

They offered to grind the tips a few thousandths but want me to tell them how much after shim testing.
Lazy bastards.

Yeah go through all that work, then redo it all so they can charge you more. I could have tipped mine myself for nothing.
Steve

If you try your local shop for shims, do not waste your time going to the parts counter. At best, they'll have to order it for you... if they can ever find the right part #. Go to the service manager. He probably got an assortment in his bench stock. Your old shims and maybe a few dollars will have you walking out with the shims you need.

Tyrell Corp wrote: Two ways of doing it, both work just fine,

I prefer the factory manual way, ...

+1