Ryland3210

Hi Dave, Your welcome! Yes, 4 U.S. quarts will fit under the sloppage sheet, (or below the gasket for those who do not have one) provided you include changing the filter and use part of the 4 quarts to fill the new filter. The problem I have with using the un-threaded dipstick is that it is all too easy to misjudge the 45 degree angle and get a high or low reading. It's annoying that there is no guide tube for the dipstick. Then it would be easy to establish a reliable fill mark without having to screw it in. Maybe I'll make it a project. What do you think? Is it worthwhile?

The causes of filters loosening has been thoroughly researched in other threads. Look up the summarized results under FAQ. You'll find a thread on oil filter tightening. As my bike came from the factory, the filter, presumably tightened in accordance with the highly suspect torque spec on the UFI filter body, came loose with my fingertips when I went to change it. That was plenty of motivation for me to get very, very analytical about the cause and solution. The Purolator equivalent to the UFI is the L 10241. Its gasket design is less prone to loosening than the UFI. In my opinion, hand tightening through the porthole in accordance with the recommendations is difficult, if not impossible. If you decide to use the UFI, be sure to get one with a recent date code. The gasket design was improved, but still is inferior to the Purolator. There may be other filters with good, or not so good, gasket designs which I have not analyzed. I have no financial interest in Purolator. Whatever you decide, by all means use a filter wrench and a ratchet to tighten it using the turns method.

Some seats rest on the battery. You ought to consider the metal jacketed version, or take a dremel tool to the plastic seat bottom and fill the hole with silicon rubber. The consensus seems to be the Odyssey. I think it is the 545MJ. My '04 Cafe Sport needed the seat modification. In my case, I used the factory prepared Yuasa, because the dealer replaced the original under warrantee and it was his money. The original had developed a leak because the seat rested on the terminal. If you end up going with the Yuasa, be certain to get the factory prepared version. They are available from Bombardier. It has performed flawlessly now for about 15 months. I've had no problems using Yuasa batteries for the past 40 years on a variety of bikes.

Very interesting. I have had 6061-T6 sheet metal "clear" anodized and machined aluminum bar stock anodized blue and gold successfully. But, can 6061-T6 and heat treated 356 alloy be anodized to a matching appearance? What about clear? Which colors can be used to make both metal alloys match in appearance. What if the metal had been glass beaded before anodizing? Thanks in advance!

Thanks for the recommendation. Sounds good, especially coming from '68 Norton rider. I'm tempted to experiment with eliminating the crossover altogether, and trying a pair of aftermarket Harley mufflers. There are lots of designs to choose from, and inexpensive, too. Some will see that as blasphemous, but what the heck. When the muffler fell off my Fiat 850, I slipped on a Triumph muffler that happened to fit. Worked great, and sounded good too. The Fiat didn't seem to mind a bit.

My OEM plastic dipstick measures High 156mm to the middle of the mark, and 184 to the middle of the low. Pretty close to the "normal" one you mention. To review my measurement procedure, the bike was drained thoroughly and filter replaced. Careful measurements of the dipstick location, screwed in, relative to the block gasket were made with a vernier caliper. 3.5 liters (3.7 quarts) were added, the engine was run long enough to fill the filter and build pressure. With the bike held vertical with a chain hoist, dipstick oil levels was measured. Given the margin below the gasket level 3.7 quarts provides, Ratchethack's 4 quart practice probably provides sufficient margin. I gather he has installed a Roper plate. That being the case, there should be no problem with the additional 0.3 quarts. In fact, I think I'll start doing the same. I feel comfortable with a thorough sump drain, change the filter, dump in 4 quarts, and off I go! I still want a Roper plate so I can blast off in first gear with reckless abandon!

Here's the quote from my post on the thread: "My dipstick length from the flange to the tip is 7-9/16". With a filter change, thorough draining of the sump, then adding 3.5 liters per the manual and running the engine long enough to fill the filter, the oil level reached 2.09" from the end of the dipstick with it fully screwed in, or 5.475 from the flange . That's 0.69 higher than its full mark, but still 0.33 lower than the gasket along the dipstick, or 0.23" vertically. This corresponds with the full mark being 18.23mm from the block surface, and when the wetting of the oil during extraction of the dipstick which causes an artificially high reading is taken into account, this agrees almost exactly with Ratchethack's visual measurement of 21 mm." The marks refered to are the original marks.

Is the V11 engine an interference engine? If so, my preference is a chain. Some of the automakers have switched back to chains. Too many customers complaints about trashed pistons and head from broken timing belts and a 4 figure bill. Chains are more likely to skip a tooth when they get really worn. The effect on performance is obvious, and the engine may simply refuse to start. Replacing a chain is cheap and fast compared to a set of heads and pistons.

My pressure gauge project is finished. It's located on the speedo/tach mounting plate so I can keep an eye on it. My measurement of oil level versus dipstick markings versus how far the level was below the block gasket versus oil volume specified in the manual resulted in a good reference oil level to test the pump starvation issue. With oil level at my modified dipstick marker (the original markings were about 11/16" low), I accelerated at full throttle from 2000 rpm to redline in first and second gear. It was a hot day, 91 degrees, with the engine thoroughly warmed up. As I accelerated in first gear from a rolling start at 2,000 RPM, oil pressure stayed at a constant 56 psi until about 5,000 RPM, at which point it dropped suddenly to 48 and drooped lower until it reached redline. The instant the throttle was backed off, pressure rose to 56 again. The same acceleration then was done in second and third gear. In both cases, there was no dip in pressure. To verify the test, the first gear test was done once more, with the same dip in prssure as before. I'm thoroughly convinced of the need for the Roper plate. Until I install one, no more full throttle accelerations for me in first gear, let alone wheelies. Pete, if you're watching this, please let me know how to purchase one! Cheers, John

What's the basis for that? I find it improbable that the aluminum head casting would yield in compression. However, I am less skeptical that wear of the valve seat and valve itself would reduce valve lash. I too have decades of experience rebuilding and maintaining engines, and have seen that happen. However, arguments from authority are less reliable than science, and I'm always willing to learn.

Sounds plausible, although I've seen plenty of other steel and cast iron parts in oil-bathed engines without corrosion protection that have not shown any sign of corrosion. As far as electrolytic action is concerned, the ends of the rockers are separated from the aluminum components by brass washers, so the aluminum is in contact with the relatively reactive brass in any event. Anyway, I'm not sure we should clutter up a thread in the "how to" section with off-topic discussions any further. Next time I have the covers off, I will do a magnet test out of curiousity.

Looks like straight pipes. How does it sound? I've been itching to simply take the mufflers off my Sport to see what it sounds like. The two pipe stubs point out away from the back tire, so I see no problem with carbon discoloring anything.

No, I did not test with a magnet, but I've never seen steel forgings look like bronze. My honda also had them. One advantage is the inherent wear resistance where it contacts the valve stem. As you probably know, sliding surfaces of dissimilar hardness materials resist galling as well.

Valve lash or valve clearance are unambiguous terms that even accomodate adjustable pushrods on older engines. My rockers are bronze, while the adjusting screws appear to be hardened steel. That's why I'm particularly careful about the tightening torque. Good cam design certainly takes into account the deceleration of the valve (your term: "landing speed") at the end of the cycle, and, of course that is only ideal when the design clearance is achieved.

OK, here is what I measured readjusting my rockers arms for the specified valve clearance: Conditions: First time since the bike was purchased new. As found: Right cyl.: I .006, E .008 thou', Left cyl.: I .008, I .009 One nut loose on right cylinder at about 22 foot pounds, the rest OK. After torqueing head: Right cyl.: I .006, E .007 thou', Left cyl.: same as above, did not need to re-torque head After adjusting clearance: Right cyl.: I .004, E .006 thou', Left cyl.: I .004, I .006 Most interesting was the locknut torques to loosen were between 10 and 15 foot pounds. On tightening, I used 12. It felt all right by feel. It will be interesting to see how much, if any, that quiets things down.

Sorry for the ambiguity. The only locknuts associated with the rocker arms are for the valve clearance adjustment screws. To be obsessively technical just for the fun of it, it is the rocker arm that is being adjusted, not the valves. FWIW, I've done plenty of this type of adjustment by feel, and never had one come loose, but this is the first on a Guzzi for me. I suppose I'll dig out the service manual for my '57 Ford, which has a torque spec on various screw sizes and see what it says.

It looks like the bottom line on head fastener torque is 29.5 foot pounds. Anyone know the torque spec for the rocker arm locknuts?

Delivering the kit in person would be a pleasure. If it helps, I occasionally have reason to go to Princeton, or to Toms River, where my relatives live. When the weather is decent, about 200 or more bikes show up at the Chatterbox. Every type and brand shows up at times, from choppers to Gold Wings to trikes to Boss Hoss to antique Nortons, Triumphs and BSA's, Beemers, etc. A WWII Chinese URAL with sidecar and even a motorcycle pulling a custom hearse showed up a few weeks ago. I usually get there around 5:00 PM, to beat the rush for dinner, then wander around outside until dusk. I generally go there whenever the weather looks reasonable that counts for the day after tomorrow, too, but the weather looks iffy at this point. Lately, I've been meeting one of the Highlanders' members in Pine Island and then we head south through some back roads to get there around 5:15. Cheers, John

Here are the outside diameters on my '04 Cafe Sport: Exhaust: 44.90 mm Crossover Inlet: 47.89 mm Crossover Outlet: 51.28 mm Silencer Inlet where it attaches to the above: 54.25 mm The implication is that the I.D. of the Crossover Inlet is nominally 45 mm with a wall thickness of 1.5 mm, and the I.D. of the Silencer tube is nominally 51 mm with a wall thickness of 1.5 mm. Hope that helps. I look forward to following your progress! Cheers.

If the Japanese actually patented the balance tube concept in the 80's, the patent would have easily been invalidated by a reference to Norton (mine was a 1970). In fact, if they left that off the references in the application, shame on them. The passage through the Norton's balancing tube was quite large. I believe large enough to help deliver more balanced flow to both cylinders at idle, if the carbs were not ideally balanced. For synchronizing, one could separate these and attach mercury manometers ("sticks" in the current jargon) to each. When finished, reattach the balancing tube for compensation for the Amal carb variation with wear. It used to amaze me how much the engine would vibrate in the Isolastic Suspension, while somehow the Amals did not seem to be affected. Loved the zero vibration in the handlebars despite the rigidly mounting at anything above 1800 RPM-the opposite of my Guzzi. Ah well, can't have everything!

Yeah, your right, it isn't worth the risk to save a little time. John

For tightening recommendations, see the thread on oil filter tightening in the FAQ section. The Purolator part number equivalent is L10241. Tightening the UFI and Purolator filters to prevent loosening is different. I have been using the Purolator equivalent since finding my UFI filter finger tight as the bike came from the factory. I tighten it with the method described in FAQ, change the filter removing the sump, and do not use a hose clamp. I researched the cause of this and the all too common incidents of the same problem with UFI filters to come up with the cause and recommendations. I also analyzed the Wal Mart supplied filter. Send me a personal message with any questions you may have on the research and its results. John

FWIW, my 1970 Norton had a balance tube between its carbs, stock. Ran fine that way for decades.

Glad to hear that! I just received the brass housing and have copper loaded anti-seize ready at hand. It looks like it might be possible to get the plastic housing out without taking the tank off. Any hope of that? John

Hi Greg, My interest just reached a new level. The speedo cable replaced under warrantee at 1300 miles just died at 2200 this morning. Royal pain in the butt. best, John