|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> Rejetting That Works /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1266868145 Message started by Bear on 02/22/10 at 11:49:05 |
|
Title: Rejetting That Works Post by Bear on 02/22/10 at 11:49:05 This works for 2008 S40 with 2300 miles at elev 1300 ft. Rejetting and muffler modification was done to eliminate shotgun blast backfire and reduce the slight cold engine stumble for the first mile with a cold engine. This was NOT done to increase horsepower. With these changes, it will be a better ride. Sparkplug was pulled after 800 miles and it is the perfect color. Mileage is about 52 mpg riding at 50-60 mph. Backfire is a slight whooosh at shutdown, not even noticable from 20 feet away. Lots has been written about rejetting. I know this works and works well. Remove stock 145 main jet and replace with 150 Remove stock 52.5 pilot jet and replace with 55 - Do NOT use vented jet with holes in the sides. Remove original white spacer thickness .112 inch and replace with 2 metal washers totaling .043 inch. Install Harley Dyna muffler and drill one 3/16 hole in the center of the baffle. This will vent gasses and reduce backfire. It will not make the muffler noticable louder. Do these changes and you will be happy. It is not necessary to go overboard with rejetting. A little tweek makes it run nice. I know this has subject has been beat to death, but hopefully with these notes, you may only have to do the job ONCE. It has a nice steady pull all the way through the power band. No stumbles or flat spots, low speed or high speed. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by bill67 on 02/22/10 at 12:06:37 I have the sames jets you have and no spacer change.Stock muffler with 1/2 inch hole drilled inside the muffler.Mines pulls all the way strong just a shade lean in mid range, it pulls better when it 80 degrees or hotter.My lowest mileage was 58 mpg the only time below 60 mpg normally average 63-64 mpg. I drive about the same speeds you are talking about most of the time. 800 sea level. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Charon on 02/22/10 at 18:43:13 Of course those changes make it illegal for street use... |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by dasch on 02/23/10 at 02:44:04 ?? why is that? These are not huge mods, more finetuning. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by bill67 on 02/23/10 at 03:02:07 7E555C4F52533D0 wrote:
If I drink 2 beers am illegal for street use :) |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by smokin_blue on 02/23/10 at 04:39:37 424755454E260 wrote:
That statement would be true if you are in the US. The bikes with carburators are tuned so close to the EPA emissions limits. They have to go so lean to meet them (that is why the need for the tweaks). Technically once you change them at all you are violating the EPA laws on the bike. The the jet change, the muffler, anyone of them violated it. Now is there enough changes out there to kill the earth....that is another debate not for here. This all came about in 1978-1979 when the EPA tightened up, killed two strokes, and made all 4 strokes run terrible. Every bike I have had since 1979 has been re-jetted or adjustment screws (hidden behind plugs for a reason) tweaked. does that help? |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Routy on 02/23/10 at 05:20:53 In the US, I don't know of any law that is broken by the OWNER adjusting or modifying a carb that is not subjected to smog emission testing for street legal. Mfgs, dealers, repair shops etc are bound by law to meet emissions standards,......owners are not,.......to a point,....being we do not give reason for a state patrol to cite you for,...excessive smoking, excessive noise, etc etc. There are laws that prohibit modifying an emmissions system, which as far as I know would not include carb or dist and cam tuning to improve performance. Of course I could be wrong. But if so, lets see a list of emissions specs that us owners have to abide by. One day when smog checks are required on motorcycles, then is when the standards will be set for us owners. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Routy on 02/23/10 at 06:03:24 From the reading here, it sure seems that even the same yr model bikes do not run the same. My 07 stocker had only a lean spot in low/midrange, which a 1/2 spacer mod fixed to perfect (as near as I can describe) thru the entire range. I would never touch my jetting for sure. Others in the same yr model range, report needing more jetting, etc etc. Now what really differs, is how I have to really baby the throttle to get 50 mpg, and thats at seldom over 50 mph ! Except for downhill w/ a tail wind, I don't know how some are getting 60-70 mpg :o But you did hear about the 2 old guys that bought 2 new identical cars........ :D |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by bill67 on 02/23/10 at 06:13:33 Thats one reason I didn't change the spacer was to get good mpg and keep the plug from fouling.Your on the low speed jet only at low speeds and high speed jet mostly if your at wide open throttle,the spacer is where you are driving most of the time.The high and low speed jets do help the mid range some. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by thumperclone on 02/23/10 at 06:18:39 no pilot screw adjustmaent?? that may get rid of the woosh |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by dasch on 02/23/10 at 06:46:27 So in US you they don't give you "a break" if your vehicle is NOT equipped with electronic injection, computerized ignition and O2 sensor?? They treat all vehicles under the same standards? Strange if that is so. Here legal bracket for COx and NOx is higher for carburatted vehicles. Very strict for others. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Routy on 02/23/10 at 07:34:06 Well just for the record, mileage was the same long before the spacer mod, and the plug is still perfect after the mod. Don't worry, I've always had the mileage thing figured out,....did I mention the 2 old guys that bought,........yeah, I think I did ::) 252E2B2B7170470 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Routy on 02/23/10 at 07:41:31 If this is pertaining to my post above, I'm not understanding the point. I can't find where I said emission specs were the same for all vehicles. I would sure think their not. 373220303B530 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by dasch on 02/23/10 at 08:09:37 Yes routy, pertaining to your post. Here's what you said: "The bikes with carburators are tuned so close to the EPA emissions limits. They have to go so lean to meet them (that is why the need for the tweaks). Technically once you change them at all you are violating the EPA laws on the bike." That is the part I don't understand, if manufacturers have to jet your carb lean to meet EPA limits - than the bracket is too low, being one for all, or special for carbs. Still low. Does anybody know for sure if there's a legal "break" for carburatted engines?? |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Bear on 02/23/10 at 09:28:37 786479617C697E6F606362690C0 wrote:
Pilot screw remains sealed. I did not want to change too many things at once. The jets, spacer and small hole in baffle were enough to get it running great. If I didn't get the results I wanted, the pilot screw was the next step. Breaking the seal on the pilot screw is also an obvious clue that someone has been messing with the carb. Also, I do not need any choke to start and the low speed cold stumble was more noticable when temps are 60 degrees or less. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by bill67 on 02/23/10 at 10:20:22 707F657E626477757D7364160 wrote:
You got a lemon or your carburation is off. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Routy on 02/23/10 at 18:54:36 Dasch, Maybe you should learn to read who said what before you accuse people of saying stuff they didn't. To put it more clearly, I didn't write what you said I wrote ! 393C2E3E355D0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by dasch on 02/23/10 at 20:45:59 :-[ That's right, you actually didn't... Routy, I am embarrased... I mechanically replied to you, although it was SmokinBlue's post I was referring to. Sorry about that. Anyhow, I wonder if any of you US riders ever failed EPA test because of small carb interventions (mix screw adjustment or one size larger idle jet). |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by verslagen1 on 02/23/10 at 21:06:51 292C3E2E254D0 wrote:
EPA what? no testing required in CA 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Serowbot on 02/23/10 at 22:07:44 Az don't test bikes anymore,.. but the first year I had mine, I did a sporty muff, k/n filter, and did a 2/3 spacer. 150 main, and idle mix adjust... They had to sock the muffler to get any reading at all... and I suspect that was from overheating with 10 min. idling... A well tuned bike, will pass emissions... Number one testing tip for cars or bikes,... keep the idle speed up..... ;) |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Serowbot on 02/23/10 at 22:15:43 The slide is controlled by engine vacuum.... steady state cruising at speeds under 60mph or so, give very high vacuum, so there's not much slide action... you should be running mostly on the pilot jet... Slide is mostly active on acceleration... or WFO... ...it's pretty much a metering rod for the main jet...not really a separate system... once it's at zero vacuum, it's out of the way and the main is clear... The pilot jet has the biggest effect on mileage, if you're a mileage junkie... If you're a squid,... that's a whole 'nuther story... ;D Jets don't really react according to a bikes speed,... they react to engine vacuum... |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Routy on 02/24/10 at 05:09:27 3C37323268695E0 wrote:
You got a lemon or your carburation is off.[/quote] Very obvious,..... you never heard about them :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by bill67 on 02/24/10 at 05:20:59 Your getting the lowest mpg of anyone on here,There has to be a reason,Or you think everyone else is lying. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Routy on 02/24/10 at 12:54:43 Obvious you don't read much here, there are many down in the 40's. Now if I was a flat lander, I would probaby be doing 50 too, but I ride nothing but back hills here. But don't worry about it, my mpg is just fine, probably better than your if all was equal,.....and truthful. 545F5A5A0001360 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Bear on 02/24/10 at 13:14:24 I wrote the original post. Just as a side note, I have had no discoloration on the exhaust after 2300 miles, it is still as shiny as new. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by bill67 on 02/24/10 at 15:12:15 7C7369726E687B79717F681A0 wrote:
[/quote] I'm happy with my 60+ mpg and your happy with your 40+ mpg,Were both happy riders. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by verslagen1 on 02/24/10 at 15:12:19 My '88 with an '02 engine and an '88 carb in it is perfectly legal with the stock jets (155 I think) getting 1.9 to 2.1 gallons per 100 miles or so. Vs. my '96 and 150 main is ilegal getting 1.8 to 2.0 per 100 miles? |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by LANCER on 02/24/10 at 15:31:17 575C59590302350 wrote:
Mikuni Carb Manual http://www.mikuni.com/pdf/vmmanual.pdf -see page 20 for "Functional Range Effectiveness of tuning parts in relation to the throttle valve opening" |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by bill67 on 02/24/10 at 16:20:09 That a vm carb s40 doesn't have a vm carb. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Ed L. on 02/24/10 at 16:39:45 Well I'm guilty cause I probably get only 50 mpg on a good day. I expect it is due to my driving style but even babying my '02 I'm lucky to get 55 mpg. Of course a lot of my riding is done on the superslab at around 70 mph which is making the engine work harder than on the secondary roads. I'm not running rich cause my pipe is a nice golden color instead of deep blue. My worst milage was 38 mpg when I was squiding around a bunch of twisties in second and third gear. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by verslagen1 on 02/24/10 at 18:39:18 I'm toolin' up and back at 70 mostly, ok I do slow down when the cages get too close together. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by dasch on 02/25/10 at 05:18:07 40m/gallon is about 6lt/100km, that's kinda high for a 650 cruiser on open roads. Mine burns even more, due to smaller rear tire and short city rides, but nevertheless... |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Charon on 02/25/10 at 05:55:46 If you click on the "Fuelly" logo in my signature, you can review the fuel mileage on my S40, with just a few comments. According to them, my overall average is in the 55 range. I figured it once by taking the average of my fuel economy readings. Fuelly apparently figures it by total miles divided by total fuel, and gets a different answer. The reason I said modifying the jets results in a motorcycle illegal for road use is that the Clean Air Act forbids modifications that increase emissions, either of exhaust byproducts or of noise including intake noise. That prohibition includes not only mechanics, but owners. It does not matter if the resultant emissions still fall within limits - if they increase from where they started they are illegal. We all know those Federal laws are neither observed nor enforced, but they still exist. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by bill67 on 02/25/10 at 07:15:15 I do use 100% gasoline in all my cars and motorcycles. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Charon on 02/25/10 at 07:28:41 Would you be so kind as to define "100% gasoline" for us? Does that mean it has no additives at all? Including the Federally mandated ones designed to keep intake valves clean? And remembering that gasoline is not a single compound but a blend of dozens if not hundreds of different hydrocarbons? And that its formulation varies depending on season and location? |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by bill67 on 02/25/10 at 07:34:10 On the gas tanks where I buy gasoline it says 100% gasoline,So thats what the Gas companies think it is. No veggie oils. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by dasch on 02/25/10 at 07:54:15 And no ethilene (alcohol). |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by jabman on 02/25/10 at 10:49:24 you can test fuel with a simple test with a old bottle to see how much alcohol it has it the method is in the cylmers manual |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Routy on 02/25/10 at 13:11:08 6B6065653F3E090 wrote:
Hey Bill, Dija check the MPG poll lately,....hee hee ;D Did you ever hear about the 2 old guys that bought identical cars........aw, forget it, you didn't ::) I think "most" tell the truth on MPG, but some don't,...it's always been that way. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by bill67 on 02/25/10 at 13:23:35 I see that, so far we have 3 real liars here. On the mpg poll. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by BurnPgh on 02/25/10 at 18:39:27 there's only 12 people involved in this thread so far, including myself with this comment. 25% liars...idk what to say. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Bear on 02/25/10 at 20:17:07 43484D4D1716210 wrote:
I don't know if it is intentional lying. I wonder how accurate the pumps are when dispensing a gallon and a half, stopping three times and dribbling out the last quart so we don't overfill. When I reported my milage at the beginning of this post it was from 4 fillups at the same station. Best information I have. I suspect the pumps are pretty accurate dumping 25 gallons with the valve wide open. Accurate with our dribbles of gas - i just don't know. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Routy on 02/26/10 at 05:51:06 I think Bill is the only one that accused people of lying on the poll. I just know of those that always round out the numbers, like 1.2 gallons becomes a gallon,........and 1.7 becomes 1 1/2 gallons. And then there are those that always give their best ever mileage as gospel. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by bill67 on 02/26/10 at 05:58:09 The 3 people that get over 60 mpg must be lying |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Charon on 02/26/10 at 07:07:33 They may not be. I have recorded three over-70 mpg tanks, and 13 over-60 mpg tanks not counting the over-70 ones. I have also recorded an under-40 mpg tank and 7 under-50 mpg tanks not counting the low one. Most tanks cluster in the 52 to 56 mpg range. According to Fuelly (in my signature block) my average is a little over 55 (I didn't exactly cite it, because it will change whenever I get the bike out and fuel it again). I could easily have checked any of the blocks in the poll by "cherry-picking" the one I wanted. Perhaps I, too, could be a proud member of the Liar's Club. If you really care, you can click on the Fuelly logo in my signature block (or the one in several other signature blocks) and review each recorded mpg. You can also see what happened when I tried the "white spacer modification" and why I put the spacer back in. By the way, I have no idea what jets may be in my carburetor. The bike is box stock, purchased new from a local dealer. I have removed the cover over the pilot screw and played with the adjustment, but couldn't really notice any difference. My bike has never backfired on shut-down, and only backfires on deceleration infrequently. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Ed L. on 02/26/10 at 16:44:53 I can see a STOCK savage getting 55-60 mpg with ease. Even with a lot depending on the driver a stock engine is soo leaned out for EPA requirements you will get better gas mileage at a cost to the performance of the engine. I don't think anybody is telling tall tails about their milage. My bike has been tweeked fo more horse power instead of high mpg, I'm a compulsive mechanic and like twisting the best out of a motor no matter what it is. To each his own, a savage will give great milage if not modified and ridden easy. |
|
Title: Re: Rejetting That Works Post by Routy on 02/27/10 at 08:35:45 Just because an engine is tuned to pass EPA specs, doesn't mean that its getting the best milage, especially when its leaned out to the point of running rough, and actually running better w/ the choke on 1 click. Most any engine is running the most effeciently, when it is running smoothly,....lets call it "correctly" But that doesn't mean that it isn't putting out more hydrocarbons. Remember in the 70s when carbs were leaned, ignitions and camshafts were retarded to pass the first emissions specs,....while at the same time miliage went down to an all time low ? But I was an auto tech in Ca then, so probably know more about that than some. 01201B086A440 wrote:
|
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |