Kawasaki KLR Forum banner
41 - 60 of 76 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,570 Posts
So really I'm stuck with a 685 oil burner, or I get a new sleeve. Or maybe I get it bored again and it won't warp any further?
Not yet!
I'll suggest that you have someone re-measure your cylinder, just to be sure.

If it is actually worn that much, you can still install the EM 692cc kit in any 1996+ cylinder.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
864 Posts
Show me where you see 'oil wash' coming up the ring lands and into the chamber?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter · #43 ·
Not yet!
I'll suggest that you have someone re-measure your cylinder, just to be sure.

If it is actually worn that much, you can still install the EM 692cc kit in any 1996+ cylinder.
Technically I'd say it's not worn at all. The measurements are odd, it's pretty much spot on top, and bottom it's actually fine in one measurement, and then too small in the other. If it warped, surely it would be too long on one measurement, and then too small on the other. So maybe not bored properly?
 

· Premium Member
KLRs: 2013, 2005, 1998; 2017 HD Electraglide Ultra
Joined
·
2,878 Posts
FYI, Here's an excerpt from Cary Aspen's notes (Cary developed the 685 kit for Schnitz Racing, RIP);

What typically happens with the bore, is that at the bottom it ovals out. It's like if you were to put your hand on either side of the sleeve bottom, and squeezed it together. It's not wear in most cases, but distortion. Usually .02-.03mm, or .0008-.0012" . A few have been worse, but .02-.03mm is what I'd call "normal" for the KLR. It's not a huge amount, and any decent ring can deal with it. The KLR's oil ring is just barely able to. It would be better not to have any warpage at all, but it's the nature of the beast, and not easily or cheaply corrected. It's due to the mechanical design of the engine.

When you bore the KLR liner, whether for the 685, or just an oversize, you are boring an already warped sleeve. So you put a nice new round hole into a sleeve that has already warped the way it tends to, or wants to. The new bore then tends to stay round. The outside is out of round, but not the new bore. Also, it's been work hardened, and is more resistant to warp from that alone. That's the reason I mention heat cycling as being good during the break-in process on a new bike. If you can harden it early, it's less likely to warp as far.

The 685 alone really doesn't change this situation. It just has enough oil ring tension to deal with it. Testing has shown that it does not warp any more, or any less with the sleeve being thinner, even when used with a new unhardened liner.

The 705 liner is differant. Every attempt was made to resist the warping that the stock liner suffers. It's MUCH thicker at the bottom, where it counts most. It's marginally thicker above that. The champher that's in the OD of the stock sleeve is eliminated. That's a key weak spot of the old sleeve. Finally, the cryo treating process makes it more stabil to hold it's shape. With a stock piston used in that liner, I don't think it would warp at all.

Cary
Dave, thanks for posting that. I hadn't run across it before. It answers some of my questions about the 705 and 719 sleeves.
 

· Premium Member
KLRs: 2013, 2005, 1998; 2017 HD Electraglide Ultra
Joined
·
2,878 Posts
I got the calipers out for a rough measurement of the bore (before the bore gauge turns up).

Measuring the top of the cylinder, front to back: 102.50
Measure the top of the cylinder, side to side: 102.50
Measuring the bottom of the cylinder, front to back: 102.49
Measuring the bottom of the cylinder, side to side: 102.30. Eek, that doesn't sound good, by my reckoning that's 8 thou of an inch out.

That bottom measurement is for the bottom of the sleeve though, so prob 30mm higher is where the rings actually stop, and the sleeve is thicker there I believe.
KDO: I'm puzzled by those measurements. The narrowing of the base of the cylinder from side-to-side "should" result in a lengthening of the front to back measurement. I've never heard of a cylinder shrinking overall, which is what you have indicated. If the actual side-to-side measurement is 102.30mm, the front-to-back measurement should have changed to 102.70, or pretty close to that. The only explanation that I can conceive is that the cylinder was not honed to exactly the same diameter, top to bottom, when the 695 kit was installed.

I would really like to know what measurements you get with the bore gauge.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
864 Posts
Sorry this is a bit technical for me. Are you saying it's not a problem?
Right, I'm not seeing evidence of it. These guys are doing more to confuse you than help you at this point.

Why are we wrapped up on bore distortion? It appears to me that the original hone spent more time at the top of the cylinder(where it belongs) than at the bottom. This is normal seeing how the combustion glasses are not starting to compress until at least half way up the bore. The ring package doesn't even touch the portion of the sleeve that extends out the bottom of the cylinder casting. It exists for 'skirt' stability and that's it.

I'm not seeing 'oil wash' up the ring lands.

The OP stated it smokes right away on starting up. Everyone seems to over look the fact that 'ring tension' is greatest at start-up with a cold sleeve. As the cylinder warms up and expands the clearance grows. Then as the rings heat up they expand which closes the end gap; compensating for the cylinder expansion.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,913 Posts
KDO: I'm puzzled by those measurements. The narrowing of the base of the cylinder from side-to-side "should" result in a lengthening of the front to back measurement. I've never heard of a cylinder shrinking overall, which is what you have indicated. If the actual side-to-side measurement is 102.30mm, the front-to-back measurement should have changed to 102.70, or pretty close to that. The only explanation that I can conceive is that the cylinder was not honed to exactly the same diameter, top to bottom, when the 695 kit was installed.

I would really like to know what measurements you get with the bore gauge.
Yep; the front to back measurement at the bottom should be more.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,570 Posts
Not yet!
I'll suggest that you have someone (else) re-measure your cylinder, just to be sure.
These guys are doing more to confuse you than help you at this point.
Biggs3118,
I'm trying my best to not add any confusion.


Second, did you replace you valve stem seals? Given your explanation that's what it sounds like to me based on experience. I believe EM sells some 'viton' seals. I'd highly recommend those over the OEM pieces.
Biggs3118,
I tend to agree with you, looking at the total lack of oily carbon build-up on the piston crown.
Possibly over-heated/hardened exhaust valve guide seals allowing what little oil is on the stems to drool into the exhaust port during cool down. Then burning off during initial start-up.

I put a 685 kit in my pig about 35,000km ago, and since day one it burned a bit of oil. Now it's burning quite a lot of oil, big puffs at startup, and when revving.
KDO,
We haven't asked, "How much oil does it actually consume per 1000km"? What brand & grade of oil do you use?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter · #51 ·
We haven't asked, "How much oil does it actually consume per 1000km"? What brand & grade of oil do you use?
I've always used cheap stuff, Castrol 15w-50. Not synthetic, but there was no oil burning (and I mean zero, even at higher sustained revs) with this until I did the 685. I change every 3333km (so 3 times every 10k).

Oil usage recently has been bad, I can't quantify exactly, but I'd say I was putting in about 200ml per tank of gas. So that's about 600ml per 1,000km.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter · #52 · (Edited)
I got a bore gauge. I think I worked out how to use it. So bore is supposed to be 102.5. I zero'd the gauge at the top, which I measure with my calipers to be 102.5.

The top measurements show exactly the same, front to back, side to side.

Sure enough, at the bottom of the skirt, it's definitely out of round for the side to side measurement. At the very bottom of the skirt it's 7 thou of an inch too small. At the lowest point the rings can go, it's 4.7 thou too small. This is the side to side measurement. The front to back at the bottom of the sleeve is fine.

So yeah, weirdly the bottom is not actually squeezed in like I'd expect, it's just too narrow in the side to side measurement.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter · #53 ·
I also got a valve removal tool in the mail. That's my job tomorrow, pop them out and check the seals. As I understand it, there's a pop test where you put you finger over the valve seal when removing the value, and listen for the pop.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,570 Posts
As I understand it, there's a pop test where you put you finger over the valve seal when removing the value, and listen for the pop.
I believe that your finger will seal on top of the valve seal better than a hardened seal lip will seal on a valve stem.

I would rather feel for 'traction' of the seal lips on the stems. Especially feeling for the difference in grip between old & new valve seals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KDO

· Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter · #55 · (Edited)
The valve seals do pop quite noticeably when I put my finger on it (pulling out the valve). They also seem to have good traction when pushing the valve through the seal initially. So I doubt the seals are the issue, but of course I'll replace them anyway.

Main issue I believe now is that the cylinder is out of round at the bottom (i.e. 4.7 thou too narrow on the side to side measurement where the rings get to at the bottom of the sleeve).

I guess my main question would be, can someone bore the whole thing to 102.5 to just make it round? If not, I'd probably opt for a thicker sleeve.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,570 Posts
Best to make that inquiry with a competent machine shop in your area. Preferably one involved in high performance racing. There is a reason they are called 'Precision Hones'. But they still require a competent operator.

The thicker sleeve requires clearanceing of the interior of the water jacket to allow enough volume around the jacket and then boring/honing to fit the pistons exact clearance specs.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter · #57 ·
Best to make that inquiry with a competent machine shop in your area. Preferably one involved in high performance racing. There is a reason they are called 'Precision Hones'. But they still require a competent operator.

The thicker sleeve requires clearanceing of the interior of the water jacket to allow enough volume around the jacket and then boring/honing to fit the pistons exact clearance specs.
Thanks, I've been in touch with a shop that specialises in this stuff, they can install a thicker sleeve, and lathe it for clearance. I'm really hoping they can just fix up the current sleeve! Won't find out until after 16th jan, as the machine shop is on holiday.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
864 Posts
What did you come up with on the orientation of the second ring? Was it installed upsidedown? It's unusual that your ring lands are so clean if it's burning that much oil.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter · #59 ·
What did you come up with on the orientation of the second ring? Was it installed upsidedown? It's unusual that your ring lands are so clean if it's burning that much oil.
I couldn't tell - couldn't find any markings at all on them. I think the issue is the bore being out of round though, it's 7 thou out at the bottom (too narrow). 4.6 thou where the rings get to.
 
41 - 60 of 76 Posts
Top