The Curse of Odot

RH,

If you are trying to check for compression with the cams out, you will not get any.If all valves are closed, you don't get any air in cyl. to compress. The proper test at this point would be a leak down test.

I would not write off the motor until you test it the right way.

Get a leak down test tool. Introduce pressure to one cyl. at a time and see if all are equal.

Tim

Tim05fjr said:

RH,
If you are trying to check for compression with the cams out, you will not get any.If all valves are closed, you don't get any air in cyl. to compress. The proper test at this point would be a leak down test.

I would not write off the motor until you test it the right way.

Get a leak down test tool. Introduce pressure to one cyl. at a time and see if all are equal.

Tim

Click to expand...

Good point. What air is in there is in there. You maybe compressing some of it while other cylinders would have a vacuum effect. Maybe not the best way to tell. I would agree, checking compression with cams in will introduce the air that will be compressed etc. The only problem maybe if you haven't done this recently, you don't have a baseline to start with. You do have factory specs but lower compression could be from other wear and not a non-seating valve.
Give 'er a shot Howie.

In the case of the manual tensioner, would it even be accessible on our bike? Can you get to that locknut?

Looking at these, I've wondered why it couldn't be done with an arm and sprocket, the way a car's timing belt is tensioned with an arm and pulley. I guess a chain doesn't need anywhere near the tension that a belt does, and lighter tension might allow short periods of slack-slapping. Or maybe it's just too bulky to fit.

Hate to hear that news, Howie, but I'm hopeful that per Tim05fjr's comments, there's a glimmer of hope that it is not as you suspect. Fingers crossed -- praying you aren't in same situation as ionbeam documented last year.

Tim05fjr said:

If you are trying to check for compression with the cams out, you will not get any.If all valves are closed, you don't get any air in cyl. to compress. The proper test at this point would be a leak down test.

Click to expand...

[SIZE=14pt]HOLY ****! YOU'RE RIGHT!!![/SIZE]

I completely forgot that to compress air in the cylinders, the motor has to be able to draw air INTO the cylinders!!

What a ******* dipshit dweeb I am for not thinking that. With the cams out, the pistons are basically just spinning in a vacuum!

OMFG what an ***** I am!!!!

I MAY have jumped the gun on my diagnosis......stand by......gonna take me a couple of hours to put everything back in with correct cam timing.

God Bless you, Tim, for pointing this out!!!

**** me for being stoooooopid!

Fingers crossed!

**** ya wore off on me! I missed that too... I don't wanna see what Rads gonna have to say aboot this

:jester:

I may not be a mechanic, but I did spend a night at a Holiday Inn Express.

Just thought I'd help out. Been in the same situation a few times myself. Sometimes we think too deeply into a problem that turns out to be simple. Let's hope this one falls into that catagory.

When I read Ion's post a while back, I changed my TCC right away. Bike had 35,000 at the time and was just starting to make some noise.

If you don't have a leakdown tool. You can just introduce air to the sparkplug hole and listen to see if air is coming through exhaust or intake ports.

This would save you the time of putting everything back together just to check compression.

I strongly feel however, that from your description, you should be able to get away with just replaceing the TCC and chain.

Good luck,

Take a deep breath, crack open a cold beer, and get that bike running again.

Tim

Bustanut joker said:

**** ya wore off on me! I missed that too... I don't wanna see what Rads gonna have to say aboot this
:jester:

Click to expand...

Doesn't count WHAT he says....Tim05FJR already let the cat outta the bag.

But, still bad news.

I just did a "poor man's" compression test...

Pulled the plugs so air can be drawn in and forced out with piston movement. Lightly place finger in plug hole to allow air in, but feel compression out.

Cylinder #1 is a dead hole. Cylinder #2 will jackhammer your finger in and out of the plug hole like a meat-piston. Cylinder #3 & #4 also dead holes.

NO vacuum or compression on 1, 3 & 4 using this method.

Plus, the intake lifters on 1, 3 & 4 are noticeably lower in their holes than on 2.

It's ******. At least I didn't have to work my *** off for several hours to discover the same thing.

Double-****.

Thanks for the idea, Tim. Just too bad the diagnosis remains.

Sorry to hear that, I'm always the optomist.

Oh Well, now that you're half way there, get a case of beer. Pull the head off and see if it can be saved.

As long as the pistons didn't get buggered up you can save it.

Tim

wfooshee said:

In the case of the manual tensioner, would it even be accessible on our bike? Can you get to that locknut?

Click to expand...

The answer is a definitive "YES". The locknut would only have to be loosened a hair, say with an 8mm box end, then the adjustment would be made through the frame hole you would use to retract the tensioner on the OEM unit. All that's needed for adjustment is no more than finger "snug" on the adjustment bolt, since that's really the only amount of pressure the OEM spring-fed plunger can apply, so a quick adjustment, say at every oil change, would be a snap.

Take a look at a side-by-side comparison of the "in place" OEM part and the Sudco manual version. I've rotated the Sudco image to place it in similar alignment with the OEM version as it's mounted on the motor. I've also highlited the portion of the OEM part that isn't present or necessary in the Sudco part to better visualize how much of the OEM part's body extends into the small space needed for adjustment. It would be a snap to get to the locknut, AND to get to end of the adjuster, even with your fingers, since that's only the amount of force you'd want to provide.

Looking at these, I've wondered why it couldn't be done with an arm and sprocket, the way a car's timing belt is tensioned with an arm and pulley. I guess a chain doesn't need anywhere near the tension that a belt does, and lighter tension might allow short periods of slack-slapping. Or maybe it's just too bulky to fit.

Click to expand...

Here's the picture of the chain case from Post #1....



Is there room for a sprocket/tension arm? I don't think so. Don't be fooled by the amount of room in between the two chain runs...any sprocket/tension device would have to be on the outside of the chains, forcing them towards the open space, to take out any slack. Maybe a small idler sprocket in the area right next to the bolt hole in the picture (where the aft chain slipper is), mounted on a plate, spring loaded to pull the ider towards the center of the area could be worked out. But it still would depend on a spring to do the "pulling" and some sort of ratcheting device to preven return movement. I think a replacement of the OEM CCT with a manual version would be MUCH simpler and effective and you're not re-inventing the wheel.

From what I've learned about the CCT system on an FJR this week, were I to buy another FJR, I would RUN, not walk, to a manual tensioner.

That's just me. So far, it looks like Ionbeam and I are the only CCCTF victims on the forum. Have there been others by owners that don't visit or post here? Who knows. And certainly my and 'beam's problems aren't a concensus by any means, and there are thousands of Feejers out there with many, MANY miles on them that haven't grenaded, but given all the anecdotal evidence on this forum alone of CCT replacements and cam chain noise, plus what I've lived through the last 72 hours, could I jump in Mr. Peabody's WayBack machine, I'd have a manual CCT on my FJR before I'd EVER hit the Start Button again.

Sound like I'm an alarmist? Maybe so, but YOUR FJR isn't sitting dead in your garage.

Yet. :assassin:

Re-reading some of the earlier threads, since I ain't got nothin' better to do, 'cept get ****-faced...

Fred W said:

My thinking is that most or all of the catastrophic CCT problems are related to the spring malfunctioning and allowing the tensioner to back way off, thereby allowing the chain to skip a tooth.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, except for one thing -- "spring malfunctioning". My problem is CERTAINLY caused by a spring malfunction. The ****** broke. Nothing to add more tension to the chain, and nothing to prevent adjuster "crawl", allowing the adjuster to "back out" and the chain to come loose enough to skip a tooth.

Was I'beam's truly a "malfunction"? Or simply what one might expect due to design, heat de-tempering of the spring, poor pre-tensioning during assembly? Who knows. In Alan's CCT travels, he HAS noted varying amounts of spring tensions with brand new, out-of-the-box CCTs.

A manual chain tensioner won't do that. As the chain wears, it should get very slightly loose and noisy long before the chain is loose enough to jump ship.

Click to expand...

Gunny that! And a plunger/adjustment rod that's locknutted in place is NOT gonna "back out" from vibration and chain slap, causing even MORE slack to be injected into the mechanism.

However, will having a slightly loose chain increase the wear rate of the chain, sprockets and slippers?

Click to expand...

Logic tells me no, but it depends on how you define "slightly loose chain". I'd guess that the difference between a perfectly adjusted chain and a noisy chain isn't terribly great. So a "slightly loose chain" would fall in between those two "measurements". I'd bet dollars to donuts that a brand new, 0 mile FJR has "some" deflection in the chain. Not a great amount, of course, but enough that could be defined as "slightly loose".

The idea of a properly functioning automatic chain tensioner is that it keep the chain at the exact perfect tension (no slack) at all times as the chain stretches.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. But,

I bet the reason they went for a "clock-spring" arrangement is that the spring force theoretically should remain more constant over the range oif operation that a simple expansion spring.

Click to expand...

This part of your sentence I disagree with. Given the size and delicate nature of the spring used in the OEM CCT (VERY fine wire), plus the amount of spring force available from such a weak-assed spring, I'd say the decision to use the design Yamaha used was based entirely on "what worked before" and cost.

In respect to cost, I don't mean the cost of the spring. I'm talking about warranty cost. Think about it...with a MANUAL CCT, owners under warranty would be returning to dealerships every 4-5K miles just to get rid of the low RPM chain noise. Dealers NOT getting paid for a quick tweak of a manual adjuster would get real pissed real fast. And owners would get real pissed with a bike that has to be "adjusted" every few thousand miles, ESPECIALLY out-of-warranty owners. Just think of the rear-drive comparisons made between shafties and sprocket/chain bikes.

The concept of an "automatic" CCT is all well and good, but I tend to think the concept is there to keep everybody happy...the dealer, the owner AND the manufacturer. And unfortunately, it was conceived to cut down on maintenance, NOT because it's a better solution. We ALL want to spend our time riding, not wrenching, but given the critical function the CCT serves, I'd take a manual over an automatic ANY day.

This seriously seems like the a "Brodie Relay" or KLR "Doo-hickey" type thing that needs a fix engineered for it. The "fix" may just be a better spring or some other mod to the existing mechanism?

Click to expand...

I think there alreays IS a "fix" available. Two, in fact. Simplest and most effective, given an owner's willingness to "DIY" is a manual tensioner. The second would be to remove the OEM CCT, disassemble it and add in rotation or two of the plunger to increase the spring tension. The problem I have with #2 is you'd be putting more tension on a spring that, to me, is under-sized (or under-engineered) for the job to begin with.

All this is pure speculation at its best, and unfortunately, too late for my FJR, but I can guarantee you, before I spend another dime on ANYTHING for my other bike, I'm putting a manual CCT tensioner on it.

Bummer Howie.

Well.... Take a break and keep us posted. You need some time to recover. :blink:

Howie,

First let me say what first comes to mind about your most recent diagnosis:

[SIZE=14pt]THAT BLOWS![/SIZE]

And now, let me say: Thank you for continuing this discussion, in light of your recent travails.

To my way of thinking, this kind of failure is unacceptable. Both yours and Ionbeam's engines had relatively low mileage. The fact that your spring was actually broken says that the spring that they selected for this "mission critical" part is substandard at best. Alan has also noted wide variations of spring tension in finished assemblies, which brings the assembly process into question.

One has to wonder, did your spring break because it was assembled wrong? Too many twists?

Is there that much variation in springs that the springs themselves are losing temper and changing tension over time and heat cycles?

I must admit that I started my bike today only to listen closely to the right side chain noise. I ride with earplugs all the time so I might not ever hear the slap-happy chain noise without a concerted effort.

I'm still not sure that a manual tensioner is the full answer, but it sure seems better than the alternatives at this point.

edit - One more thing: Don't part out the bike yet. This is (probably) just a head problem. If you are willing and able to do the work yourself, and it certainly seems that you are capable, you still may be able to resurrect the beast. Hell, even if it means slapping a used engine in there, the rest of the bike is still worth salvaging.

Been following this for some time now and the idea of a manual adjuster makes pretty good sense. I looked all over the shop and found the old CCT from my 03 and just did an autopsy on it. It looks like all that is required to convert it is to machine a bushing to take the place of the spring and then use a 6mm bolt through the existing hole with a lock nut and you have a manual adjusting CCT. I don't know how long the bolt needs to be because I can't find the calipers now. I may just have to find some bronze and fire up the lathe. It looks real simple.

Here is what I came up with for converting the CCT for manual adjusment.

In the first pic is the stock adjuster with all its parts.



In this pic are the replacement parts with the old ones that are replaced at the top. The large bushing takes the place of the spring and its sleve. The smaller bronze rod goes inside the plunger so as not to have to use a really long screw ( not that a long one is a bad thing).



This one shows the CCT assembled. It seems to have plenty of adjustment. The only problem I see is that the screw may have to be installed once the main part is installed because of the length and the adjustment screw will end up inside the frame rail but I don't think that will matter because you can still reach it. Before assy you will need to run a 6MM tap through the hole to clean up the threads because they aren't designrd to have a screw all the way through.

FJRay said:

Here is what I came up with for converting the CCT for manual adjusment.
In the first pic is the stock adjuster with all its parts.

In this pic are the replacement parts with the old ones that are replaced at the top. The large bushing takes the place of the spring and its sleve. The smaller bronze rod goes inside the plunger so as not to have to use a really long screw ( not that a long one is a bad thing).

This one shows the CCT assembled. It seems to have plenty of adjustment. The only problem I see is that the screw may have to be installed once the main part is installed because of the length and the adjustment screw will end up inside the frame rail but I don't think that will matter because you can still reach it. Before assy you will need to run a 6MM tap through the hole to clean up the threads because they aren't designrd to have a screw all the way through.

Click to expand...

As you joked, there's nothing wrong with a long screw.

There might even be a plus to the screw being so long it extends into the frame hole.....the screw could help "balance" the CCT in the opening while you're trying to get the small bolts back in their holes to reattach to the block. Have to see it in action to be sure.

One thing that also might be necessary for this to work is a crush washer under the lock nut. There appears to be an O-ring in the housing where the OEM adjusting sleeve sits, but there might be an oil seepage problem around those threads. The adjuster is directly below the intake cam and oil pumped into the cam area during engine operation is gonna be ALL over that extended plunger and might seep back.

But all in all, I think yer on ta something.

NOW, go back in time 3 days and reengineer mine before the fateful (fatal) warm-up run, okay?

edit: Just curious, what do have, $$-wise, in the large bushing and bronze rod? Other than the long screw and locknut, that's about all there is to the conversion, no?

2nd edit: I just HAVE to ask you...would you trust that on YOUR FJR? I would.

Howie, an 06 motor just popped on Fleabay, your neck of the woods (Zephyrhills) for $800. Clean and complete.

Engine

As to the mechanical tensioner, an allen head bolt would be better than the screw, as it would be of a higher grade of steel I think-stainless even. I like the idea-I trust the oe setup less and less as time goes on.

Damn Ray, you're QUICK!

I post a link to manual CCT less than 24hrs ago and you already convert one, cool!

I assume that the large brass bushing had to be turned down from standard stock?

If you make some measurements, maybe we could see if a stock APE CCT would do.

Damn Howie I'm sorry to hear this!!

radman said:

Howie, an 06 motor just popped on Fleabay, your neck of the woods (Zephyrhills) for $800. Clean and complete.
Engine

Click to expand...

That's a helluva price for an '06 motor with only 10k miles on it if one could get it at the current price...but would it plumb up to a Gen I frame, electrics, cooling, fueling, etc.?

I took a stroll through the seller's online store and it's fairly apparent he's parting out an entire '06. And some of the prices are outstandingly low. Except for the rear end, for which he's asking >$9,000....I believe that's a typo.

As to the mechanical tensioner, an allen head bolt would be better than the screw, as it would be of a higher grade of steel I think-stainless even. I like the idea-I trust the oe setup less and less as time goes on.

Click to expand...

Gunny on the screw idea...I "also" have trust issues with the OEM setup. (duh!)