SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> Plug removal
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1107375255

Message started by Nightrain on 02/01/05 at 08:52:29

Title: Plug removal
Post by Nightrain on 02/01/05 at 08:52:29

To pull the plug, I know I am going to have to remove the chrome head covers. Does anyone know offhand If I am going to have to pull the tank to do that?

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by thehoghunter on 02/01/05 at 09:02:59

There is suppose to be a trick of leaving the front of the left chrome head cover undone (use a shorter bolt that doesn't go through the chrome cover). Then you can just pull it out pivoting on the back bolt. Supposedly, you can then get to the spark plug (if that's the plug you are talking about!). But to get the trick to work, the gas tank would have to be removed at least once. And since I have never used that trick, I'm not sure if it would work.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Nightrain on 02/01/05 at 11:10:53

Hey thanks for the snappy reply :) Yeah, I meant to say spark plug! Do you know if there are any adverse affects to driving around without those cosmetic chrome covers on the head? There is no reason why you should have to remove a gas tank to get to your spark plug. I think they will be going bye bye.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by slavy on 02/02/05 at 19:23:38

Somebody in the other forum gave a different idea.
The first time You have to remove the gas tank. Two bolts hold the left chrome cover. You remove the rear one and make the cover like a door. When You want to get to the plug You just loosen the nut on top of the front bolt and pivot the cover. The only thing is - make sure You tighten the nut good when You are done.
I never tried this, but it is worthed to try.
About the covers- just looks.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by PerrydaSavage on 02/03/05 at 08:55:52

Jon D. of Rochester N.Y. attests on his LS650 website, to the viability of the "plug access" created by using only one bolt in order to "hinge" the left chrome top cover ... he even provides direstions on how to go about it. Haven't tried it myself though. Those covers are purely cosmetic, as I've seen plenty of pics on the web of Savage's with those covers removed ... so go ahead if you're so inclined!
I have checked my plug twice in since buying my Savage ... and never have I been able to remove my gas tank without first draining all of the fuel and then removing the petkock altogether ... the petkock will not clear the frame no matter how I twist and turn the tank ... but with the fuel tap removed, it comes off easily.
The inaccessible location of the Savage's single plug is may main pet peeve with this motorcycle ... one would thing that the engineers would've designed a head with a more accessible spark plug location ... ::)

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Nightrain on 02/03/05 at 16:55:37

Being in the cold weather, I like access to the plug. Any time the battery is cranking slow or she floods out, a shot of ether right to the plug will do the trick. And to mention that I am always driving sh*tbox bikes that never start.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Nightrain on 02/07/05 at 13:27:02

With the tank in position and without the chrome head covers, there is still minimal clearance to get at the plug. It would be more of a chore to try and get a wrench in there than to remove the darn tank. So I put it all back together the way it is suppose to go. F*** it! I guess I'll become an expert at pulling the tank. And just to mention that pulling the tank scratches the hell out of the frame with the petcock.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by slavy on 02/07/05 at 13:55:37

Yeah, You are right.
It takes PHD in engineering to take the gas tank without dammages to the frame. I don't know why Suzuki never did anything about this.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Savage_Rob on 02/07/05 at 14:19:12

Yeah, put some electrical tape on that part of the frame.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Nightrain on 02/07/05 at 14:34:29

I thought about covering it with tape or somehting but once the tank is back on, you can't even notice it. Out of sight, out of mind! Right fellas ;D

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by gazab44 on 02/09/05 at 10:03:10

i use the "plug access door" method..works for me.
but as stated the tank as to be removed at least once,
and reading all the past posts on this and other forums i must be one of the lucky ones cus i have no problems removing it.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by bentwheel on 02/09/05 at 15:40:48

I agree that it is weird how some tanks are so hard to remove, yet others, my '86 included slip off with no problem.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Greg_650 on 02/10/05 at 05:27:19

The tank will come off of any Savage, w/o removing the petc0ck. The rubber bushings are just snug and make it hard. One trick to remove the tank easily requires removing the tank once, and upon reassembly just put a little bit of Vaseline on the rubber bushings. From then on it will be much easier. And, yes it is tight and will scratch the frame, but you just have to push the tank up and slightly to the left to get it off.

As for the plug...it is a PITA to reach, but why do you need to have such easy access? I'm running a 3 year old plug in mine and have never had to remove it for anything other than an inspection...I mean, I've never had any troubles that related to the plug. It is pretty low maintenance.

The Suzuki engineers were a little short sighted on the chrome covers though. The left cover has that upside-down bolt that requires the cover to be raised up to remove. Just another little quirk about the Savage. However, if you ever remove the head cover, then you can actually turn the bolt upside down with the nut on the bottom....I wonder if the cover could be slotted to remove the cover from the side off the bolt. Hmmmm.
:)

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Susan on 02/10/05 at 08:19:54

bentwheel wrote:

I agree that it is weird how some tanks are so hard to remove, yet others, my '86 included slip off with no problem.

I've often thought the same thing. My 2004 tank slides right off...

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by SavageRider on 02/12/05 at 18:35:44

Here is a question about the spark plug removal procedure maybe, someone knows about. I'm trying to remove the spark plug on my 2001 Savage and the manual calls for a 17MM wrench. I have a 17MM deep socket but it doesn't fit. Have they changed this? I also tried several non metric plug sockets and none of those fit either. I have the seat and tank off as well as the chrome piece. I'm trying to check the plug condition for my other problem I posted earlier, about carb. issues. Several good recomendations were made that I'm trying to follow up on. One of those was to check the plug condition.

Thanks

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by slavy on 02/12/05 at 19:48:46

The spark plug is 18mm.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by PerrydaSavage on 02/13/05 at 05:40:18

I've read that the frame tolerances are different on some LS650's which prohibits removal of the gas tank without first removing the petkock ... I suspect mine is one of those, 'cause there's no way I can get the tank off without removing it ... believe me I've tried ... even put silicone lubricant on the rubber "puck" bushings too ...
Anyone else ever hear 'bout the frame tolerances being different on some Savage's ... any truth to it?

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by gitarzan on 02/13/05 at 06:21:54

Yeppers. Common knowledge here and at Heise.

Mine allows me to remove it with a struggle but there seems no way it's going back on w/o removing the petrooster.

My guess is that the folks who work in the Savage factory are new hires in training.

Or else they've got a guy who been doing frames so long he just eyeballs them.

Triumph had a similar but more critical issue albout 35 years ago. Seems some critical engine part was made by one guy who had done just that part for about 20 years. One day he died. Now he made his parts on a lathe that was out of spec, but he knew how much and compensated. No one else knew. His replacement pulled out the book, adjusted the lathe to what the book said and started making parts. Triumphs shortly after became known for their engine problems right at a time the Japanese bike were coming into their own. The old Triumph company began a sales decline that they never recovered from. I read that in a Cycle mag article about 1979.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Susan on 02/13/05 at 07:38:36

gitarzan wrote:

...Triumph had a similar but more critical issue albout 35 years ago. Seems some critical engine part was made by one guy who had done just that part for about 20 years. One day he died. Now he made his parts on a lathe that was out of spec, but he knew how much and compensated. No one else knew. His replacement pulled out the book, adjusted the lathe to what the book said and started making parts. Triumphs shortly after became known for their engine problems right at a time the Japanese bike were coming into their own. The old Triumph company began a sales decline that they never recovered from. I read that in a Cycle mag article about 1979.

That's an amazing story! Thanks for sharing.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Greg_650 on 02/13/05 at 08:28:30

SavageRider wrote:

I think that the real problem isn't the deep socket size, but more likely it is the wall thickness of the socket. There isn't a lot of clearance around the plug, and if you'll notice (those that have one), the plug socket in the toolkit is much thinner walled.

Since it is hard to see down in the hole, you can't tell that you aren't going deep enough to grip the hex on the plug with a standard socket. So it seems to be the wrong size.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Greg_650 on 02/13/05 at 08:51:09

PerrydaSavage wrote:

For myself, I find that hard to believe since most production welding is done in weldment fixtures and variations to the frame backbone could cause all kinds of other little glitches like wheel misalignment, handling issues, or even frame flex. And granted, frame variations would be a good reason for petc0ck interference too, but the Japanese have become masters of mass production...as Gitarzan mentions with the decline of Triumph, below.

Maybe it's time to clear up the issue....here and on other forums. How about people start measuring the frame across the place where the petc0ck makes contact? My tank is due to come off real soon (maybe today) and I'll do the same. Maybe it would be good to include the year of the bike, too.

I'm betting that it would take differences of 1/4" or more to cause this problem, and I find that hard to believe.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by bentwheel on 02/13/05 at 12:36:41

I agree with Greg on this one. I can't believe the frame has different variances in a paticular year. My thought is the frame jig was designed for year 1986 and never changed. Production shouldn't allow for 1/4in. tolerance errors. You are probably correct in conducting a poll to determine if specific model years have problems for owners removing their gas tanks. Maybe the frame is not the problem, but more likely the placement of the petthingy on the fuel tank. Once the tank is made the placement holes are drilled and tapped and this leaves a more likely culprit for error. I measured the space between the petthingy mount and the tank seam and found a distance of 1/16in. I have a 1986 model with no tank removal issues. Perhaps on problem models these mounting holes are closer to midline moving the petthingy closer to the frame and therefore creating a greater (less desired) distance than 1/16in. How about including this measurement in the poll as well?

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by diesel on 02/13/05 at 21:33:17

good point, bentwheel, tank production much more likely to have variations than frame.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by PerrydaSavage on 02/14/05 at 00:32:12

A possible variation in the placment of the petkock from model to model sounds like the logical culprit now that you mention it ... next time I pull my tank I'm gonna take a few measurements!
Smart bunch we got around here!! 8)

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Greg_650 on 02/15/05 at 05:29:26

bentwheel wrote:

Good point. All the discussion about frames ignores the possibility of tank variations. Maybe even the front tank mounts are different and require it to be picked up higher before sliding backwards.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Susan on 02/15/05 at 15:00:31

Greg_650 wrote:

...Maybe it's time to clear up the issue....here and on other forums. How about people start measuring the frame across the place where the petc0ck makes contact? My tank is due to come off real soon (maybe today) and I'll do the same. Maybe it would be good to include the year of the bike, too...

Anything else we should measure, while we are at it?

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Mr 650 on 02/15/05 at 23:37:06

I agree, the jig will not change but the shift will.
I've been in assembly plants over the past two decades and I have seen things like this from one shift to another happen. Then throw in different suppliers and things can "stack up" in unsuspected ways.
In the plant it's not about taking them apart, but slamming them together fast!
When I start getting over-anal, I remind myself that the guy or machine that did it the 1st time had 60 seconds or less to complete the task.

I have been putting off pulling the tank, but will keep this in mind & let you know what I see.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Greg_650 on 02/16/05 at 05:20:03

Susan wrote:

Anything else we should measure, while we are at it?

I dunno. Just an idea to find the reason that some have a difficulty with removing the tank.

It is interesting considering that the clearance is close enough for the petc0ck to scratch the paint during the process even on bikes where the tank removes easily.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by gitarzan on 02/16/05 at 05:33:39

Another thing, perhaps there is a slight variance in petcox. There may be two sources, one slightly larger.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Greg_650 on 02/26/05 at 06:23:50

Okay...how about this?

This is my spouse's '01 Savage. Because of the shooting angle it doesn't look it, but the frame measures 14 CM (140 MM) across at the point where the petcock scracthes the frame (upper edge of scale)...a little over 5 1/2 inches.
http://home.comcast.net/~gmdinusa/FrameWidth01web.jpg

Also, I wondered if all petcocks are the same. Here is the back of the petc0ck...
http://home.comcast.net/~gmdinusa/Petc0ckBack01web.jpg

And obviously, I was able to raise the tank without removing the petc0ck.

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by bentwheel on 02/26/05 at 09:55:54

Black Betty measures 140mm as well. I assume everbody has a large dimple in the bottom of the frame tube to help clear the petc0ck?

Title: Re: Plug removal
Post by Greg_650 on 02/27/05 at 09:01:50

Well, that's 3. What year is Black Betty?

Need someone with trouble removing the tank to take a measure too, I guess.