Jump to content

tvking63

Expired Membership
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    116

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by tvking63

  1. tvking63
    No. I'm running a GM MAP sensor. Just using this advance map without a MAP sensor, at 3/4 throttle and above, it feels as good as stock. But at part throttle, the throttle response is a bit flat. This because the timing curve is static and can't be adjusted as load changes so it has to be mapped for 'worse case scenario' to keep it from pinging on accel. This also hurts fuel mileage some. With a MAP sensor and an advance map designed to take advantage of it, at part throttle the timing can be advanced quite a bit more to gain response and MPG, then pulled back as the load increases to keep in from pinging. Adding a GM 1 bar MAP sensor to the system is pretty straight forward but I'm looking into something that would make it even simpler.
  2. tvking63
    Thanks for the update Holgi Sorry to here about your leg issue. Hopefully you'll be back on board soon. I've put over a 1500mi on mine this year without a single glitch. It runs at least as strong as it did stock.
  3. tvking63
    Hello? Is everyone out riding? Tim, did you get your idle issue fixed yet? Have you modded the map at all? I raised the 100% voltage slightly, to 4,500mv, which has the effect of increasing advance a little bit across the board. Can't tell a 'seat of the pants' difference, but it doesn't ping and may have helped mileage minimally. I might try a little more. Someone must be messing with a IgniTech box as my map was downloaded today. Post up people. What's going on? Did someone else buy a IgniTech box?
  4. tvking63
    Did you fix your idle issue?
  5. tvking63
    It was all back together several weeks ago but been busy and the weather has been crap so I didn't get a chance to ride it much until recently. Wow, I didn't realize how much I missed second gear. Getting that tugboat under way, especially with the sidecar, is much easier. I can't hear any noise from my mismatched 1st gear set either. I spent a ton of time getting the exhaust sealed up, especially the slip fittings on the rear cylinders. What a pain. I do have a little coolant leak from one of the rubber cylinder plugs but otherwise all is well. Then my Pingel electric shifter went belly-up so I'm dead in the water again......
  6. tvking63
    I think all you need to do is lower your idle speed a bit. Remember the TCIP4 is looking for a TPS voltage that would be static at closed throttle, but MAP sensor voltage varies some. As an engine gets hotter, it becomes more efficient (to a point). This raises the vacuum the MAP sees and in turn raises the voltage the TCIP4 sees. This increases the advance which raises the engine speed.......which increases the advance which increases the engine speed........ You can see how it feeds on it's self until it finds an equilibrium. I've backed off the idle speed on mine and it works fine. It lopes a little at idle when it's cold because of the slower speed but it stays running. Be sure to turn the correct screw. I find that the manuals (shop and owners) do a horrible job of illustrating it. It's a knob that goes straight up from the bottom kind of between the left carbs. You can't really see it w/o standing on your head or a mirror. If you turn the obvious screw with a screwdriver, you'll screw up your carb synchronization.
  7. tvking63
    The piece the shift fork goes into (4th gear wheel) should slide off. The gear under that is held on with a snap ring.
  8. tvking63
    While I appreciate your dilemma pegscraper, I really don't need yet another place on the web to park my images. I'd rather keep my content in an organized, cohesive manner. You could try using the "Show Printable Version" option, by clicking on the "Thread Tools" button at the top of the thread which turns all the images in that thread into clickable links. Or in the left hand column, click on "User CP", then under "Settings and Options" click "Edit Options", drill down to "Thread Display Options" and uncheck "Show Images" then "Save" at the bottom of the page, which will turn the images in all threads to clickable links. While you're there you might want to uncheck "Show Avatars" and "Show Signatures" too. Ok, on to other things. I found these 2 pins in the oil pump pick-up screen while cleaning things up. http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4571565963_c478414aa9.jpg They look like pins from a roller bearing or possibly the pins on the end of the shift drum. Other than the 2nd gear issue, it ran fine with odd noises......come to think of it, sometimes on a hot start it make a ka-chunk noise that I assumed was a starter clutch issue. Could it be from the starter roller clutch? It seems odd that they are the same diameter (.155') but different lengths (.535 and .658'') Edit: I see in the parts fiche, that on the shift drum there is one pin longer than the other 5. I'm assuming that's what these are. All my pins are there. It does look like the engine has been open before so it's possible the the pins or drum has been replaced. Is the pins coming out an issue?
  9. tvking63
    Are you here yet? I've got plenty of ugly already. It's a 25yo gold VR, I mean, come on.... One of the first things I noticed is that the wear on corners of the 2nd gear dogs is almost the same on the original and the new (used) gear, but the amount of engagement is way different. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3381/4563649082_391955aa51_b.jpg On the right, the new (used) gear has at least 4x the engagement of the old one. And the camera flash makes the old one look better that it really is. I also found that the groove the the drive shaft was pretty worn too. When putting a good, square thrust washer in the groove it doesn't seat nicely like it does in the replacement shaft. Old shaft http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3485/4563649104_14d7cbdc1f_b.jpg Replacement shaft http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3357/4563649112_27d12aa39c_b.jpg The original washer behind the split washer (right) didn't look so good either, but measured the same thickness as the '89 washer. http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4565078251_f6525103f2_b.jpg The fork looked to be in good shape. Almost no wear and didn't appear to be bent. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3406/4565078287_b50f11ca0c_b.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3172/4565078319_c17612f5e8_b.jpg For some reason I didn't snap any pics of the drum or the pin on the fork that engages the drum. Both looked fine, no visible wear when compared to the other forks. In post #7 there is a video showing how loose 1st wheel is on the shaft on the '89 parts. The original was much better. Here's why. The bushing in the '89 wheel (right) is toast. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3095/4563649074_2d07229939_b.jpg This is what I ended up doing. I used the entire '89 main shaft assembly. On the drive shaft, I used the original 1st gear wheel and middle gear assembly, on the '89 shaft. Since the 1st gear wheel mating gear is machined onto the main shaft, I couldn't change it to keep a matched set. But I decided I'd rather have a good bushing in the 1st gear wheel and run the risk (I feel slight) of a bit of noise while in 1st. Using the original middle gear and shims seems to have worked out fine. The backlash is right where is was before. This is the original gearset, shifted into second gear. The arrow points to the dog just barely engaging the 2nd gear wheel. Notice the gap between the gears. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/4565145391_6676b4740c_b.jpg Here is the '89 gearset in 2nd gear. The gears are so close that you can't ever see the dogs. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3340/4565078267_41b363106f_b.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3432/4565078281_2890a5706b_b.jpg The cases are back together but need to assemble all the other pieces to be ready to put back in the frame. Should be out riding in about an hour......
  10. tvking63
    Good news. There was the possibility that the crossed wires damaged the box. Great to see it didn't. I'm not sure there is much, if anything, to gain by putting the bike on a dyno though. I'll try to explain when I have more time.
  11. tvking63
    Cover me, I'm goin' in! Got the motor out yesterday. Was a bit more involved than most because I had to remove the sidecar and one frame mount for the sidecar. Working from a wheelchair doesn't help either. http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/4562130762_062c5914df_b.jpg So tonight I split the cases and popped out the gearset. I didn't snap a pic but it looked like the split washer was about to jump out of the groove in the shaft. You can see the washer is toast. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3619/4562130862_e69557c406_b.jpg http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4058/4562169282_553d2cb0f4_b.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3544/4562169292_4322828c1b_b.jpg Here's the one out of the '89 for comparison. It looks like new. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3260/4563649092_135a92fd7d_b.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/4563649102_dddff64ff6_b.jpg The second gear dogs have less wear than I imagined they would. But as you can see they were only engaging about a mm so it would take much. http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4044/4562130888_1a53e5ec49_b.jpg http://farm1.static.flickr.com/100/4562130866_2f2249b963_b.jpg Didn't have time to inspect the drum and forks yet. Hopefully tomorrow.
  12. tvking63
    Hopefully it didn't cook anything and swapping the wires will make it live. Looking at the schematics, you've been feeding pickup coil output into an ignition coil pin on the TCI box that gets grounded and opened every ignition cycle. And feeding 12v to a pickup coil input. I remember thinking it was odd that they used multiple wires of the same color.... And this is exactly what can happen. Looks like they need to invest in purple and black wire.
  13. tvking63
    I just double checked mine to verify. Yours is wired incorrectly. On the TCI box end you need to swap your brown wires. The brown and yellow wires that loop back into the small connector are for the pickup coils and you've got one of the pickup feed going to the wrong pin in the IgniTech box.
  14. tvking63
    Looks good but there are 2 blues and 2 browns that I cannot tell where they go from you pictures. In your 1st pic the right blue should go to the left blue in the second pic. For the browns, the right one in the 1st pic should go to the one with the loop in the second pic. If those check out then it's not a harness issue.
  15. tvking63
    From post #110. The 100% voltage is the max I saw under WOT acceleration. The 0% was a bit of a guess using numbers I saw at light low speed cruise. I didn't want to use idle voltages because the TCI box is looking for TPS numbers not MAP. If I had used idle voltages the only time you would have max advance would be with the throttle closed. And what good would that be? Then I tried to use the voltage the MAP sensor makes at 9.84 in Hg (the max advance curve # shown in the stock graph) but that's about 2.7v, assuming my vac gauge is close to accurate, and the software will only let me raise it to 2.5v. (remember, it's looking for closed throttle TPS voltage that wouldn't be anywhere near that high) So it's close and seems to work pretty well. I have some ideas that I may try to get it a bit closer. I don't know how much we really need to screw around getting an exact match to the stock curves though. I'm thinking it's more important that it just run well. And we're already right there. I too am concerned about his PU coils. If he has 1 or 2 bad ones and the IgniTech box combines them together, it might kill them all. I talked with him this afternoon and I think we have a plan to find out once and for all if it's the IgniTech box or not.
  16. tvking63
    I'm not sure I understand the question. I used the base timing curve from the manual to set the 100% throttle numbers. First, you probably need a smaller restrictor. And second, if you watched the vids I posted, you would see that even with the smaller restrictor the vacuum still pulses some, so the MAP voltage will too. In post #110 and #112, I acknowledged the voltage change and my solution for the time being. 1/16 is .063''. I tried a .030'' restrictor and it was still too big. Then I got a NAPA restrictor that's even smaller (don't have measurement) that really seemed to smooth it out. It's NAPA part # CRB 2618 or you can order it here. This is probably because of the MAP voltage variation at idle causing too much advance. See post #112 . I e-mailed you a modified map that should help. This is because we can now run much more timing advance at part throttle than before. I'm hoping to gain some MPG too but haven't run it any distance yet.
  17. tvking63
    Why? I like to use logic when diagnosing an issue. Can you give a reason why you believe the box cannot be bad? I don't see anything in the vids or screen shots that look out of place other than the red advance error bars. I don't thing those should be like that. Even during cranking there should be input from the PU coils, otherwise there would never be any spark.....like you have. It loads everything in all the tabs. So any setting that's messed up would get replace when loading a new map. Post# 91 has the latest non-MAP but it's not much different than the map in the 1st post and isn't going to solve your problem unless the the map you have was corrupted somehow. What if one of the wires in the adaptor harness is the wrong place? Can you post some pics of the adaptor harness ends so I can compare it to mine? Also FYI even if you get it fired, the bike will run like crap w/o the airbox installed. Mine even had to have the lid on to make it run right.
  18. tvking63
    Yes, my MAP vacuum is on the sync port for #2 cyl. I'm also have a restrictor in line that I bought from NAPA. It really smooths out the vacuum pulses. Don't have the part # in front of me but will add it to the write up when this gets more finalized. Done. I have a full write up with pics in progress too. Mine is loose to the left of the gas cap under the 'tank' cover for now. I'm using an early full size sensor but might switch to a newer, smaller one just to make more room. Have you ridden much with the experimental map?
  19. tvking63
    That's similar to what I did. Your not as nutty as you sound on the internet. This was my attempt to duplicate the stock base and advanced maps as closely as possible. I figured this would be a good starting point. The timing doesn't jump to the next value when that RPM is reached, it ramps up to meet that value as RPM is increased. So at 0% load, anything over 900rpm and timing starts climbing toward 26°. This would increase RPM and sometimes kick it to the next RPM level. Then with the MAP voltage varing slightly, the software would change to the 5% or 20% load map changing the timing again. Moving the base RPM from 900 to 1000 and changing the timing in that column all to 7° seems to have fixed it. I'm not sure what the different timing numbers at 900 RPM were all about anyway but that's the way the stock curve is setup.
  20. tvking63
    Well, yes and no. It's not very clear, but somewhere around post #100 some of the info is about attempting to run a MAP sensor using the IgniTech TPS input. All vacuum related info is looking toward using a MAP sensor. At the moment I am running a MAP sensor. I attempted to replicate the stock VR base map at 100 % load in the software and the max advance map at zero % load. (assuming the vac #'s are reversed) Then just spread the difference out between the two. http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4532717700_64a6ca2f18_o.jpg I've been riding around with a digital VOM tapped into the MAP signal at the IgniTech box to be as accurate as possible.. I even checked the VOM against the TPS voltage #'s in the software and they are within a few hundredths. So the numbers I'm seeing are almost exactly same #'s the box is seeing. From this info I was able to set the 0% and 100% voltages for the "TPS" in the software. As I said in post #100, this seems to be the answer to waking up the part throttle response that was a little lax w/o a MAP/Boost sensor input. Hopefully mileage will get a boost too. I need more saddle time to ride with and without the MAP to verify this. There is a small issue with idle hunting because the box is looking for a static TPS voltage at idle and I have a MAP voltage that varies somewhat. The box thinks this is throttle movement and varies the timing causing the idle speed to be a little irregular. I think I have that fix but need some better weather to see for sure.
  21. tvking63
    I'm not trying to pick a fight either, just poking at you a bit. http://www.cbr1100xx.org/forums/style_emoticons/22306set/poke.gif I apologize if that was my tone. It wasn't meant to be. So we're all good.?
  22. tvking63
    I am aware of the differences in the 83 model. As a 25 year ASE master tech, I too had an incorrect understanding of ported vacuum until just recently. In fact, I explained it wrong to timgray last fall when all this started. I found that a lot of people are confused. Here is an article that contains good info on ported vacuum. Read the second to the last paragraph and view the data logger chart. Now if we agree that ported and manifold vacuum are the same except at idle, then there is no reason the 83 and 84-89 advance curves couldn't/wouldn't be the same. I'd bet that is the reason for the TCI part # change. I'd guess the 84-89 TCI just ignores the Boost senor at idle so ported vacuum isn't needed. I can quasi-confirm this because when I plug an 83 TCI into my 84 it raises the idle (cause by more advance). This also means that the vacuum numbers on the curves have to be reversed. Advance cannot be removed with increased vacuum. I noticed on the V-Max map, 'Ignition Timing' and 'Advanced Timing' above the graph are show as inches ("). I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by using the V-Max curve. You can download the software at IgniTech's site and have at it if you like. Send me the file when your done.
  23. tvking63
    The top right of the image shows it's for a XVZ12DL. L = 1984 I also have the map for the K, or 1983 and it's the same. And since the 84-89 all use the same TCI box part # we can assume that 83-89 VR's all use the same advance curve.
  24. tvking63
    I understand your point, but right now I'm still experimenting with things. Because of factors that I won't go into detail about right now, I thought that it might be worth a try. I haven't had it ping at 900RPM yet. And if you look at the stock curve you'll see that the boost senor can bring the advance up to 12° at 900 RPM. Idle speed spec is 1000RPM so........... Different cams change cylinder filling and pressures at a given load/RPM which alters the amount of advance you should have, so advance curves shouldn't be interchangeable between the 2 engines. I would imagine that weight and aerodynamics could be a factor too. It is interesting that the base map (min. advance) for the V-Max is shown at 1.57 inches of Mercury but the VR shows MAX advance at the same 1.57 inches of Mercury....... That cannot possibly be. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I thought the VR vacuum numbers might be reversed and I believe this confirms it. V-Max http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4023/4526581739_613cc159ce_o.jpg VR http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3530/3897667176_5414b12b65_o.jpg I assume you're talking about the vacuum reading REALLY jumping around? I tried tying all 4 vac ports together to see if that would smooth it out. It helped slightly, but not enough to make a real difference. So I have since went back to a single port. I then added a restrictor in the vac line which made huge difference. Without a restrictor [/url] With a restrictor It looks like the restrictor is the answer. I've got a GM 1 bar MAP sensor wired in and have been monitoring MAP output voltages playing with the advance curve. It really seems to wake up part throttle response but I haven't had the opportunity to ride it with and w/o the MAP sensor back to back to verify that it's not just my imagination. More info coming as soon as I have a clue what I'm doing.
  25. tvking63
    Just removed the middle gear from the '89 shaft and the split thrust washer and the flat washer behind it are like new. The groove on the shaft looks fine as well. I'm concerned about how loose the 1st gear wheel is on the shaft. I have to see if the '84 one is that loose too. [/url]
×
×
  • Create New...