Kawasaki KLR Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Can someone give me the part number for the non vac, petcock. I would like to change the one I have for my 2016 item. Thanks in advanace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
51023-0003
This is the 87-07 number, I "think" this is the one you need
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,250 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Hi Tom. Is that petcock on your "thumper" feeding that new JUG?

Have not fired the Versys or Suzi up this year. The Aspen Alley ride was a good day trip, but about 30 miles short of a 500 mile day.

Again nice to meet you at Paul's shop. Mike
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,250 Posts
Hi Mike!

Yes, I've been using that petcock for about 7 years now. I had it on my '08 on a stock tank and now on my '09 on the IMS10.

They work well, but yo have to get used to the smaller reserve and learn not to count on reserve getting you very far.

Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,541 Posts
Anyone ever EXTEND the reserve tube on a Yamaha Raptor petcock?

I recall a procedure for converting the stock KLR petcock to manual-only operation, wherein the originator of the mod insisted on SHORTENING the OEM standpipe on the mistaken impression such action would elevate fuel pressure (it won't; static fuel pressure is determined by the vertical elevation of the level of the fuel in the tank above the carburetor only). The only effect of shortening the standpipe was reduction in reserve fuel volume.

The action apparently was based upon a second faulty premise, that static fuel pressure increase somehow increased performance. The static fuel pressure merely replenishes the float bowl content; fuel ingestion rate is determined separately by venturi vacuum (pressure differential) and effective jet orifice area . . .

Modifications indicating the pervasiveness of Internet tribal knowledge with respect to the KLR650 . . .
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,250 Posts
Anyone ever EXTEND the reserve tube on a Yamaha Raptor petcock? . . .
Yes.

MacG did a beautiful job of extending the reserve pipe for me on a Raptor petcock.

Tom
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,903 Posts
1) ditto on the Raptor unit; but BEWARE of cheap knockoff's on Ebay and elsewhere. Use only a REAL Yamaha unit. Available from Eaglemike or Yamaha (and perhaps elsewhere)

2) I share Tom and others' distaste of the factory vacuum unit; like him I've had many bikes (this last one is #39) and the vast majority have had manual petcocks. The stock Vacuum petcock is in the top 5 failures on a stock KLR (scientifically proven by me! ;-) )

3) I've heard of people swapping "straws" between the KLR and Raptor petcocks but I haven't done it....some said it was impossible to do without crushing the straw others claim to have done it...personally, I don't care about the smaller reserve, especially with my translucent IMS tank: I can tell how much gas I have left from 20' away!

4) several years of University physics tells me Damocles is correct.....though he doesn't need my validation on this! LOL


Cheers,
Dave
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,250 Posts
1) ditto on the Raptor unit; but BEWARE of cheap knockoff's on Ebay and elsewhere. Use only a REAL Yamaha unit...
Good point! I edited my post to include a link to a known Yamaha part.

Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,541 Posts
4) several years of University physics tells me Damocles is correct.....though he doesn't need my validation on this! LOL


Cheers,
Dave
Thanks, Dave! Your corroboration is most welcome; certainly compared to the more usual comment applied to my posts, "You don't know what you're talking about!" :)

I'm working up courage to address a popular (yet, I feel, incorrect) notion: STANDING on the pegs; RAISING the body mass, actually LOWERS the bike-and-rider center-of-gravity. While a standing rider may make the "system" more stable in pitch and roll axes, I sincerely believe the center-of-gravity (as conventionally defined), actually, is raised when the rider stands . . . but I fear violent disagreement, should I utter such a physics principle! :)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,250 Posts
If you 'average' the seated bike/rider into a geometric shape I think it resolves into a elliptic cone.

What you're saying is that the taller a cone is the higher its center of gravity is, given that the two cones have the same mass.

Gasp! This cannot be! Everyone knows that the mass of the rider settles in his boots!


Tom
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,903 Posts
Thanks, Dave! Your corroboration is most welcome; certainly compared to the more usual comment applied to my posts, "You don't know what you're talking about!" :)

I'm working up courage to address a popular (yet, I feel, incorrect) notion: STANDING on the pegs; RAISING the body mass, actually LOWERS the bike-and-rider center-of-gravity. While a standing rider may make the "system" more stable in pitch and roll axes, I sincerely believe the center-of-gravity (as conventionally defined), actually, is raised when the rider stands . . . but I fear violent disagreement, should I utter such a physics principle! :)
Yeah, it's not rocket science.....well, it can be but you know what I mean! LOL ....good luck!

Cheers,
Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,541 Posts
Yeah, it's not rocket science.....well, it can be but you know what I mean! LOL ....good luck!

Cheers,
Dave
I must remember . . . what happened to Galileo!

:)

(He was "banned," big time, by the Inquisition (life sentence under house arrest), for expressing a controversial physics premise, i.e.: The sun, not the earth, is the center of our solar system.)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,250 Posts
... The sun, not the earth, is the center of our solar system...
My core beliefs are being shaken to their very foundation.

"Next, you'll be espousing the belief that pro wrestling is not real", Tom threw down.

Tom
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,903 Posts
I must remember . . . what happened to Galileo!

:)

(He was "banned," big time, by the Inquisition (life sentence under house arrest), for expressing a controversial physics premise, i.e.: The sun, not the earth, is the center of our solar system.)
Ahhh yes, the detractors came soooo close to acceptance except they could not reconcile the fact that the reason that there is no visible parallax is due to the unimaginably large (to them) distance between us and the other stars....

IIRC they even came up with some harebrained bit of logic to account for planetary retrograde motion using a geocentric rather than Heliocentric model of the solar system.

cheers,
Dave
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top