Great White

i usually give 'em away or chuck 'em. People throw them up on ebay and seem to ask stupid prices. No idea if they get them or not......

I noticed that too. But since I was dumping the OEM coils for COP, I didn't worry about it. I suppose it could trip someone up in the future though. while the wiring harness is too short to mix up left and right, a determined individual probably could mix up 1 and 2 or 3 and 4.....

Well now, isn't this interesting: That's from a 2nd gen. Looks like it has both plates the same as the cooling kit on the 1st gen. Didn't see it in parts fiche. Worth another look methinks.......

What about vehicles with a remote start?

Super old post, but just wanted to say thanks to Gary. I'm installing a new harness and COP. All the OEM diagrams give you the wire colors but not the cylinder positions for the coils. At least, none of the info I have available to me do. They list colors but coils are just listed 1~4 without showing which is which. Yamaha's nice little wraps of tap with the cyl numbers were also long gone. My cheese was just about to slip off my cracker until I saw Gary's diagrams actually break it into 1-Orange, 2-Gray, 3-Yellow, 4-White.

It's in there to make sure the small passage doesn't coke up and it may perform some sort of restrictor function, although being a restrictor is merely speculation on my part...

You don't have to bleed brakes if just changing pads. You don't have to open the master at all if you're just changing pads and have not added fluid to the system as the pads wore down. If you add fluid, you need to open the master and remove the excess as it will overfill the reservoir. However, given how long brake pads usually last on the MAJORITY of bikes, it's worth your while to change the fluid when you change the pads. Except for those riders who put serious mileage on their machines, brake pads likely last 4-5 years. At that point the brake fluid can use a change as in it anhydrous and sucks moisture right out of the air. That moisture allows the brake fluid to boil when braking and causes a "spongy" lever. Done properly, changing the fluid doesn't introduce air into the lines and is easy peasy. Pump the old stuff out and pour the new stuff in at the same time. Tubing is fairly small, whatever fits on the bleeder screw. I just use whatever I have laying around if I manually bleed. I use a pressure bleeder and fill my systems from the caliper up to the master instead of master down to the calipers. air want to flow up, not down. But that's for a fill after the system has been opened, not required for a simple pad change. I missed the clutch question too. Same process as the brakes. Just make sure you get tight fitting vinyl hose and watch to make sure you don't spill the fluid. My 83 had it's entire LH lower frame rail paint stripper to bare steel becuase someone had down a poor job in the past on a bleed job and left the fluid to eat the paint....

Nope. Just tools to get the master open and to crack the breeder screws. Phillips (or JIS if you want the exactly correct screw driver) and an 8 MM wrench. Length of clear tubing ( to pop on the bleeders) and a jar to catch the fluid. Clear tubing and a glass mason jar will let you see bubbles coming out and keeps air from getting back in. In a nutshell: 1. Slowly squeeze handle in to the grip and hold it there. 2. Crack bleeder screw and see if fluid comes out. 3. Once pressure has all bleed out, tighten bleeder screw. 4. repeat from step one until brake lever has good feel and no more air comes out of bleeder screw at #2 . Keep and eye on fluid and top up as necessary. Sounds easy, but it's kind of a slow process and trapped air can be a biotch sometimes. DO NOT shake the can/bottle of brake fluid. All you will be doing is introducing more air bubbles to the fluid before you even put it in the system. I even go so far as to put the bottle under a vacuum the day before and let it sit overnight to draw out any air in the fluid before putting it in the system. You can get all fancy with "speed bleeder" screws, single man bleeder "kits" and vacuum pumps, but it's not really needed on a bike (unless you want them that is).

Eats paint too. Protect any painted surfaces from drips or splashes. Don't panic if you do get some on paint, just flush with water ASAP. Little soap would go a long way too. Other edge of that sword is don't get water in the brake fluid. Brake fluid absorbs water and ruins it's properties for use in a brake system.

Interesting. Mine does not capture....I can push it right down the bore to the crank bolt. Birth defect maybe. But if you look at the oil flow pattern in the second picture, it seems a spray hole in the flat of the bolt would achieve the same effect. Probably why the new crank bolt is drilled that way....

I could never live in the states. No offense meant, it's just not my thing. I'm too "Canadianized"....and my pension wouldn't be worth spit in USD. But Vancouver Island sounds better and better the older I get......that's about as mild as it gets in Canada. You were lucky to get one dump of snow a year when I was in Comox and temps usually hovered right around 0 to 5C in winter months......

I was going to say blower resistor but it seems you've already sorted it.

Oh, I believe it will go, just not what the gent who builds it thinks it will. Numbers don't work. But with a 20% increase, I have little doubt his "butt dyno" will tell him its a 200 hp machine! I enjoy a technical discussion now and then, so I’ll go a little deeper into it. I’m also stuck on the couch with a thrown back, so not much else to do anyways…… It’s a lot to discuss in one post and this is off the top of my head, so there’s going to be lots of holes and omitted details, but I’ll do the best I can to be comprehensive. Scavenging is more a direct result of the exhaust design than the engine characteristics, although you also can’t have one without the other. What you want in an exhaust design is velocity. Quite a few factors come into play in that, but the main one I’ll discuss in the exhaust pulse. In order to gain the highest velocity (to help clear the spent exhaust gas out of the combustion chamber) a properly designed exhaust will use an exhaust pulse to create a negative pressure in the pipe that will be next subject to the exhaust valve opening event. Like so: http://i1174.photobucket.com/albums/r618/justonepict/exhaust_zpscyiofdjk.jpg I’ve just drawn a 2 cylinder system, but it just get expanded for triples, fours and sixes. Same principles. I won't go in to V4 exhaust designing, those rear cylinders make for a packaging nightmare to get equal length and maximizing scavenge effects. The moving exhaust gas past the non active pipe is what creates the negative pressure. If the pipes aren’t connected (has to be done right too, not just a balance pipe), there’s no scavenging effect and the engine has to rely on the piston movement to expel the exhaust from the combustion chamber. That, for the most part, makes for a "lazy" engine. Now, duration and overlap come into play here, but the effects are mostly limited to how much time is allowed for the advancing piston and scavenging effect to do it’s work. Duration and overlap also help to pull in fresh charge in a NA engine (if the designer gets it right). NA engines can only ever achieve a theoretical 100% cylinder filling. But most only achieve around 80% (due to valve obstruction, port losses, etc) and that ‘s with scavenging working properly and doing it’s thing. Increasing RPM gets you more velocity, which should get you more scavenging and more power. But then you have to take pipe diameters into account. Pipes aren’t variable, so the designer has to choose a diameter for an RPM range. Smart designers choose the torque peak and that’s why most engines get the best power/mpg when close to the engines torque peak. Get outside the pipe diameters effective range and scavenging becomes less effective. Get too far out and you can actually get into reversion, which costs HP. Now if you want to throw in forced induction, things get weirder all over again. With FI, greater than 100% cylinder filling is possible. Scavenging also becomes less of a concern as the cylinder pressure is so much higher than the ambient in the exhaust. Scavenging gives you some gains in FI, but much less evident than NA. FI engine exhausts tend to be bigger all around due to the FI effects. Comparing engines like Harley’s and Jap multi’s becomes even more confusing. Harley’s, comparatively, have slower moving exhaust due to their large (relatively) piston sizes and few (comparatively) exhaust pulses. In terms of exhaust velocity, multi’s have faster flow. They may have smaller pistons, but that just means less volume. But many small “bangs” make for a smoother and faster exhaust flow. This translates into more velocity, smoother exhaust flow and increased scavenging. That’s not to say Harley’s can’t take advantage of scavenging effects or be designed for good exhaust velocity, it just takes a different variation on the design principles. All these principles are a lot of the reason people who use “slip ons” generally see little/no improvement in power. The “goodness” is mainly in the pipe design. The OEM mufflers are usually designed to work with that. Slip ons generally get the same HP (maybe less if they make the exhaust flow “lazy”) and the main gain is reduced weight. But more noise sure makes it feel like you're going faster! Now, Mr Max uses scavenging in it’s exhaust design for the reasons above. If the gent has gone to 4 independent pipes, he’s leaving HP on the table. VBoost is another subject all together. Low end torque and MPG is in the heads more than the fuel delivery. That’s ports design and cams. MR Max has bigger ports and “bigger” cams, so that is gonna cost MPG. It also moves the effective torque peak up the RPM range. In the case of the ‘Max vs the Venture, it’s approx 1000 rpm higher. The Venture has smaller ports and “smaller” cams which means increased intake velocities. Great for lower en torque production (increased cylinder filling/mixing at lower RPM) but costs you HP when you get into higher RPM. Basically, “choking” it. Vboost comes in at 5500 RPM. Stay below that and your MPG isn’t going to be horrible, but (theoretically) it’s not going to be as good as the Venture due to the larger port sizes. Gents on the VMax boards can pull down close to 40 MPG in restrained riding. But that kind of defeats the purpose of Mr. Max! If you’re enjoying a frequent run up to the VBoost “fun zone” MPG is gonna “suck”. Just no way around that… But that’s more the operator than the machine... Something that's interesting (and rather telling) is VMAx guys that drag seem to mostly report the same times with open manifolds or VBoost enabled. This indicates what I've long suspected with VBoost: it's a bit of a designers trick. Keeps fueling restrained below 5500 rpm and full on above. But no really significant increase in HP, just improved drive-ability and that 2 stroke "kick in the pants" that makes max "feel" faster than what it is. The clocks don't lie. I more wish they had discovered the variable intake runner length principles (somewhat like the New R1 and VMAX) rather than the Vboost incarnation. Pretty much the same thing, just executed rather crudely. Probably could have also compensated for low end losses in a VMax/Vboost equipped venture with a bit of their EXUP technology. Oh well, if wishes and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas. Not to mention all that "cutting edge tech (for the time) would have driven a Ventures price sky high. Likely priced right out of the market. Sure woudl have been killer though.... Whew, that was a lot of typing....

So, I'm sitting here looking at the original crank bolt, the cooling kit crank bolt and a 2nd gen crank bolt. Both the kit and the 2nd gen both use the little wire "cleaner" (shaft 1 in parts fish), but the kit bolt is drilled int he face and the 2nd gen is drilled on a flat (IE: 90 degree difference). The kit also has the inside stator plate like the second gen, but it also has a "free floating" plate/deflector at the bolt head end. The 86+ and the 2nd gen do not have this second plate. Now, this "free floating" plate deflector just doesn't sit right with me. I don't like things just bouncing around freely in a bore (middle of the stator case) around the spinning crank bolt. I'm thinking of putting the 2nd gen crank bolt in and omit that floating plate. The way I see it, the floating plate/deflector is to change the oil spray direction and they're already done that with the 2nd gen bolt drilling. Make sense? Or am I right off the glide slope here?

here's one prob worth sifting out: http://www.venturerider.org/forum/showthread.php?71303-Stator-info-and-cooling-kit I know I had to read the directions in the kit a couple times to get the stack up correct....

Kudos to the gent for giving it a go. He's a little off on some stuff though IMHO. Looking for 10,000 rpm will likely start to float the valves as the VMax is redlined at 9500. Valve float is a BAD thing.... Hoping for 150 HP is a little optimistic. VMax is only factory rated at 145 HP (crank) as delivered in the 'Max. But he doesn't have the VMax airbox or Vmax exhaust which is part of the rating. Those 4 individual pipes might make a nice sound and look cool, but cost power through loss of scavenging. They're built for style, not performance. On a small engine like a motorcycle, exhaust design makes for a significant chunk of the power. You need to take advantage of scavenging effect on a NA engine or you're leaving HP on the table. Same with intake tuning and for resonance. You know he doesn't have a VMax airbox crammed in that tiny space. Smaller airbox costs HP also. You need volume to feed those hungry intake ports. Pods are an option, but ditching the box also messes with the Helmhotz effect. Needs some pretty involved carb work to get those CV's working with pods. Jet changes and needle work, but not just the mains: air jets, pilot jets, needle heights, profiles, etc.. I'd be thinking about a stage seven kit at that point, but then the VBoost manifold comes out in favor of open piping. not too great on a heavy low rpm street bike.... I'd estimate he's down about 20-ish hp on a standard VMax. Maybe more. So down to 120-125 hp right off the bat. I've got a couple tricks in mine and I'm only hoping for a high of 130, 100-110 at the rear wheel. Just the math on the shaft drive 20%-ish (somewhere between 15-20% depending on bike) loss doesn't work: assume he gets a full 145 HP X (145 x 20%) = 116 RWHP. That's right around where a stock 'Max hits on the dyno (between 110-120 RWHP, IF you believe dynojet numbers ). Now, that's not accounting for losses in the transmission, although those are considerably lower than what the two 90 degree shaft turns does to power transmission to the contact patch. If you want to do it using my estimate of him getting 125 hp : 125X (125 X 20%) = 100 RWHP. Yeesh, that's even lower......but still a good bump up over a stock XVZ12/1300's 80-85-ish RWHP.. But unless he's got some work into that VMax engine that he doesn't talk about, he's a juuust a touch high on his expected 120 RWHP. Even Sean Morely only squeezed 110-ish RWP out of his VMax/Venture hybrid (lacking Vmax exhaust and air box but he got all the rest in there). Sean essentially had a pair of "slip-ons" for exhaust (and from what I have heard on video it's LOUD). It's all just number crunching and bench racing until the rubber hits the road, but S Morely had all the tools and talent at his disposal (and he dyno tuned it as well), so I'm inclined to believe that. While it may have been the only way to get the clearance for the Vboost manifold, I'm not a fan of his "pop up" frame pieces. Looks kinda sketchy, to my eye. I would have suggested widening the double cradle "spine" and try to triangulate across them somehow to put rigidity back in. A little work on the tank would have let it sit down over it . May or may not make a diff in a cruiser application, but with about a 20% boost in HP, I wouldn't want to find out the hard way. I actually wish Yamaha had applied the VMax modifications to the entire XVZ line as far back as 85/86 when the 'Max came out. Had Yamaha done that, The Venture (full boat touring model) might have stood a chance at going the distance in the market to today like the 'Wing did and the cruiser variants would have been factory designed to hold the VBoost system in their frames. Could have been killer. Ah, opportunities lost. But I'm rambling now so I'll sign off with what I started with: Kudos to the gent on the effort.

cool. gimme a couple days to see what it will cost.

pm me your adress, canada post works of adresses for shipping. Gimme a couple days to stuff it in a small box and get you a quote. Day job gets in the way of doing this sort of thing with any speed. I have a preference for Cohiba's, but they're pretty expensive.....

came off my 86 parts bike: http://i1174.photobucket.com/albums/r618/justonepict/4763FBC0-3D8E-4BF9-B6E0-A840B4EE1D38_zpskound3zf.jpg Yours for the price and wait for shipping if you want it. No idea if it works or not. I gutted the CB/intercom from the harness so it's useless to me. I use a Sena SMH-10 linked to my iphone. If you feel like paying something for it buy me a nice cigar and call it even.

I have my one Cohiba every few months with a nice glass of wine. Sometimes it's a whisky or other liquor. That's the extent of my smoking "addiction". It's a nice sit down and enjoy it type thing for me.

1961 Chrysler imperial:

Nope. You gotta find it if it went down the cam chain tunnel. It can get caught between the chain guide and the chain and cause all kinds of havoc. Or break up and block oil passages. In my line of work it's called "FOD". FOD can bring a plane down. There's no telling what that little piece of plastic/rubber could do. Maybe nothing, maybe destroy the valve train or starve the crank mains of oil. Might even migrate into the transmission or into the clutch/generator cases if it's broken up enough. it can have a whole bunch of fun in the too.... Drop the oil pan an it should either be in the pan or visible somewhere in the case. Good news is there's not much to stop it from just dropping down into the oil pan if it did go down the chain tunnel. Or, you've been riding it like this obviously. You can take your chances and not go after it. Your choice. I'd be pulling the pan at least......

What do I use? A truck and a dog carrier. Dogs and bikes don't mix IMHO. Too much risk for the dog. I like taking my dogs with me where I go, but I have to weigh the risk to them because they can't. I know lots of guys will differ, just how I feel about it.

I would say yes, you an replace it in place. Use the methods the guys have listed above. I've done it the same way in many similar style automotive seals (axles, cranks, etc). But you're not going to have fun doing it.....major PITA.....