Differences between Gen 2 and Gen 1 & 2.5 Clutch Assemblies

[JamesK]

As has been covered in a number of threads, I have replaced the Clutch Slave Cylinder on my Gen 2 with a Gen 1 unit to achieve lighter operation of the clutch lever.

https://www.fjrforum.com/forum//index.php/topic/126113-changing-clutch-engagement-point-without-adjusting-the-lever/page-2

https://www.fjrforum.com/forum//index.php/topic/116816-clutch-slave-cylinder/page-2

https://www.google.com/search?q=gen+I+clutch+cylinder+on+gen+II+site:fjrforum.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGHP_en

As everyone who's done this mod I too have found that as a result the clutch lever setting and engagement point have changed for the worse.

There are threads discussing varying degrees of success/failure in trying to correct this issue by adding a small spacer into the clutch slave cylinder cup.

I was curious however why this same Gen 1 clutch slave cylinder works fine on the Gen 1 and Gen 2.5 (e.g. '09) FJRs. Since I'm planning to replace my clutch assembly in the near future (my OEM clutch has 185k miles on it) I went through the micro fiches of the clutch assembly of my '07 vs. '09 and the only significant differences I can identify are obviously the Clutch Slave Cylinder and an extra spacer found in the '05 and '09 Clutch Assemblies.

This extra part # 8 on the 2009 Diagram is called the "RING, CLUTCH BOSS" P/N: 2H7-16385-00-00, it looks like this is what was done differently on the '09 onwards FJRs to make the Gen 1 Clutch Cylinder work correctly.

Now the question is, when I order the replacement clutch parts can I simply order this Clutch Boss Ring and solve the engagement point issue the way the Yamaha engineers did?

2007FJR1300A-FJR13AW CLUTCH Diagram 2009FJR1300A-FJR13AYB CLUTCH Diagram



2007 vs. 2009 FJR1300 A Clutch Assembly Comparison

 

[mcatrophy]

I can possibly add to the confusion slightly.

I did a clutch soak on my '06, this looked like your 2007 parts.

skifrik used my "how-to", but found he had the later clutch in his '09. His had the spring wire (item 8), his also had a different ring item 5, his had the word "outside" stamped on it, mine had a white dot. I assume they are different, but not looked in detail.

More recently I did a clutch soak on my '10. This was (at least superficially) the same as my '06, no spring wire, and a white dot. So it looks as if Yamaha reverted to the older clutch for the '10. It could be that they never used the different clutch for the AS(AE).

Not sure if that helps you at all ...

 

[SLK50]

The larger bore of the slave now requires more displacement than the

master cylinder provides.

It would take a larger bore in the master to restore clutch action.

However, this would also increase effort at the lever effectively returning

It to where you started.

You can't have it both ways.

BTW, I don't see how that retaining ring would make any difference

in the operation of the clutch.

Do all years have the same master cylinder?

 

[Fred W]

Do all years have the same master cylinder?

Yes. The clutch side master cylinder is the same part number from 2003 thru 2012 (5JW-W2645-01-00). The 2013 and 14 have a different part number.

 

[HotRodZilla]

Donno what the issue is, but I sure am glad I decided NOT to change my '07 slave cylinder to an '05 slave. I was "this close" to buying one and decided to just leave things alone. Thank goodness I did.

 

[JamesK]

So any suggestions from the WOTL as to what parts to buy?

It would seem to me that if I bought the extra bits from a 2009 fiche since I'll be pulling the clutch apart anyway it can't hurt and will most likely help.

 

[Chuck35]

After installing a Gen 1 slave on my 08, I too had insufficient travel. An aftermarket lever with a wider adjustment range was just what I needed.

 

[richsp51]

So any suggestions from the WOTL as to what parts to buy?

It would seem to me that if I bought the extra bits from a 2009 fiche since I'll be pulling the clutch apart anyway it can't hurt and will most likely help.

Hey James, any update? To to achieve lighter operation of the clutch lever I too am considering replacing the Clutch Slave Cylinder on my Gen 2 with a Gen 1 unit , but based on your and the other posts that you referenced regarding clutch lever setting and engagement point, I'm backing off for now.

It sounds like your going ahead with adding the "Ring, Clutch Boss" P/N: 2H7-16385-00-00. Can you please report back when you have the results of this experiment?

Thanks.

 

[JamesK]

So any suggestions from the WOTL as to what parts to buy?

It would seem to me that if I bought the extra bits from a 2009 fiche since I'll be pulling the clutch apart anyway it can't hurt and will most likely help.

Hey James, any update? To to achieve lighter operation of the clutch lever I too am considering replacing the Clutch Slave Cylinder on my Gen 2 with a Gen 1 unit , but based on your and the other posts that you referenced regarding clutch lever setting and engagement point, I'm backing off for now.

It sounds like your going ahead with adding the "Ring, Clutch Boss" P/N: 2H7-16385-00-00. Can you please report back when you have the results of this experiment?

Thanks.

richsp51,

My Gen1 clutch slave cylinder engagement point is totally ok with the Pazzo lever set at 5 or higher. My hands are a standard size L (in glove measurements) so the #4 setting is far more comfortable. I have the lever set at #4 but need to be conscious to pull the lever all the way in, until it touches the grip to ensure full clutch disengagement.

At the moment, and after the following FredW's advice to tie-wrap the clutch lever overnight the original problem of intermittent shifting into 1st gear seems to have gone away. My clutch is not slipping yet, so I'm not in as much of a hurry to spend all the money I'd need to in order to replace all the parts, including the clutch basket, etc.

I've done about all the research I can on this, so when the time comes I'll likely try to order all the relevant, additional parts included in the 2009 onwards clutch assembly. I can't see why this would not work.

 

[richsp51]

richsp51,

My Gen1 clutch slave cylinder engagement point is totally ok with the Pazzo lever set at 5 or higher. My hands are a standard size L (in glove measurements) so the #4 setting is far more comfortable. I have the lever set at #4 but need to be conscious to pull the lever all the way in, until it touches the grip to ensure full clutch disengagement.

At the moment, and after the following FredW's advice to tie-wrap the clutch lever overnight the original problem of intermittent shifting into 1st gear seems to have gone away. My clutch is not slipping yet, so I'm not in as much of a hurry to spend all the money I'd need to in order to replace all the parts, including the clutch basket, etc.

I've done about all the research I can on this, so when the time comes I'll likely try to order all the relevant, additional parts included in the 2009 onwards clutch assembly. I can't see why this would not work.

JamesK, thanks for your reply. Let me ask you... in your opinion, when all is said and done, do you think it's worth replacing the Clutch Slave Cylinder on a Gen 2 with a Gen 1 unit considering the collateral issues that ensue? Would you do it again? I'm still on the fence. Any /all opinions are welcome.

Thank you, All the contributions by you, FredW and others on this issue have been both educational and appreciated by me.

RIch

 

[JamesK]

Rich, I ride quite a bit, and where I live I need to use the clutch a lot in getting to/from the good roads. Sometimes having to lane split through 15-20 miles of cages. Also since I like mountain passes you tend to do a lot of shifting on the tight twisty roads. So a lighter clutch makes for a more comfortable long days.

From what I've read, the engagement point with the Gen1 clutch varies on each Gen 2 FJR, in my case it's pretty good, so no real complaints, just the benefit of a lighter clutch. It's worth noting that I changed my clutch slave cylinder about 60k miles ago, so don't really remember now how much worse/harder the OEM clutch setup was to use.

IMHO, if you can find a used Gen 1 cylinder at a good price, it's worth giving it a shot. The swap is quick and easy, so you can switch back if it's not working for you or the benefits are not sufficient to warrant a permanent swap.

 

[RaYzerman19]

James, I've had a Gen 1 slave on mine for a couple of years now, with Pazzo's at 4, and yes the travel is greater. I have no issue unless I put the Pazzo's at 3, then I get dragging. I have used Amzoil exclusively, if oil is a factor. I'm also assuming there is no air in the system for what follows.

The ring you refer to is a fine wire that fits in a groove on part #3 Clutch Boss to hold parts 4, 5, 6, 7 in place. Notice, '07 & '09 have different part numbers, the difference being the groove for the wire. I'm not sure what the function is except to hold them during reassembly, and doubt it is even truly necessary in either year. I can't see how this is going to change clutch travel at all. The thicknesses of one or more friction plates or metal plates would have to increase to reduce travel.... same plates for both years.

What may be happening is your friction plates are worn such that it takes more travel. One can only speculate until you dissassemble the clutch, clean and measure the plate thicknesses with a micrometer. Also, warpage in the metal plates could be a factor, i.e., warpage would make the clutch artificially thicker therefore more travel.... however, highly unlikely as the whole package is compressed by the large springs. Warpage might cause dragging when clutch disengaged. Check warpage on a flat piece of glass with a feeler gauge.

Friction plates should be 2.90-3.10 mm (0.114-0.122 in.), with a wear limit of 2.80 mm (0.110 in).

Metal plates should be 1.90-2.10 mm (0.075-0.083 in.) and max. warpage of 0.10 mm (0.004 in).

My guess is if you just replace the friction plates, you'll be good to go, assuming no significant warpage in the metal plates. It's a simple job really, the longest time is soaking the new plates in oil overnight. About an hour or so total actual labour once you get the right side plastic off.

So with all this insight and advice, and all the money I just saved you, I'm thinking I need a discount on some stuff for my Wee

 

[richsp51]

Rich, I ride quite a bit, and where I live I need to use the clutch a lot in getting to/from the good roads. Sometimes having to lane split through 15-20 miles of cages. Also since I like mountain passes you tend to do a lot of shifting on the tight twisty roads. So a lighter clutch makes for a more comfortable long days.
From what I've read, the engagement point with the Gen1 clutch varies on each Gen 2 FJR, in my case it's pretty good, so no real complaints, just the benefit of a lighter clutch. It's worth noting that I changed my clutch slave cylinder about 60k miles ago, so don't really remember now how much worse/harder the OEM clutch setup was to use.

IMHO, if you can find a used Gen 1 cylinder at a good price, it's worth giving it a shot. The swap is quick and easy, so you can switch back if it's not working for you or the benefits are not sufficient to warrant a permanent swap.

Thanks James for the background and insight, much appreciated. It seems that if doing the swap to a GEN I clutch slave, that the Pazzo's or knockoffs is practically a necessity as well. I was wondering if you tried the spacer in the clutch slave cylinder cup that you referenced at the beginning of this post? (Same question to RaYzerman19).

Anyway, I like the suggestion to get a GEN I clutch slave , which I see can be readily found on eBay , and trying it out knowing that it's an easy swap and can be readily reversed if I don't like the results.

Regards

 

[JamesK]

James, I've had a Gen 1 slave on mine for a couple of years now, with Pazzo's at 4, and yes the travel is greater. I have no issue unless I put the Pazzo's at 3, then I get dragging. I have used Amzoil exclusively, if oil is a factor. I'm also assuming there is no air in the system for what follows.
The ring you refer to is a fine wire that fits in a groove on part #3 Clutch Boss to hold parts 4, 5, 6, 7 in place. Notice, '07 & '09 have different part numbers, the difference being the groove for the wire. I'm not sure what the function is except to hold them during reassembly, and doubt it is even truly necessary in either year. I can't see how this is going to change clutch travel at all. The thicknesses of one or more friction plates or metal plates would have to increase to reduce travel.... same plates for both years.

What may be happening is your friction plates are worn such that it takes more travel. One can only speculate until you dissassemble the clutch, clean and measure the plate thicknesses with a micrometer. Also, warpage in the metal plates could be a factor, i.e., warpage would make the clutch artificially thicker therefore more travel.... however, highly unlikely as the whole package is compressed by the large springs. Warpage might cause dragging when clutch disengaged. Check warpage on a flat piece of glass with a feeler gauge.

Friction plates should be 2.90-3.10 mm (0.114-0.122 in.), with a wear limit of 2.80 mm (0.110 in).

Metal plates should be 1.90-2.10 mm (0.075-0.083 in.) and max. warpage of 0.10 mm (0.004 in).

My guess is if you just replace the friction plates, you'll be good to go, assuming no significant warpage in the metal plates. It's a simple job really, the longest time is soaking the new plates in oil overnight. About an hour or so total actual labour once you get the right side plastic off.

So with all this insight and advice, and all the money I just saved you, I'm thinking I need a discount on some stuff for my Wee

Thanks for the info RaYzerman19, sorry about the late reply, been busy ridin', you know

I'm leaning more towards swapping out more parts. I'm sure there's plenty of wear/pitting in the groves of the clutch basket, and the springs can't be that great after 185k miles.

Like FredW, said at this kind of mileage the clutch doesn't owe me anything, and I'd rather not go back in there again if I don't have to.

 

[RaYzerman19]

James, that clutch basket is near enough $500, and (3) clutch boss $70. I would simply inspect those first, before deciding to buy a new one. It's likely OK unless one constantly abuses the bike. I agree at that mileage wouldn't hurt to do the metal plates, (12) spring and (4) spring. For the slave cyl/lever travel issue, replacing the plates and springs is going to get you the bang for your buck.

 

[JamesK]

James, that clutch basket is near enough $500, and (3) clutch boss $70. I would simply inspect those first, before deciding to buy a new one. It's likely OK unless one constantly abuses the bike. I agree at that mileage wouldn't hurt to do the metal plates, (12) spring and (4) spring. For the slave cyl/lever travel issue, replacing the plates and springs is going to get you the bang for your buck.

Thanks, that makes sense, will follow that good advice.

 

[Fred W]

I'm not so sure.

I know that it is intuitive that as the plates wear the engagement point would change, but one of the key "features" of having hydraulic clutch actuation is the self adjusting feature that the hydraulics provide.

Furthermore, if there were no hydraulic "self adjust", as the plates wear the dimension of the stacked-up plates would decrease, moving the pressure plate inward when fully released (engaged). This would push the clutch pushrod further out the opposite side into the slave cylinder, which means that it would shift the engagement/disengagement of the lever to be further away from the handlebar, not closer to it.

So I do not think the root problem with using a 1st gen slave on gen 2's is related to clutch wear. There has to be some other component that is dimensionally different in those early 2nd gens. I'm going to peruse the parts lists posted earlier and see if I can suss it out.

 

[Fred W]

OK, I've done a comparison of all three subsets of clutch parts:

1st Gens w/o the problem (2005), 2nd Gen w/ the problem (2006) and 2nd Gen w/o the problem (2009) and there are few more parts that are changing between these subsets than originally identified. Below is the full comparison:

The interesting things that are different are that the 3 - Clutch Boss, 4 - Plate Seat, and 5 - Spring, Clutch Boss part numbers all change.

As previously found, the Ring Clutch Boss is not installed on the problematic subset and the bolts were different, though these items shouldn't matter.

The other thing that varies is the push rod part number is different from 1st gens to 2nd gens. I wonder if the length of the rod is different?

And of course as we already know the slave cylinder is different. If someone with a second gen could order a 1st gen rod and compare the length to a 2nd gen it might be good.

 

[SLK50]

Fred, I'm following this thread to find some resolution to this issue on my own bike.

System is self adjusting, piston in slave doesn't retract more than rod pushes it back,

therefore, length of rod shouldn't make a difference.

Piston will always "null" at rest, no take-up is necessary.

The only component that I see affecting lever travel, ( unless I'm missing something )

is piston diameter. And that's already been ruled out.

This is giving me a head ache.