My storm doesnt wheelie...
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 153
From: Vancouver, WA
Quote CruzGNZ, "So, you think it is the compression from the factory? Maybe it was how the engine was broken in by the first owner?"
There are previous posts speaking of the lack of "wheelie power" and "low end torque monster" complaints posted here enough that I have taken note of it all. Then after owning two engines which don't burn oil, I am thinking of my hypothosis being validated. Mistakes happen out of manufacturing - that's why there are revisions and reworks. It's 1/1000" accuracy we're talking about, and if that's off, then the compression is off (combustion chamber is not sealing off properly via the valves closing at the right time), the fuel will not "detonate" like it is supposed to (Considering: 164PSI or what ever we're to be at at 350RPM during a compression test) and provide the proper burn - hense, a weak-sauce performing engine. Both my cylinders were off each almost exactly on my first engine at like 17.5% of that 164PSI rating; it was something very close to it; I haven't looked at my notes in more than several years but will make my way back there accordingly when I move forward with things again.
If there was improper breakin of the engine at the point of purchase for the '1st owner' there would likely be oil burning taking place. I just came in from the garage after checking my oil level and haven't burned a drop after putting just under 2k miles on this 2nd engine in that I purchased last summer. ...The thing acts exactly the same way the other engine did.
Furthermore and just as important, if someone played Einstein and @$%^&*%*^%$% with the pilot screw setting/s on the carbs, that will throw everything off. I am a firm believer in NEVER playing with those. Don't get me started with that. :P ...I am already biased toward a valve lash check one of these days and will fix my pilot screw adjustment the previous owner had adjusted after my valve lash/compression issue is authenticated.
There are previous posts speaking of the lack of "wheelie power" and "low end torque monster" complaints posted here enough that I have taken note of it all. Then after owning two engines which don't burn oil, I am thinking of my hypothosis being validated. Mistakes happen out of manufacturing - that's why there are revisions and reworks. It's 1/1000" accuracy we're talking about, and if that's off, then the compression is off (combustion chamber is not sealing off properly via the valves closing at the right time), the fuel will not "detonate" like it is supposed to (Considering: 164PSI or what ever we're to be at at 350RPM during a compression test) and provide the proper burn - hense, a weak-sauce performing engine. Both my cylinders were off each almost exactly on my first engine at like 17.5% of that 164PSI rating; it was something very close to it; I haven't looked at my notes in more than several years but will make my way back there accordingly when I move forward with things again.
If there was improper breakin of the engine at the point of purchase for the '1st owner' there would likely be oil burning taking place. I just came in from the garage after checking my oil level and haven't burned a drop after putting just under 2k miles on this 2nd engine in that I purchased last summer. ...The thing acts exactly the same way the other engine did.
Furthermore and just as important, if someone played Einstein and @$%^&*%*^%$% with the pilot screw setting/s on the carbs, that will throw everything off. I am a firm believer in NEVER playing with those. Don't get me started with that. :P ...I am already biased toward a valve lash check one of these days and will fix my pilot screw adjustment the previous owner had adjusted after my valve lash/compression issue is authenticated.
Rex Kramer-Thrill Seeker
SuperBike
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,312
From: Brookfield, WI
Quote CruzGNZ, "So, you think it is the compression from the factory? Maybe it was how the engine was broken in by the first owner?"
There are previous posts speaking of the lack of "wheelie power" and "low end torque monster" complaints posted here enough that I have taken note of it all. Then after owning two engines which don't burn oil, I am thinking of my hypothosis being validated. Mistakes happen out of manufacturing - that's why there are revisions and reworks. It's 1/1000" accuracy we're talking about, and if that's off, then the compression is off (combustion chamber is not sealing off properly via the valves closing at the right time), the fuel will not "detonate" like it is supposed to (Considering: 164PSI or what ever we're to be at at 350RPM during a compression test) and provide the proper burn - hense, a weak-sauce performing engine. Both my cylinders were off each almost exactly on my first engine at like 17.5% of that 164PSI rating; it was something very close to it; I haven't looked at my notes in more than several years but will make my way back there accordingly when I move forward with things again.
If there was improper breakin of the engine at the point of purchase for the '1st owner' there would likely be oil burning taking place. I just came in from the garage after checking my oil level and haven't burned a drop after putting just under 2k miles on this 2nd engine in that I purchased last summer. ...The thing acts exactly the same way the other engine did.
Furthermore and just as important, if someone played Einstein and @$%^&*%*^%$% with the pilot screw setting/s on the carbs, that will throw everything off. I am a firm believer in NEVER playing with those. Don't get me started with that. :P ...I am already biased toward a valve lash check one of these days and will fix my pilot screw adjustment the previous owner had adjusted after my valve lash/compression issue is authenticated.
There are previous posts speaking of the lack of "wheelie power" and "low end torque monster" complaints posted here enough that I have taken note of it all. Then after owning two engines which don't burn oil, I am thinking of my hypothosis being validated. Mistakes happen out of manufacturing - that's why there are revisions and reworks. It's 1/1000" accuracy we're talking about, and if that's off, then the compression is off (combustion chamber is not sealing off properly via the valves closing at the right time), the fuel will not "detonate" like it is supposed to (Considering: 164PSI or what ever we're to be at at 350RPM during a compression test) and provide the proper burn - hense, a weak-sauce performing engine. Both my cylinders were off each almost exactly on my first engine at like 17.5% of that 164PSI rating; it was something very close to it; I haven't looked at my notes in more than several years but will make my way back there accordingly when I move forward with things again.
If there was improper breakin of the engine at the point of purchase for the '1st owner' there would likely be oil burning taking place. I just came in from the garage after checking my oil level and haven't burned a drop after putting just under 2k miles on this 2nd engine in that I purchased last summer. ...The thing acts exactly the same way the other engine did.
Furthermore and just as important, if someone played Einstein and @$%^&*%*^%$% with the pilot screw setting/s on the carbs, that will throw everything off. I am a firm believer in NEVER playing with those. Don't get me started with that. :P ...I am already biased toward a valve lash check one of these days and will fix my pilot screw adjustment the previous owner had adjusted after my valve lash/compression issue is authenticated.
Before I talk about anything else, you do know that people who own these bikes, not all of them live at sea level, correct?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dpenix76
General Discussion
23
Sep 7, 2007 09:12 PM
