Jump to content

GaryZ

Expired Membership
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,070

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by GaryZ

  1. GaryZ
    I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. The carb sizes are the same 34mm for MKI, MKII, and Vmax. The Gen 2 carbs are listed as 32mm.
  2. GaryZ
    I can only tell you that I have the same problem. I really do not like my 1st gen headlight. I replaced the bulb with a 90/100 and it is half the illumination of my Ninja with the same bulb. Adding aluminum tape to the rubber headlight boot helped a little, not nearly enough. I bought a MKII headlight, but, do not know what else is needed to bolt it in. I also have a car halogen sealed-beam that I may adapt. Good luck with yours . . .
  3. GaryZ
    My 1985 VR does not feel top heavy when compared to my ZX11 Ninja. The VR has wide handlebars and sits lower to the ground. It turns much tighter and I can do u-turns in the street in front of my house with my feet up. U-turns in the street on my Ninja means duck-walking it around. I suppose "top heavy" is relative to the individual. What bike did you have before the VR?
  4. GaryZ
    Good info:thumbsup:
  5. GaryZ
    A little research on-line came up with an 89 octane factory rating. 93 octane does not ignite until a higher temperature for high-compression engines that will detonate (ping) on lower octane. The second generation Venture is just 10:1 compression ratio. If your bike never "pings" using the lower octane, it does not need the 93 octane. Many folks find it easy to convince themselves that their bike runs better on the "good gas". You can save a few bucks and use 89 octane.
  6. GaryZ
    That is so cool!
  7. GaryZ
    I think a replacement would only need to fit the space and supply the correct pressure. All we need are the pressure and volume specs, right? My '83 - '85 manual says; maximum 0.7A 1.16 - 2.28 psi output pressure Anyone have an idea of a possible replacement?
  8. GaryZ
    Man, what does that beast sound like??? We need a sound sample! A picture of your manual Vboost would also be cool . . .
  9. GaryZ
    Yes, you need the adjustable mounting brackets, brake and shift levers with linkages. You will also need shorter bolts and washers (stainless steel at Ace Hardware).
  10. GaryZ
    I had similar issues with my 1985 VR. I have long legs and the floor boards put my ankles in an uncomfortable position. I found a set of stock driver pegs. They are a lot more comfy and the shifter/rear-brake are in a better location. I left the passenger floor boards because my wife likes them. BTW: I still have the complete driver's floor boards for sale . . . $250
  11. GaryZ
    Very good SeaFoam application. I bet it smokes enough to run off all the flyin' bugs in your 'hood!
  12. GaryZ
    The link is not working . . .
  13. GaryZ
    Ok gang, I have a question and this is the place to get lots of opinions! I have installed Vmax cams and springs in my 1987 Venture 1300 engine. Venture intake valve lash is the same as the Vmax. However, exhaust valve lash is different; Venture: .16 - .20 mm Vmax: .26 - .30 mm Which lash will be right for my Frankenstein?
  14. GaryZ
    A lean condition will improve mpg. However, too lean will burn pistons and valves. I think popping during deceleration is generally an indication of a lean condition. A vacuum leak will cause a lean condition. Somebody already suggested checking the port plugs. Another check is to spray WD-40 around the carb boots when the engine is running. If the rpm increases, you may have found your leak. Check the low speed pilot screws. These can cause a lean condition at idle and light throttle (cruise). Most say these screw should be around 2.5 turns out.
  15. GaryZ
    Thanks Squeeze! You have repeated what I just said about the Q-Jet carb vs a 2-barrel.
  16. GaryZ
    All excellent points. The point I would remind everyone is; Our motorcycles are for street use, not racing or exotics that want to be spun up to make any power. EFI has its own set of problems as well as being very expensive. TBI was ousted by the manufacturers who have been forced into more and more stringent fuel economy and smog control. Most aftermarket car/truck EFI is TBI. So far as the Q-Jet versus 2-barrel; I know that the Q-Jet was used on many engines (my 1985 Safari van had one on its 4.3ci V6). The basic Q-Jet can flow up to 750cfm, the larger one 780. Or they can flow much less. Again, they have a power valve on the primaries (think CV carb) that will feed only the amount of fuel demanded by the engine. The secondaries (hopefully) will open at higher rpm and feed additional air, like VBoost. The 2-barrel carb will not be able to idle and operate at moderate throttle openings and still move VBoost levels of air at wide open. Obviously I have given this stuff some thought and I am also trying to convince myself. Discussions like this are well worth the time and energy. Thanks for your input! GaryZ
  17. GaryZ
    You make a good point GaryZ
  18. GaryZ
    Good input Thanks!
  19. GaryZ
    I think it's a little more complicated . . . Most design decisions are based on multiple things and these come to mind; Horsepower vs Torque Fuel Mileage Pollution A recent article I read claims that a throttle-body EFI is better due to the distance after fuel is introduced into the intake. Another article suggests that there is little performance difference between EFI and a properly set up carb. The advantage of VBoost is the additional air for each cylinder. More than a single carb can deliver. If we combine these thoughts I can find a logic thread that says the VR could be improved using a single carb that flows the correct amount of air at moderate throttle settings and can increase available air at heavier throttle. My off-the-wall thought is a sheet metal intake and one of my extra Q-Jet carbs. If I separated the left/right sides of the manifold, one Q-Jet primary would feed cylinders 1-2 and the other would feed 3-4. The Q-Jet primaries are 35mm vs 34mm for the stock VR carbs. The Q-Jet primaries operate with a power valve and the secondaries are vacuum actuated. The Q-Jet should meter fuel on demand and supply more air like VBoost.
  20. GaryZ
    I am jealous. That motor is beautiful! How did you decide on the jet size? There is a thread here that talks about leaning out the stock set-up and improving mpg. This seems to say that the stock jetting is rich. I was going to run my stock '85 carbs and monitor the plugs before making a jet decision. I have two sets of carb boots and was also thinking about adding a tube between the 1-2 and 3-4 carb boots ala VBoost. There will need to be a method of blocking it off to sync the carbs, but others have claimed to successfully run VBoost full-time. Another off-the-wall thought was to make a sheet metal intake and install one of my extra Q-Jet carbs. If I separated the left/right sides of the manifold, one Q-Jet primary would feed 1-2 and the other would feed 3-4. The Q-Jet primaries are 35mm vs 34mm for the stock VR carbs. The Q-Jet primaries operate with a power valve and the secondaries are vacuum actuated. The Q-Jet should meter fuel on demand and supply more air like VBoost. GaryZ
  21. GaryZ
    I am replacing my 1985 1200cc engine with a 1987 1300cc engine. The 1200cc VMax is rated at 145HP at the crank versus the 1200cc VR at 92 - 97HP. It is my opinion the biggest HP difference is due to the cams. My Frankenstein is 100cc more engine with Vmax cams. I think 30HP more than my 1985 1200cc VR is within reach . . . And yes, I would love to have your VMax valve springs!
  22. GaryZ
    Yes, as has been said, the VMax valves are a little larger across the face (about 1mm) and they have slightly smaller stems (different seals - VMax seals are cheaper). The valve springs are stiffer allowing another 1000 rpm before red line. I figure the 1300cc engine will perk up (30HP?) with just the cams. I would've liked to put the VMax valve springs in . . . didn't have the funds.
  23. GaryZ
    Here is a photo comparing the stock 1987 VR cam lobe with a VMax. The lift is either the same or very, very close. The duration is way different! I can't wait to get this baby up and running!
  24. GaryZ
    I wanted to share this with you DIY guys out there. I bought this valve spring tool at a local tool discount store. It is too large for removing my VR valve keepers and I had to use the old stand-by . . . a deep socket and rubber hammer. However, it worked great for installing the valve springs. To hold the valve closed I placed a rubber sanding block under the head and in the dome. I then stacked the valve springs and top plate, set the keepers in position, and pressed the tool down on the top of the valve stem. The tool has a spring loaded pin that helps guide the keepers into position. It took a little muscle to press down, but, it worked!
  25. GaryZ
    I would like to first comment on the concept that 10% ethanol will deliver 10% lower mpg. I don't think this is true. 100% ethanol fuel is 10% less efficient and there is 10% of this stuff in blended gas. This means at best a 1% mpg loss. My experience with blended ethanol fuel has been poor. Three of my motorcycles and my lawnmower have had carb problems from the stuff. My research suggests the ethanol turns "bad" in about a third of the time versus 100% gas. This means that leaving the stuff in your tank for a couple of months is a bad thing. For a time I used only 100% gas. Now I mix around 3 oz. of SeaFoam in every other fill-up. The SeaFoam seems to be an excellent gas treatment, and it cleans the carbs! Something that can work on gummed up carbs is to remove the low-speed screws (count the turns first) and shoot carb cleaner into the low-speed circuit(s). This really helped my VR.
×
×
  • Create New...