The spark plug is 18mm.

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.

SavageRider wrote on 12/31/69 at 16:00:02:


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.

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?

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)

Savage_Greg wrote on 12/31/69 at 16:00:02:


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

Susan wrote on 12/31/69 at 16:00:02:


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.

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.


Also, I wondered if all petcocks are the same.  Here is the back of the petc0ck...


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