Spark Plug Check

loudhvx wrote: Actually, we'd all be better off if they had used alcohol instead of tetraethyl lead to begin with. We would have been using hardware that was immune to alcohol long ago, and we'd be getting more power. You can really squeeze the compression upward with E85. We ended up with lead because it was more profitable for the patent holders of leaded gasoline, GM and Exxon (Esso), even though it was far more toxic. Ethanol was well known to be effective as an octane booster, and less toxic, but it was not patentable. Lead was then replaced with chemicals that are even more toxic.

I hate ethanol too, but only because the Kz's were not designed around it and so now it's a headache.

Tetraethyl lead was not used as an octane boost. It was used as cushion between the valve and valve seat. If you have an older motor that was designed to be used with leaded gas and gave it a diet of unleaded, you would loose the valve seats.

To get around this you had to have harder valve seats put in the heads. My 75 900 was designed to run on either leaded or unleaded according to the owners manual. As far as the alcohol in the gas goes, I think we have been lied to as to the benefits. My F/S Bronco gets 1 mile to the gallon better using alcohol free gas. To me it seems we are actually putting more pollutants into the air by using more gas to do the same thing. Fortunately I can get pure alcohol free premium and regular gas somewhat locally. Last mileage check I did on the 900 using alcohol free regular was 45 miles per gallon. Best, Tim

You're right. My 69 F250 had a 360 engine. The valves went away fast. I picked up a rebuilt 390 that has modern valve seats. Even though I overheated the piss out of it, it still has good compression and the oil stays clean.
Alcohol doesn't provide the BTU's real gas does. Poor milage = more pollution.
Steve

Z1Driver wrote:

loudhvx wrote: Actually, we'd all be better off if they had used alcohol instead of tetraethyl lead to begin with. We would have been using hardware that was immune to alcohol long ago, and we'd be getting more power. You can really squeeze the compression upward with E85. We ended up with lead because it was more profitable for the patent holders of leaded gasoline, GM and Exxon (Esso), even though it was far more toxic. Ethanol was well known to be effective as an octane booster, and less toxic, but it was not patentable. Lead was then replaced with chemicals that are even more toxic.

I hate ethanol too, but only because the Kz's were not designed around it and so now it's a headache.

Tetraethyl lead was not used as an octane boost. It was used as cushion between the valve and valve seat. If you have an older motor that was designed to be used with leaded gas and gave it a diet of unleaded, you would loose the valve seats.

To get around this you had to have harder valve seats put in the heads. My 75 900 was designed to run on either leaded or unleaded according to the owners manual. As far as the alcohol in the gas goes, I think we have been lied to as to the benefits. My F/S Bronco gets 1 mile to the gallon better using alcohol free gas. To me it seems we are actually putting more pollutants into the air by using more gas to do the same thing. Fortunately I can get pure alcohol free premium and regular gas somewhat locally. Last mileage check I did on the 900 using alcohol free regular was 45 miles per gallon. Best, Tim

Any quick reading of any articles related to why Kettering chose TEL will show it was almost entirely about engine knock. The valve issue is more of a side issue. Solutions to the valve issue could be solved with relatively straight-forward metallurgy changes (as they obviously have). But antiknock went through many studies, especially for wartime aircraft. Knock was the limiting issue for engine power. The invention of antiknock additives is sometimes credited as one of the greatest inventions related to internal combustion engines.

The point is, if alcohol was used from the start, instead of TEL, the valve issue would have been solved long ago. Maybe guys driving Model T's would have an issue, but by the 40's, the valve issue would have been distant memory.

Tetraethyllead:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead

Interesting read on Kettering and Midgley research:
www.environmentalhistory.org/billkovarik...search/cabi/ket-tel/

Midgley:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr .

Kettering may have invented more internal-combustion-engine-related things we use today than Henry Ford:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_F._Kettering

SWest wrote: Mikuni lists float height as the method of adjustment on their aftermarket carbs. It doesn't take into consideration the wear factor, float pivots, etc. Even as in my case with the 33's, changing to more modern floats. It does however require a little trial and error getting the mixture correct. Once done, the clear tube test is the only accurate method of adjusting the floats.
Steve

Been through that with these carbs...had to set the float height at 23mm to get the fuel level below the bowl tops. At that measurement the tang is bent to the point where it contacts the valve lip, and it requires a custom curve to miss and still push the needle pin far enough to seat effectively. Phooey on that...
If Mikuni wanted the fuel level to be below the bowl top, their engineers would have designed the float or float supports to accommodate that, AND would have provided some benchmark clear-tube fuel level measurement for RS Flat Slide carbs.
Sorry to admit, I've yet to find Mikuni instructions detailing the clear-tube application specifically for them. :S

SWest wrote: You're right. My 69 F250 had a 360 engine. The valves went away fast. I picked up a rebuilt 390 that has modern valve seats. Even though I overheated the piss out of it, it still has good compression and the oil stays clean.
Alcohol doesn't provide the BTU's real gas does. Poor milage = more pollution.
Steve

Last I heard, ethanol cost more to produce than it can be sold for. How does that make any sense, when it makes absolutely none! :evil:

...sorry :whistle:

Lower BTU's does not mean more pollution. Hydrogen has much less energy per gallon, than gasoline, but is much cleaner.
Diesel fuel has more BTU per gallon, but it certainly is not cleaner.

But there is a problem in measuring energy density. What's more important? Weight or volume? For aircraft, it might be weight, for a motorcycle, it may be volume. Hydrogen is energy dense by weight. Gasoline is energy dense by volume.

And BTW nitromethane fuel has less than half the energy per gallon of gasoline, but the engine running it is what you want if you need to go fast.

Anyone making a street-legal vehicle to go fast is probably going to want E85. You can turbo the shit out of that and leave gasoline cars in the dust. It is all about compression. And to get it, you have to prevent knock.

daveo wrote: I'll be using Rotella next oil change forward. Maybe the different formula will help the rings do their job better.

Changed a few things last night. She now has 17.5 Pilot Jets in place of 22.5's, with .8 Pilot Air jets vs. .9, and 125 Main Jets vs. 127.5

She ran very well on a brief test ride after the carbs were synched...and I also set the floats back to 17mm.
Will see how this setup works out for a bit.

Rotella T is amazing stuff! I used to put 15W40 Rotella T diesel in my 500 000 mile 86 Toyota 22RE 4 cyl. for summer. Oil consumption in that tired old engine dropped from a quart every month to nil from April to October, and when I drained it out after a summer of about 25 000 miles, it was still gold in color. The valve train never needed adjustment again, and the inside of the engine was really clean. I worked in a highway truck shop at the time, so Rotella T was next to free for me. Everyone warned me the Rotella T would ruin my gas engine in no time. If anything, it kept it alive for another 5 years past the point it should have died...rust finally got the best of that poor old truck. Four years after I parked it (still with the last Rotella T change in it), I went to move it and it started and ran like it had another 500 000 miles left in it. Only drawback - difficult to crank the engine when it got down to freezing temps...

-Scott

Kray-Z wrote:

"Rotella T is amazing stuff! I used to put 15W40 Rotella T diesel..."


Is that the particular Rotella oil recommended for my KZ1100 engine?

Dave, I found this on another bike forum:

Here is the email from a Rotella engineer that I found on the Shell forums.

"We recently ran the JASO MA friction test on Rotella T with Triple Protection 15W-40, Rotella T Synthetic 5W-40 (CI-4) and our soon to be introduced (within the next 2 months) Rotella T Synthetic 5W-40 CJ-4.

All three oils passed the wet clutch friction test. Rotella T Synthetic 5W-40 (CI-4) has more than 1.2% ash (JASO MA spec limit) so it can not be classified as JASO MA. However, Rotella T with Triple Protection 15W-40 and our soon to be introduced Rotella T Synthetic 5W-40 CJ-4 do meet JASO MA."

If you have any additional questions please call us at 800-231-6950.
Thank you for your interest in Shell products."

Richard Moore
Staff Engineer
Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc. "

I'm going to try it (Rotella T triple protection 15W40 - non synthetic) for break in on Beater I " (my recently rebuilt KZ1000CSR engine) for the first time on a multi cylinder bike engine, but it seems to be a good option from what I know already, and what I've read...



-Scott

I'll add that the o/o express freight truckers with big horsepower (550+) used to call Rotella T 15W40 "the good stuff" when I asked what oil they wanted to use in their 100 mph trucks...

-Scott

SWest wrote: Dave and I have both achieved the elusive peanut butter color. Problem is when you make changes, (main jets) they affect the other circuits.
Steve

Update after trial and [strike]error[/strike] success!






:woohoo: