V7Goose

The myth is that the I basket is a sure-fire fix. The issue, as I understand it, is the specific mating between the basket and the other straight-cut gear in the engine. Just changing the basket to any specific other basket is a crap shoot. If the I basket would fix them all, don't you think all new motors would be coming with an I basket? For those few that have a bad noise, the key is actually trying DIFFERENT baskets, maybe an I, a G or whatever, until the combination of the basket with the internal gear works. What I would recommend is that two "whiners" (I guess "chirpers" would be nicer) get together and try swapping baskets, just to see what happens. It ain't that hard. Goose

I don't have pictures right now, but not too hard to find. Look up under the carburetors - each one has a short "tube" or "nipple" pointing down; that's the drain. Near it is a rather large brass allen-head screw that takes a 5mm wrench - that is the drain valve. Open them several turns to get a decent flow. When you close the valve, do not treat it like a normal screw that will stop turning when it is tight. Those have a tapered seat that will be damaged if you honk on it too hard. Just go till they are snug. Goose

Absolutely and totally not true for a liquid cooled engine. The engine creates it's own heat, and very little of it is dissipated directly to the outside air since the water jackets work like insulators. The radiator is the point where the heat is released from the water, but the key component that makes your statement so untrue is the thermostat. When the thermostat is closed, virtually no water is circulating through the radiator to exchange heat. And thermostats do not act like an of/off switch, they open slowly like a faucet, and they will stay partially open if the mix of heated water from the engine and cooler water from the radiator is just right to meet the target temperature. In short, your statement would be true if you remove the thermostat, but not as the engine is designed (to maintain a constant temperature in spite of changing outside temps). In fact, this design, to maintain a constant temperature, is why water cooled engines have tighter tolerances than air cooled engines. Goose

That's interesting Don, but not my experience at all. When the outside temps are cool, my bike always runs right at 210, but if the outside temps are close to 100, the bike tends to run at 195 or 200. My 07 RSV did exactly the same thing. 50 to 70 won't make any difference at all; my bikes will stay locked it at 210 probably anywhere from 30-90. I can't really explain it, but I think that maybe the cooler air chills the water in the radiator enough to somehow keep the thermostat from fully opening that last little bit, but when the outside temps are high enough and the thermostat stays completely open, the cooling effect is enough to keep the water temps just a bit lower. This theory seems relatively consistent with what I see when the temps are way down around 20, and under the right conditions the engine temperature will constantly swing from about 160 to 230 and back. In that situation, the rush of VERY cold coolant into the engine as soon as the thermostat starts cracking open just causes the thermostat to clam up again until the engine temp reheats the coolant, which starts the cycle all over again. And remember, our temp sensor is mounted right in the head next to the plug, not out near the thermostat. The head location is also much closer to the fresh coolant coming in from the radiator, so in a cycle like that it will read the real cool water faster, then the higher temperatures that build up before the thermostat does. Goose

Sure sounds just like AMwaySpecialOIL to me. I'll stick with Shell. Goose

I'm sure it is possible, but I'd have to look at the existing tank to see if it was reinforced or specially shaped in any way for the current one. But I personally do not feel it would have significant value. Under most riding conditions, the fuel on the right side continues to slosh around as the tank gets low, eventually letting virtually all of the fuel be used. I know this is a fact since I have had five or six different times when I was able to add more than 5.8 gallons, and once when I put in something like 5.96! Only when just droning along on a straight, level and smooth road have I run out while I suspected there still might be gas remaining in the right side. Goose

Sounds to me like fuel contamination (if the carbs are actually fouled up), or maybe just simple fuel starvation. I know you changed the fuel filter and checked all sorts of things, but I'm just going to ignore any of that and give a couple of pointers on where I would start. First, carefully listen to the fuel pump when you turn the key on. If it has been sitting a day or more, it will first click several times then shut off. You may even hear the clicks get slower as the pressure in the carbs builds, but that is not too important, so don't sweat it one way or the other. Once the pump stops clicking, turn the key off for a few seconds, then back on. It should NOT make any more clicking; none. If it does, then it shut off before either because it is bad or because it hit the internal timer that keeps it from burning up if you are out of gas. In that case, your problem would be somewhere between the fuel tank and the carbs (or maybe even the intake screens on the fuel petcock itself inside the tank). Take it one step at a time and try to isolate it. Maybe start by just hooking a new fuel line straight from the tank to the carb inlet and blowing in the tank to push gas into the carbs. If the carbs are full, the bike will start and run fine for about 5 minutes without any fuel connected at all. If the pump seems to pass the click test described above, then stick a tube on the carb drain and into a small jar and open the drain screw to let it completely drain. Do this for all four carbs to compare how much fuel comes out of each and look for anything in it other than clear fresh fuel. After you have drained all four carbs, repeat the fuel pump click test, and this time you really should hear the clicking slow down as the carbs fill up. But again, the most important part of that test is to make sure the pump does NOT start clicking again after the key is turned off and back on. If all seems OK at this point, then I'd just start with fresh gas. First, drain the tank as much as possible - this means you have to remove the tank and tip it to get all the gas over to the petcock. After the tank is completely empty, take the fuel line off the carb inlet and put it in a can while you turn on the key and let the pump push as much gas out as it can. Be sure to turn the key off and back on each time the pump stops until you get no more gas coming out of the hose. Finally, drain all four carbs again. Now add about 1/2 tank of fresh gas (NOT three-month old mower gas from your garage!) and add about 6 oz of either Sea Foam or 44K, making sure to mix it good. Once you have the new mixed fuel in the tank, turn the key on to fill the carbs, then try to stat the bike. If it does start, run it for a minute or two to get this cleaning mix pulled through all the jets and passages. It is great if you can immediately ride it for a hundred miles or so, but if not, just shut it off and let it sit overnight for the cleaning to continue. If you still cannot get the bike to start, make sure you crank it sufficiently, while playing with the choke to pull as much of the cleaning mix into the carb passages as you can, then let it sit over night before you try again. If it won't start the next day, I'd probably try new plugs, then verify I had good spark. Goose

Well, THERE'S your problem!!!!! Yer s'posed to taste the stuff, not rub it in your shorts!!!!!!! I know them Navy standards ain't too high, but I kinda figured even you guys could get that right. Sigh . . . Goose

Yeah, I drink some scotch, but the decent stuff is WAY too expensive. I bought a lot of it when I was working, but I'm just drinking old stock now. If I'm gonna drink the foreign stuff, I prefer Irish whiskey, but a decent Tennessee sippin' whiskey will beat it all. But that toad squeeze you drink . . . eeeeyech! Ptooey! Blach! Somebody give me greasy rag to wipe off this tongue! Goose (who has a slightly more refined palate)

OK, I just can't hold this one back - there may be no accounting for taste, but that stuff is just VILE! Nasty, gross, vile, rank, course, terrible stuff! There are LOTS of good whiskeys out there (and even a couple of bourbons that are drinkable), but that bong-water just ain't one of 'em! But what does I know? I's just a pantie-waist fly boy, so you keep drinkin' your Beam and I'll buy the good stuff you pass up. Cheers, my friend,and keep riding safe. Goose - who's been know to take a nip or two.

Geeze Boomer, did we insult you in some way? Chill, man! You shouldn't be upset by this in any way - you are free to believe whatever you like and to spend your money any way you like. I know I don't care one way or the other, and I doubt that others here do either. And I never tried to imply that anyone but me used the term "Magic plug". I introduced that term, and I like it to draw attention to the fact that many people insist on attributing unproven and unsubstantiated benefits to different spark plug designs. The ONLY purpose to this test and my posting the results is to give anyone who cares some relatively solid and "proven" facts to use in making up their own mind about which plug they might want to spend their own money on. When they read or hear someone else state as a fact that any "Magic" plug improves fuel economy, they should know enough to ignore that false claim. And I use quotes on the word "proven" simply because I realize that even this test, which effectively proves it for me, is not a controlled scientific test.

The information gleaned from the comparison of different oils in different engines may be mildly interesting, but it will be completely meaningless. Let's talk for a minute about oil analysis and WHY it is done (along with how). If a lab or other organization is attempting to compare different oils for the purpose of identifying the "best" (or at least how they differ), then an analysis is one of the important tools. But to have ANY value in this way, each oil must be run through the same "use" under carefully controlled conditions - run for the same length of time, under the same loads and temperatures, in ideally the same engine, or at the very least, substantially identical engines. In addition, a decent comparison will include multiple analysies of the same oil at various points over the test life to see how fast each changes in the various properties that are being examined. In contrast oil analysis for a specific vehicle is done for very different reasons, and several members above have already touched on these. Generally, the specific condition of the oil at each change is relatively unimportant - the owner has already decided on an appropriate change interval. While the results of multiple analysis tests over time might change the owner's mind about what that interval should be, it is not the main interest. What IS the main interest? The contaminates found in the oil at the end of the change interval, specifically the types and amounts of metals that will indicate types of wear and specific components that are wearing, along with other contaminates that will indicate a change in the effectiveness of the combustion process or bad seals. But for this information to be useful, the analysis must be done on EVERY oil change for that engine, from the time it is new, and then the results of each oil analysis compared to the previous results. A one-time oil analysis on any particular engine will have all the value of bird poop on paper - someone may find the image mildly interesting, but it will mean exactly nothing. And even if you compare several successive oil anaysis reports for different bikes, you still cannot draw any valid conclusions about the particular oils, only about the current state of each individual engine and how it has worn using whatever particular oil it has. Goose

OK, the numbers are in - Goose 1, Magic plugs 0! Executive Summary: In a recent thread the subject of NGK Iridium plugs generated several comments from some members claiming an improvement in either performance or fuel economy attributed specifically to these "Magic" plugs. I maintained that there is absolutely no way any magic plug could ever improve anything over standard plugs except longevity (they do not erode the electrodes as fast). Kross Kountry and I devised and executed a quasi-scientific test designed to effectively prove or disprove the idea that magic plugs could improve fuel economy. This test was performed by two similar bikes riding the same routes and speeds together for several tanks of gas with standard plugs in both, then several more tanks of gas with magic plugs in the test bike, while carefully comparing the amount of gas each bike took at each fill. The exact miles per gallon for either bike are completely irrelevant in this test, as the only significant issue is to determine if the ratio of fuel used by Bike A to Bike B changed after the magic plugs were installed. At the end of 732 miles, the fuel used by the test bike was effectively unchanged, "proving" that magic plugs have NO value in improving fuel economy. The Results: By running two similar bikes together through several tanks of fuel, we were able to remove most of the normal variables (such as weather, terrain, speed, riding styles, quality of fuel, etc.) that make normal measurement of miles per gallon on a motorcycle fairly useless. Since our tanks are so small, the variables effectively invalidate every single calculation, but in this test they can mostly be ignored because they should have affected BOTH bikes the same way. And, again, we were not actually concerned by the MPG calculations, just the ratio of fuel used in Bike A to Bike B. There are a few significant variables that remained, and I will detail these in the gory details below. Bike A was the control bike with standard plugs. This was my 2005 RSV with over 70,000 miles on it and no special preparation. I consider the bike in reasonably good tune, and the plugs were changed a bit over 2,000 miles ago. Bike B was the test bike. This was Kross Kountry's 2008 RSV with about 8,000 miles on it. Prior to starting the test we reset the float levels correctly and set the fuel mixture screws. All indications were that the bike was running excellently throughout the test. We began the test by installing new standard plugs in the test bike, then riding together for three tanks of gas over a variety of roads for a total of 412 miles. For the first tank, 150 miles, the ratio of fuel used A:B was 1.06:1, meaning that for each gallon of fuel used by the test bike, the control bike used 1.06 gallons. Tank 2 was 148 miles, and the ratio was 1.11:1. The third tank was just 114 miles with a ratio of 1.10:1. For the entire 412 miles with standard plugs in both bikes, the ratio of fuel used by Bike A to Bike B was 1.09:1. At the end of day 1 we switched the test bike to new NGK Iridium plugs (the "Magic" plugs). For this test we ran only two tanks of gas for a total of 320 miles. Tank 1 was 159 miles with a ratio of 1.09.1. Tank 2 was 161 miles with a ratio of 1.05:1, for a total average ratio of fuel used by Bike A to Bike B of 1.07:1, actually WORSE than with standard plugs! But read the gory details below to find out why I do NOT consider that significant. In effect, I believe that there was absolutely NO difference in the fuel used by the test bike with either plugs. In addition, Kross Kountry is a professional driver, and he feels he is probably more in tune to the "feel" of a vehicle than the average rider might be. He stated that he was not able to detect even the slightest hint of difference in the way the bike ran after we installed the Magic plugs. All The Gory Details: One of the variables we were not able to completely remove was filling the bike to the exact same level each time. We did, however try to minimize this by carefully using the ignition key to measure the fuel level; however, we did not try to check each other. In one case, I believe the slab at the pump was sloped, and I pulled in facing up hill, while he pulled in to the other side of the pump facing down hill. This was the first tank with the magic plugs. The slope was not real evident, so I ignored it at the time, but Tracy commented later that he wondered if he got a true fill since his bike came down off the "Full" mark sooner than before. This seems to have been verified by the lower than normal ratio at the second tank fill, where his bike needed more gas to completely replace the fuel that had not been added on the previous fill; the two tanks together should have removed that variable. In addition, after I shut the pump off for that final fill and re-checked my key measurement, it seemed as if I might have been just a tad too low, but it was too late to add more. I'll readily admit that only doing this comparison for two or three tanks is still not enough to average out all the variations we might have had in the exact amount of fuel added, but it is all we had time for! Another variable that I introduced without thinking ahead of time was the weight on the bike. Most of the baseline test with standard plugs in both bikes was run with a passenger on my bike, but all of the second day was run solo. On the first day, about a third of the first tank was run solo, which would account for the closer ratio of fuel used than we got on the next two tanks. This, along with the issue above concerning the exact fill amounts, is why I do not believe the test bike actually used more gas with the magic plugs than it did with standard plugs - the reasonable fact is that my bike simply used slightly less fuel when riding solo than it did two-up. But if someone wants to claim this completely invalidates the test, well, I'd be hard pressed to argue. The odometers on both bikes were consistently very close, with Bike B showing approximately 1 mile less over 150 miles. For all of the MPG calculations below, I have used the numbers from my bike, removing that small variable. Here are all the exact numbers related to each tank of fuel during the test: Day 1, tank 1 - 1/2 city riding, 1/2 SMALL secondary roads at speeds around 50 mph. Bike A took 3.873 gallons and got 38.73 mpg. Bike B: 3.647 gallons, 41.13 mpg. Ratio 1.06:1 Day 1, tank 2 - all riding was back roads, but somewhat larger and straighter than above. Roughly 1/2 the riding was under 70 mph, and 1/2 between 70 and 75 mph (as reported by GPS). Bike A took 4.249 gallons, 34.83 mpg. Bike B: 3.824 gallons, 38.70 mpg. Ratio 1.11:1 Day 1, tank 3 - virtually all was straight highway or freeway at 70 - 75 mph. Bike A took 3.418 gallons, 33.35 mpg. Bike B: 3.103 gallons, 36.74 mpg. Ratio 1.10:1 Day 2, tank 1 - open roads, 1/2 under 70 mph, 1/2 over 70 mph. Bike A took 4.554 gallons, 34.91 mpg. Bike B: 4.187 gallons, 36.74 mpg. Ratio 1.09:1 Day 2, tank 2 - open roads with two thirds over 70 mph and running the Talimena parkway at the end. Bike A took 4.465 gallons, 34.91 mpg. Bike B: 4.251, 37.873 mpg. Ratio 1.05:1 That's it - hopefully all my math and typing is correct! Goose

Hope you paid attention to which plugs were which. You clearly have one that is not generating the same level of heat on the ground electrode (the one on the left in your pix). It is firing, but not with the same regularity and power as the other three. My guess is the plug cap has high resistance. Unscrew the cap from the plug wire and measure the resistance; if it is over 12K, you have an easily fixed problem. Goose As a matter of fact, the more I look at it, the more I wonder if it is even firing at all now. Same diagnosis, however - check for spark and cap resistance.

If you have a long ball-end allen wrench, especially one with a 3/8" drive for the ratchet, you do not need to do anything with the exhaust pipe Frankly, I use those so much I strongly suggest you order a set from Harbor Freight if you don't already have a set. Not having to pull that pipe on this one job is worth it!. Goose

That "concave plate" is the spring. You didn't need new friction plates at all, but they won't hurt anything either. Just pay close attention to how it all comes out, follow their instructions, and you will find everything very easy. The toughest part of the job is cleaning off the old gasket. But make darn sure you have the right torque wrench that goes as low as the torque spec - do NOT try to just guess at the right torque with a calibrated wrist on those bolts. If you do, 98% chance you will break one, and 110% chance you will weaken them if you don't break 'em. Keep those old friction plates (or mail them to me if you are just gonna trash 'em). You will find they measure exactly the same as those new plates you got, and if you ever do actually wear out a clutch on that bike, you can put them right back in. Goose

Don't overlook the steering head bearings - if they are loose you can get the same thing. Goose

Hey everyone, I know I have a hard time getting to the point and actually conveying what I really mean, so I thought I'd just sum up what I think about iridium plugs. Most of this applies equally to platinum plugs as well. First, they are not bad plugs, just not worth the money to me. Second, they will absolutely last longer than standard plugs, so if you just don't want to change your plugs more often than about 50,000 miles, they might be a good choice for you. Finally, although they are very good plugs that will work at least as well as standard plugs, they will not improve fuel economy or performance on any engine that is in good condition and good tune. They MIGHT make an improvement on an engine that is running real rich or burning some oil, as I think they do resist fouling better and may have an easier time in generating a spark in a rich environment. I would have to actually test them on such an engine with a scope to be sure about that last point. Hope that clears up some of my ramblings. Goose

No, you didn't touch any nerve with me, but you seemed to be upset at what you perceived as a personal slight to your knowledge or your post, so I wanted to make it very clear that nothing like that was going on. And I DO think this thread has been helpful, all of it. I don't agree that standard plugs will ever degrade to the point of significant drop in performance in just 8,000 miles, but that is no big deal. We all get to have our opinions. But the real value of this thread is to get some more discussion out about various plug options. And I now have a test plan with another rider to actually put this to the test in such a way that it should probably satisfy even the most skeptical doubters on either side of the argument. I have never actually performed that test specifically for iridium plugs, so I am looking forward to it as much as some others may be. One more thing - if you regularly get 200 miles BEFORE reserve at any speed above 55, you don't need your floats set - that is outstanding mileage for these machines. But like I keep saying, the REAL test is to actually compare it side-by-side with another similar bike. That removes all questions about speed differences, terrain, wind, riding styles, etc. I have seen some fantastic claims for fuel economy on 2nd gens posted from time to time, but frankly, I just don't believe them. I don't think that my 05 gets anything special (mid 30s on the slab at speed, low 40s when bombing around the secondary roads at 55 or less, very occasionally close to 50 if I am really sleeping), but I'm willing to bet that no other stock RSV will do significantly better than mine when riding side-by-side with me (by significantly better, I mean at least 10% better). I haven't been able to do that comparison with as many RSVs as I like, probably no more than 10 other bikes, but my assumptions are holding up well. Most use more gas than I do, and so far, jneed53 is the only one that comes close to beating me by a significant amount. He and I get almost identical economy below 55, but he uses about 10% less fuel than I do when running 75 - 80. I attribute this difference to much more wind drag on my machine, but that is only a guess. Goose

Well, we're probably safe on that account, UNLESS he gets better fuel economy after he puts in magic plugs! If that happens, I may have to snuff him to keep my stupidity from being exposed!! Goose

Sure

Well, if you want to ride down here to start the test, we can finish it back at your place if you like. Or we can ride south and do the hill country and finish it back here. Or ride in any direction and finish it wherever we want! We can do a one-day run, or stay out several days. I'm pretty much wide open to any days that I happen to be home. Other than this Saturday, I'm ready any day up until September 4th, then I'll be gone until sometime in mid September. If you don't want to do it right away, them let's just pick a time after I get back from Cody. Actually, I'd love to do it next week cause I think I need to change my rear tire before I head for Cody, and it's still got way too much rubber on it! Goose

There are only two options of which I know to check your spark: Insert a special tool between your plug wire and the plug that allows you to see the spark jumping a gap in a glass window. The best tool for this actually allows you to adjust the internal gap to ensure the coil and plug have enough energy to jump a specific minimum size, but you can get a simple one for just a couple of bucks at Harbor Freight. Put an automotive scope on the plug wire that will not only show the existence and strength of the spark, but also check the rest of the ignition system and compare each cylinder with the others. You can always pull the plug wire and use a different plug held up against the engine to see if it sparks that way, but frankly, that will tell you almost nothing useful. Goose

Chill out, Man. You are trying to read WAY too much into what I said. And I fail to understand why you think you are too smart to actually do a side-by-side comparison with another bike? What could possibly be wrong with that? Now don't go getting upset with me - I am not attacking you or putting you down (or anyone else in this thread). I simply said that iridium plugs will NOT improve fuel economy. And I did NOT misread or misunderstand anything you said. I don't care if your fuel economy got better or not, or even why. I was only responding to you and others here that specifically claimed the NGK "overpriced" plugs actually made a difference in fuel economy. It just ain't so IMHO. You may not have specifically stated that your magic plugs were specifically the cause of your fuel economy improvement just because of their magic, but you DID specifically say those magic plugs did provide "performance enhancement" on five other engines. And other posters here have gone further to claim that the same magic plugs specifically improved their fuel economy. My response was simply for any reader who had not already sunk their money into magic plugs to maybe consider a different opinion, and one for which I am fully prepared to put my money (and time) where my mouth is and prove it. Whether or not your existing stock plugs were degraded or not is completely irrelevant. I never even implied that your fuel economy did not improve (again, I don't know if it did, nor do I care). And I will readily inform all who will listen that any iridium or platinum plug will not degrade as fast as a standard plug; that is in fact the ONLY value to them IMHO. And possible degradation of ANY plug is exactly why I insist that anyone who is willing to do this test with me must start with brand new stock plugs. So my offer remains. If anyone here honestly believes their magic plugs improve their fuel economy, I offered a way for them to actually learn the facts and prove it (as well as an opportunity to prove me wrong). Goose

LR #1, LF #2 RR #3, RF #4 And yes, if one plug is not firing properly, the plug should look different. The unknown, however, is being sure to kill the engine at a time when the coil is not working properly. If it just breaks down under heavy load, but works fine at idle, the plugs will look fine if checked after idling. Goose