how to measure valve clearance

Kray-Z, as stated, I don't think anyone is saying the point-away method should not be used. I'm not, at least. This was all to find out possible reasons why Kawasaki would go to such great troubles and expenditures to change the procedure.

I'm not saying we are trying to replicate any engine-running condition by using the FSM method. But it is now clear that the FSM method is far more repeatable. I spent many hours playing with the point-away method, and as Ed Nessism has mentioned, you can get varying results simply by altering the position slightly. This is due to varying amounts of force imparted by adjacent valves. When you use the FSM method, there is no variability in position, and the camshaft is held in a steady position away from the valves, without pressing on any one valve by a large amount.

The desire to keep it simple and quick is understandable. But repeatable results are also nice.

There is no benefit for the smaller bikes regarding the ability to change shims without moving the motor. The smaller bikes need to measure all clearances first, then start changing shims.

That extra step can be daunting to some so they just sell the bike, then the new owner has to deal with the time and expense. Once adjusted right, they can last 3-4000 miles. I will typically adjust my valves when I change my rear tire. Most of the time 1 or 2 need a slight adjustment.
Steve

loudhvx wrote: Kray-Z, as stated, I don't think anyone is saying the point-away method should not be used. I'm not, at least. This was all to find out possible reasons why Kawasaki would go to such great troubles and expenditures to change the procedure.

The reason is simple - faster service times. You can check two or more clearances at a time. 4 cylinder manuals like Kawasaki and Suzuki started this trend with bikes, I believe. Car engines with 1960's OEM solid lifters had similar procedures.

I'm not saying we are trying to replicate any engine-running condition by using the FSM method. But it is now clear that the FSM method is far more repeatable. I spent many hours playing with the point-away method, and as Ed Nessism has mentioned, you can get varying results simply by altering the position slightly. This is due to varying amounts of force imparted by adjacent valves. When you use the FSM method, there is no variability in position, and the camshaft is held in a steady position away from the valves, without pressing on any one valve by a large amount.

I've had varying clearance measurements both ways, but only differences of 0.001" or less. Depressing then releasing the lifter (with a Honda tool I bought many years ago) before measuring the clearance takes out most of this variance. But you have to wonder. The repeatable clearance measurement will be the maximum. That might spell burnt valves if you go for minimal clearance specifications. I wouldn't do that myself.

The desire to keep it simple and quick is understandable. But repeatable results are also nice.

Yes, indeed. Getting different measurements always makes you second guess if you are doing something correctly...

There is no benefit for the smaller bikes regarding the ability to change shims without moving the motor. The smaller bikes need to measure all clearances first, then start changing shims.

Yes, absolutely true. I don't rip out cams until I've measured the clearances a few times, just to be sure. True for the big engines that have been converted to shim under bucket also, and the late GPz1100, KZ1100R, and 1100LTD...all are cams out to shim.

I think which method is faster is arguable. By faster, I mean requiring fewer movements on the crank. With the point-away method, you can still measure two clearances at a time, but they will be on different shafts.

Certainly, the first few times the FSM method is done, will take much longer, since it's faster to rotate the crank, rather than try to find your place in the manual and re-read the instructions. The point-away method requires less lookup, and is memorized immediately.

Also, and more importantly, if you study the pattern, you will see that the FSM could, in fact, have you measure more than 2 at a time. When #1 is at TDC of the fire stroke, the FSM says measure the intake on 1 and 3. You could, as Ed N. does, measure exhaust 1 and 2 as well. But notice the manual does not say to do that. So faster service times does not seem to be the reason.

Notice, as Ed pointed out, 1 and 2, are both on the base circle, (in the #1 TDC psoition). Apparently, Kawasaki does not want you to measure valves that are adjacent to other valves on the base circle. That appears to be the reason the FSM procedure is the way it is.

loudhvx wrote:
Notice, as Ed pointed out, 1 and 2, are both on the base circle, (in the #1 TDC psoition). Apparently, Kawasaki does not want you to measure valves that are adjacent to other valves on the base circle. That appears to be the reason the FSM procedure is the way it is.

I check the valves this way because this is the Suzuki GS method and I've owned quite a few of those bikes. With both adjacent valves on the base circle the measured clearance will be lower than with the adjacent cam lobe depressing the valve.

One thing that has always made me scratch my head is that Suzuki's specified valve clearance is .03-.08mm (.0012-,003") which is tighter than most KZ's. The KZ650/750 bikes for example specs. .10-.18mm. Maybe the KZ speced clearance is greater in part because the measurement method is different? Next time I go in to check the valves on my 750 I'm going to tighten down on the clearances. Most are up in the .15mm range and while the bike runs great, the valves clatter a fair bit. I'm going to target the lower end of the range since there is still more clearance there than a Suzuki GS at it's loosest.

loudhvx wrote: Also, and more importantly, if you study the pattern, you will see that the FSM could, in fact, have you measure more than 2 at a time. When #1 is at TDC of the fire stroke, the FSM says measure the intake on 1 and 3. You could, as Ed N. does, measure exhaust 1 and 2 as well. But notice the manual does not say to do that. So faster service times does not seem to be the reason.

Notice, as Ed pointed out, 1 and 2, are both on the base circle, (in the #1 TDC psoition). Apparently, Kawasaki does not want you to measure valves that are adjacent to other valves on the base circle. That appears to be the reason the FSM iprocedure is the way it is.

I don't think so. The Honda CBX FSM has the same cam positioning technique as the later Kawasaki FSM method. The Honda manual has you check as many valves as is possible for each time you turn the crank. If the idea / reason was as you say, then Honda would have done it differently - the valve timing of the CBX is naturally mucho different than a four...

Also, all the factory manuals and tools were very deliberately created and refined to save time on the dealership shop floor. Check out those historic Kawasaki factory service videos on rebuilding a z-1 engine. Gotta love that piston ring compressor they have - all four cylinders at once with one tool...where can I get one of those cheap? Do they make one with six holes in it?

Nessism wrote:

loudhvx wrote:
Notice, as Ed pointed out, 1 and 2, are both on the base circle, (in the #1 TDC psoition). Apparently, Kawasaki does not want you to measure valves that are adjacent to other valves on the base circle. That appears to be the reason the FSM procedure is the way it is.

I check the valves this way because this is the Suzuki GS method and I've owned quite a few of those bikes. With both adjacent valves on the base circle the measured clearance will be lower than with the adjacent cam lobe depressing the valve.

One thing that has always made me scratch my head is that Suzuki's specified valve clearance is .03-.08mm (.0012-,003") which is tighter than most KZ's. The KZ650/750 bikes for example specs. .10-.18mm. Maybe the KZ speced clearance is greater in part because the measurement method is different? Next time I go in to check the valves on my 750 I'm going to tighten down on the clearances. Most are up in the .15mm range and while the bike runs great, the valves clatter a fair bit. I'm going to target the lower end of the range since there is still more clearance there than a Suzuki GS at it's loosest.

Hey, I recall a magazine (Cycle Canada - author was David Booth, graduate of mechanical engineering tech or something like that - Canada's version of Kevin Cameron) tech article mentioning something about the Suzuki GS750 / 1000 having the tightest valve clearance specs of any modern production bike. That caused some problems as feeler gauges back in the late 70's / early 80's weren't readily available in the ultra thin sizes needed, and available Suzuki shim sizes didn't always let you adjust within the recommended clearance specs. The answer at the time was to go for more clearance rather than try to hit the minimum.

I would not at all recommend tightening your valves more than the factory service manual recommends. If you do, maybe get a spare cylinder head rebuilt and ready for your next service interval...

A LOT of Suzuki GS's hit the scrap heap because of idiot owners ignoring valve maintenance. With such a small clearance in play it doesn't take that many miles before all the clearance is gone and the valves start to cook.

As an aside, my Nissan car's 1.8 L4 engine uses shim valve clearance adjustment. The service manual doesn't call for ever adjusting them though. The cam/valves were engineered such that wear in all the parts is balanced and if anything, the clearance will increase with mileage, not decrease like our bikes do. I'm going to go inside the engine anyway and check. Can't hurt.

Kray-Z wrote:

loudhvx wrote: Also, and more importantly, if you study the pattern, you will see that the FSM could, in fact, have you measure more than 2 at a time. When #1 is at TDC of the fire stroke, the FSM says measure the intake on 1 and 3. You could, as Ed N. does, measure exhaust 1 and 2 as well. But notice the manual does not say to do that. So faster service times does not seem to be the reason.

Notice, as Ed pointed out, 1 and 2, are both on the base circle, (in the #1 TDC psoition). Apparently, Kawasaki does not want you to measure valves that are adjacent to other valves on the base circle. That appears to be the reason the FSM iprocedure is the way it is.

I don't think so. The Honda CBX FSM has the same cam positioning technique as the later Kawasaki FSM method. The Honda manual has you check as many valves as is possible for each time you turn the crank. If the idea / reason was as you say, then Honda would have done it differently - the valve timing of the CBX is naturally mucho different than a four...

Also, all the factory manuals and tools were very deliberately created and refined to save time on the dealership shop floor. Check out those historic Kawasaki factory service videos on rebuilding a z-1 engine. Gotta love that piston ring compressor they have - all four cylinders at once with one tool...where can I get one of those cheap? Do they make one with six holes in it?

Well, that's a six cylinder Honda, and this discussion was about why the Kawasaki FSM for inline fours went to a new procedure. If Kawasaki wanted to save time, they could specify 4 measurements at a time, but they don't. And, of course, the CBX being an inline six, the cam lobe sequence would be tighter lobe to lobe (less separating angles) than that of a four. Given the same duration, more valves would be pressed down at one time, than that of a four, so you might find more adjacent valves that could be measured or having the extra 4 (or is the CBX 4v/cyl?) valves reduces the necessity to have adjacent lobes under tension.

To be clear, once again, I'm not saying any of the three procedures (FSM, point-away, or Ed's) can't be used. I'm curious as to why Kaw went to so much trouble to change their procedure. Studying the sequence in detail is enlightening. "Saving time", is not supported by the fact that Kaw has you measure two at a time, rather than the possible four.

Thank you all for your input! I've done three different measurements, three different ways. 1 as the cam lobes pointing away 2 as described in a Kawasaki manual ( which I may have done backwards) and 3 as described by loudhvx using the pictures as a reference.

My set of feeler gauges only go down to .05
On all three measurements, the intake won't even fit the .05
Exhaust side varies in measurements. Ranging anywhere from .05 not fitting to .10 depending on lobe orientation.. The 180 degree from lifter may be differed because I used a close enough approach, both tdc method seem to be closer in variance

Summary of the Factory Service Manual method:
When #1 is at TDC on its fire stroke, measure 1 and 3 intake.
When #2 is at TDC on its fire stroke, measure 2 and 4 exhaust.
When #4 is at TDC on its fire stroke, measure 2 and 4 intake.
When #3 is at TDC on its fire stroke, measure 1 and 3 exhaust.

Note: Which ever cylinder has the cam lobes splayed outward, pointing away from each other, is the one at TDC on it's fire stroke.
Make sure to measure only when the crank is at TDC. (On the 550, that is when the T mark on the advancer mechanism lines up with the pointer in the ignition housing.) And only rotate the crank forward (same as the wheels of the bike would rotate).
Also note: the sequence is given in firing order ( 1 2 4 3 ), which is what you will see as you rotate the crank. (It is not listed 1 2 3 4.)

---

Perhaps you are referring to Ed Nessism's method, which is:
When #1 is at TDC on its fire stroke, measure 1 and 2 exhaust.
When #2 is at TDC on its fire stroke, measure 1 and 2 intake.
When #4 is at TDC on its fire stroke, measure 3 and 4 exhaust.
When #3 is at TDC on its fire stroke, measure 3 and 4 intake.

I, personally, didn't have a preferred method. But now, I'll probably stick with the FSM, as I've had slightly varying results using other methods.