2007 Yamaha YZF600R - almost 5900 miles. Flopping between Rotella 5W40 and 15W40. Got the dino in there now. I'll put the syn back in during winter I guess. Who knows.
Any sportbike guys around here ?
- Thread starter Ninjaracer636
- Start date
- Status
Not quite a sportbike but close enough. I bought an '03 Kawasaki Concours last fall. I've got a few miles to go before I change the oil but when I do I'll be using Mobil 1 MX4T 10W-40 and a K&N oil filter.
Last edited:
I have owned 4 sport bikes. I am just getting older and too fat to "assume the posiition" any more.
I just got a Bandit 1200S, myself. Not quite sport, but sporty. Bought it at a Honda dealer in Manassas, Virginia. Consignment bike, a guy bought it new in the crate in 05, put three thousand on it, parked it. A first bike, it scared him, wife didn't want him on it, he hadda million reasons not to ride it, so he consigned it. I'm having them put a 7500 mile service, Dunlop RoadSmart tires, battery, and braided steel lines, new EBC organic front pads. Other stuff, too. The bike is like new, but IMHO, the consumables needed attention. My last bike was a Nighthawk S 700. At 80K, it had a cracked frame, gave it away for parts. Been without a bike nearly two seasons, ain't been right since.
They tell me the GSX-R 1150 big block is pretty quick in this iteration, can't wait to get it next week.. Shortly after that, I re-locate to New England, North Shore. Should be a fun first long haul. Hmmm, I won't be at Dulles anymore, I'll have to change my username, no?
They tell me the GSX-R 1150 big block is pretty quick in this iteration, can't wait to get it next week.. Shortly after that, I re-locate to New England, North Shore. Should be a fun first long haul. Hmmm, I won't be at Dulles anymore, I'll have to change my username, no?
Just changed the oil in the ZX-11D to AMSOIL 20W-50 ("old" motorcycle formulation that I had sitting on the shelf that I picked up for $3.47 per quart)...
Flat AMAZING the amount of noise that went away (not valves out of adjustment, just cam and alternator chain "noise") and how much Smooooother the shifting is!
AMSOIL all the way in motorcycles!
Cheers!
Flat AMAZING the amount of noise that went away (not valves out of adjustment, just cam and alternator chain "noise") and how much Smooooother the shifting is!
AMSOIL all the way in motorcycles!
Cheers!
Originally Posted By: SlowDave
I use regular, cheap, car oils in my bike, usually Valv 10W-40. I believe that the motorcycle-specific oils are extremely good for the people that sell them. ;-) Not to say that there might not be some unmeasureable wear/performance benefit to them, just not anywhere near justifying the price. The motorcycle mfg'ers recommend a weight of oil and an API designation (e.g. SJ) and nothing more. If that oil spec was not good enough, there is no way they'd spec it. (I've been on the engine mfg side of this discussion.) Of course, I only have 60k miles on my '86 Concours and just rode it to Laguna at 85 mph continuous, Mojave desert and all. Car 10W40 changed every 3-4k miles.
Use the same in my roadrace '89 Yamaha FZR400 but do change it every couple of race weekends due to continuous 14krpm use in the race environment.
My $.02 worth.
+1.
Most Japanese engines will run to extreme mileage with just about any oil of the right spec. However, I have noticed differences in gear change quality with different brands – so that has become the main criteria by which I choose an oil.
In the UK we don’t get the oil bargains that you guys in the US get: There isn’t much price difference between bike specific & auto oils – so I tend to stick with the bike stuff. I also tend to go with semi-synths as these seem to be the commonest formulations.
My long term favourite is Silkolene Comp 4 which I’ve run in most of my bikes over the years. It’s a high quality ester based semi-synth which is readily available in most bike shops. It gives a good gear change which lasts through to the recommended OCI.
I’ve had similar results with Mobil & Putoline oils – although these are harder to source.
I’ve been less impressed with the Castrol products. These seem to shear down quite quickly and the few times I’ve used them, the oil seems to have given it’s best by about 2,000 miles. Their fully synths may well be better, however I feel that fully synthetics are overkill on a road bike.
I use regular, cheap, car oils in my bike, usually Valv 10W-40. I believe that the motorcycle-specific oils are extremely good for the people that sell them. ;-) Not to say that there might not be some unmeasureable wear/performance benefit to them, just not anywhere near justifying the price. The motorcycle mfg'ers recommend a weight of oil and an API designation (e.g. SJ) and nothing more. If that oil spec was not good enough, there is no way they'd spec it. (I've been on the engine mfg side of this discussion.) Of course, I only have 60k miles on my '86 Concours and just rode it to Laguna at 85 mph continuous, Mojave desert and all. Car 10W40 changed every 3-4k miles.
Use the same in my roadrace '89 Yamaha FZR400 but do change it every couple of race weekends due to continuous 14krpm use in the race environment.
My $.02 worth.
+1.
Most Japanese engines will run to extreme mileage with just about any oil of the right spec. However, I have noticed differences in gear change quality with different brands – so that has become the main criteria by which I choose an oil.
In the UK we don’t get the oil bargains that you guys in the US get: There isn’t much price difference between bike specific & auto oils – so I tend to stick with the bike stuff. I also tend to go with semi-synths as these seem to be the commonest formulations.
My long term favourite is Silkolene Comp 4 which I’ve run in most of my bikes over the years. It’s a high quality ester based semi-synth which is readily available in most bike shops. It gives a good gear change which lasts through to the recommended OCI.
I’ve had similar results with Mobil & Putoline oils – although these are harder to source.
I’ve been less impressed with the Castrol products. These seem to shear down quite quickly and the few times I’ve used them, the oil seems to have given it’s best by about 2,000 miles. Their fully synths may well be better, however I feel that fully synthetics are overkill on a road bike.
I went from a Nighthawk 700SC to a Bandit 1200 in December 1996.
I had a 2004 Bandit 1200S.
I highly recommened an M4 exhaust, can.
I highly recommened an M4 exhaust, can.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: XS650
I went from a Nighthawk 700SC to a Bandit 1200 in December 1996.
Do tell, XS! The size and the weight of the bikes, nearly identical. Power? A third or more HP, torque and top speed, nod to the bandit, obviously. Tell me about the transition? Did I buy into a wheelie monster?
I went from a Nighthawk 700SC to a Bandit 1200 in December 1996.
Do tell, XS! The size and the weight of the bikes, nearly identical. Power? A third or more HP, torque and top speed, nod to the bandit, obviously. Tell me about the transition? Did I buy into a wheelie monster?
It's not really a sportbike, but I have a 1996 Triumph Speed Triple fitted with the Triumph/Sebring 3-into-1 exhaust, six pot front calipers, and the Triumph seat cowl. The riding position is a bit tough on my 52 year old bones, but I manage...
Originally Posted By: jimcor
Just what does precision building have to do with "pushing 5500 rpm or so"?
That is what the engine is designed to do. Its is not a race engine. A Harley Davidson engine is built to be exactly what it is, an air cooled, OHV, pushrod operated, V twin engine that develops moderate horsepower, reliably, while meeting current government regulations regarding noise and emission standards, while remaining true to traditional design parameters.
Much the same way Ducati continues to use the Desmodromic valve train, a totally antiquated system, it's a trademark design feature that defines Ducati. Or Triumph continues to buid inline triples. Harley-Davidson remains true to their trademark engine design, which establishes their position in the marketplace.
It seems, my friend, you have fallen into the "as everybody knows syndrome". Just because the V Twin engine is a design that has a tradition and history, has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with precision building, quality and engineering. Do you really think nothing has changed, for H-D, since the teens?
I ride a Suzuki and a Kawasaki both are in line 4 cylinder bikes. I don't own a Harley, don't really want one, but it drives me crazy to hear people slam the H-D product because they think their in-line 4 or triple or radial 5, or boxer twin is a better engineered or built machine. It is simply different, a different bike for a different mission.
[ July 23, 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: jimcor ]
Whoa, whoa, whoa fella... let's really look at your comment.
There is a difference between designing and building
motorcycles. Harley builds good motorcycles, they are well produced with good quality control. Problem is.....the engine design is over 80 years old. They still use many of the same type of parts that the first over-head valve engine had-- for instance the forked connecting rod with roller bearings. No other manufacturer uses that antiquated design for many good reasons. Also, Harley still used a built-up (bolt together) crankshaft design. This is a hold-over from the days when motorcycle manufacturers didn't have the tooling and machinery to produce one-piece crankshafts which are lighter, stronger and less-costly to produce.
I could go on and on about Harley's ancient engineering, but my point is, Harley's are not modern, or well engineered, but they are well built. So if you want a antique made in a modern, high-tech factory then Harley is the only choice.
If this post seems nasty I apologize in advance:
Just what does precision building have to do with "pushing 5500 rpm or so"?
That is what the engine is designed to do. Its is not a race engine. A Harley Davidson engine is built to be exactly what it is, an air cooled, OHV, pushrod operated, V twin engine that develops moderate horsepower, reliably, while meeting current government regulations regarding noise and emission standards, while remaining true to traditional design parameters.
Much the same way Ducati continues to use the Desmodromic valve train, a totally antiquated system, it's a trademark design feature that defines Ducati. Or Triumph continues to buid inline triples. Harley-Davidson remains true to their trademark engine design, which establishes their position in the marketplace.
It seems, my friend, you have fallen into the "as everybody knows syndrome". Just because the V Twin engine is a design that has a tradition and history, has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with precision building, quality and engineering. Do you really think nothing has changed, for H-D, since the teens?
I ride a Suzuki and a Kawasaki both are in line 4 cylinder bikes. I don't own a Harley, don't really want one, but it drives me crazy to hear people slam the H-D product because they think their in-line 4 or triple or radial 5, or boxer twin is a better engineered or built machine. It is simply different, a different bike for a different mission.
[ July 23, 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: jimcor ]
Whoa, whoa, whoa fella... let's really look at your comment.
There is a difference between designing and building
motorcycles. Harley builds good motorcycles, they are well produced with good quality control. Problem is.....the engine design is over 80 years old. They still use many of the same type of parts that the first over-head valve engine had-- for instance the forked connecting rod with roller bearings. No other manufacturer uses that antiquated design for many good reasons. Also, Harley still used a built-up (bolt together) crankshaft design. This is a hold-over from the days when motorcycle manufacturers didn't have the tooling and machinery to produce one-piece crankshafts which are lighter, stronger and less-costly to produce.
I could go on and on about Harley's ancient engineering, but my point is, Harley's are not modern, or well engineered, but they are well built. So if you want a antique made in a modern, high-tech factory then Harley is the only choice.
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second.
Is there anything wrong with "ancient" but proven technology, provided it works, works well, and operates reliably?
Raw performance is one thing, but I doubt *any* H-D buyers are in it for the pure performance. That is not a slam; it's sober reality, I believe.
I used to have a Honda Shadow 1100 ... pure old tech -- carbs, hydraulic lifters, etc. I'm no mechanic, but I understand the darn things are near bullet proof.
My Wing, by comparison, is fuel injected with "shovel in bucket" or some such lifter technology. I don't have a clue what that means, but I don't think it's bleeding edge. It is, however, apparently reliable.
I value reliability over cutting-edge, can you tell?
I work in the computer industry. My platform is z/OS -- the old iron; mainframe stuff. Some of the code there dates back to the early 1960's. But you know what? It runs and runs and runs and runs. Ask the major financial institutions of the world ... they all run z/OS.
So I guess my point is -- so what if H-D has "antique" technology? I've ridden a Harley ... it was a frickin' blast. It rumbled and roared and was a purely visceral experience. I don't want one, but it *was* fun.
But I suspect that was your point all along, right?
Is there anything wrong with "ancient" but proven technology, provided it works, works well, and operates reliably?
Raw performance is one thing, but I doubt *any* H-D buyers are in it for the pure performance. That is not a slam; it's sober reality, I believe.
I used to have a Honda Shadow 1100 ... pure old tech -- carbs, hydraulic lifters, etc. I'm no mechanic, but I understand the darn things are near bullet proof.
My Wing, by comparison, is fuel injected with "shovel in bucket" or some such lifter technology. I don't have a clue what that means, but I don't think it's bleeding edge. It is, however, apparently reliable.
I value reliability over cutting-edge, can you tell?
I work in the computer industry. My platform is z/OS -- the old iron; mainframe stuff. Some of the code there dates back to the early 1960's. But you know what? It runs and runs and runs and runs. Ask the major financial institutions of the world ... they all run z/OS.
So I guess my point is -- so what if H-D has "antique" technology? I've ridden a Harley ... it was a frickin' blast. It rumbled and roared and was a purely visceral experience. I don't want one, but it *was* fun.
But I suspect that was your point all along, right?
TusconDon you are so correct, just because a given technology is old, does not mean that it is bad. As an old IT guy I agree, have worked with z/OS, AIX, and LINUX, z/OS has them all beat. I work at an insurance company or primary policy processing system was developed in the late 70's. It keeps going and going and going!
Originally Posted By: GoldwingGuy
TusconDon you are so correct, just because a given technology is old, does not mean that it is bad. As an old IT guy I agree, have worked with z/OS, AIX, and LINUX, z/OS has them all beat. I work at an insurance company or primary policy processing system was developed in the late 70's. It keeps going and going and going!
Then they ought to start building Ford Model A's again, that was a proven, reliable design, how about air-cooled VW Bettles? Those were some of the most reliable car engines ever made. If Harley riders are not concerned about performance, then why do most of them spend thousands of dollars on performance parts right after they buy their Harleys? Do you think Screaming Eagle doesn't make tons of money? Give me a break already -- time marches on and leaves behind antiqued designs for newer and better ones. Harley is the exception because their buyers are exceptions too.
A quote from the auto sales industry: "You can sell an old man a young mans' car, but you can never sell a young man an old mans' car." That's why young people don't buy Harleys much, because they are considered an old mans' motorcycle. The average age of a Harley buyer is now 49 years old, the oldest in the industry. YEAH......!!!!!!
TusconDon you are so correct, just because a given technology is old, does not mean that it is bad. As an old IT guy I agree, have worked with z/OS, AIX, and LINUX, z/OS has them all beat. I work at an insurance company or primary policy processing system was developed in the late 70's. It keeps going and going and going!
Then they ought to start building Ford Model A's again, that was a proven, reliable design, how about air-cooled VW Bettles? Those were some of the most reliable car engines ever made. If Harley riders are not concerned about performance, then why do most of them spend thousands of dollars on performance parts right after they buy their Harleys? Do you think Screaming Eagle doesn't make tons of money? Give me a break already -- time marches on and leaves behind antiqued designs for newer and better ones. Harley is the exception because their buyers are exceptions too.
A quote from the auto sales industry: "You can sell an old man a young mans' car, but you can never sell a young man an old mans' car." That's why young people don't buy Harleys much, because they are considered an old mans' motorcycle. The average age of a Harley buyer is now 49 years old, the oldest in the industry. YEAH......!!!!!!
Last edited:
1st full to full fuel tank gas mileage on the ZX-11D, 157 miles / 3.7 gallons of regular = 42 mpg.
This on a 16 year-old 600 lb. bike with carbs!
Rode a 2005 Hayabusa (f/s at $8K, 656 miles!) and the 1125cc Buell Sportbike (new=$13K, or so) yesterday: didn't really see that there was any real earthshaking upgrade to be found in either one (although the Buell had very good brakes & stock suspension settings seemed pretty good for me).
But that NEW 2008 Honda CBR1000RR at $9,789 REALLY has me interested!
This on a 16 year-old 600 lb. bike with carbs!
Rode a 2005 Hayabusa (f/s at $8K, 656 miles!) and the 1125cc Buell Sportbike (new=$13K, or so) yesterday: didn't really see that there was any real earthshaking upgrade to be found in either one (although the Buell had very good brakes & stock suspension settings seemed pretty good for me).
But that NEW 2008 Honda CBR1000RR at $9,789 REALLY has me interested!
Originally Posted By: TucsonDon
....My Wing, by comparison, is fuel injected with "shovel in bucket" or some such lifter technology. I don't have a clue what that means, but I don't think it's bleeding edge. It is, however, apparently reliable....
"Shim under bucket" The shim comes in various thicknesses, usually in .005" increments. The shim determines the clearance between the bucket and camshaft. Very reliable, used in high-rpm sport bike (and other) applications, high-tech in it's simplicity.
Older (Japanese) bikes had the shim on top of the bucket in a recess and the cam would push against the shim. As RPM's increased beyond 10000rpm on newer bike engine designs, it was possible for the shim to be "spit out" by the cam causing all sorts of problems, hence the shim now under the bucket.
The shims are the little disks on the left of the photo....
http://www.triumphperformanceusa.com/images/Carlos PICS 570.jpg
....My Wing, by comparison, is fuel injected with "shovel in bucket" or some such lifter technology. I don't have a clue what that means, but I don't think it's bleeding edge. It is, however, apparently reliable....
"Shim under bucket" The shim comes in various thicknesses, usually in .005" increments. The shim determines the clearance between the bucket and camshaft. Very reliable, used in high-rpm sport bike (and other) applications, high-tech in it's simplicity.
Older (Japanese) bikes had the shim on top of the bucket in a recess and the cam would push against the shim. As RPM's increased beyond 10000rpm on newer bike engine designs, it was possible for the shim to be "spit out" by the cam causing all sorts of problems, hence the shim now under the bucket.
The shims are the little disks on the left of the photo....
http://www.triumphperformanceusa.com/images/Carlos PICS 570.jpg
Originally Posted By: TucsonDon
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second.
Is there anything wrong with "ancient" but proven technology, provided it works, works well, and operates reliably?
Raw performance is one thing, but I doubt *any* H-D buyers are in it for the pure performance. That is not a slam; it's sober reality, I believe.
I used to have a Honda Shadow 1100 ... pure old tech -- carbs, hydraulic lifters, etc. I'm no mechanic, but I understand the darn things are near bullet proof.
My Wing, by comparison, is fuel injected with "shovel in bucket" or some such lifter technology. I don't have a clue what that means, but I don't think it's bleeding edge. It is, however, apparently reliable.
I value reliability over cutting-edge, can you tell?
I work in the computer industry. My platform is z/OS -- the old iron; mainframe stuff. Some of the code there dates back to the early 1960's. But you know what? It runs and runs and runs and runs. Ask the major financial institutions of the world ... they all run z/OS.
So I guess my point is -- so what if H-D has "antique" technology? I've ridden a Harley ... it was a frickin' blast. It rumbled and roared and was a purely visceral experience. I don't want one, but it *was* fun.
But I suspect that was your point all along, right?
The Harleys are fun to ride but the engine crankshaft design does leave a lot to be desired. If they would go to a forged/machined crank they could eliminate lots of engine problems. I like my Harley but one of these days I am going to get P.O.ed about the quirks and trade it in on a Yamaha or Honda I can see that day coming. Reliability is king in my book.
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second.
Is there anything wrong with "ancient" but proven technology, provided it works, works well, and operates reliably?
Raw performance is one thing, but I doubt *any* H-D buyers are in it for the pure performance. That is not a slam; it's sober reality, I believe.
I used to have a Honda Shadow 1100 ... pure old tech -- carbs, hydraulic lifters, etc. I'm no mechanic, but I understand the darn things are near bullet proof.
My Wing, by comparison, is fuel injected with "shovel in bucket" or some such lifter technology. I don't have a clue what that means, but I don't think it's bleeding edge. It is, however, apparently reliable.
I value reliability over cutting-edge, can you tell?
I work in the computer industry. My platform is z/OS -- the old iron; mainframe stuff. Some of the code there dates back to the early 1960's. But you know what? It runs and runs and runs and runs. Ask the major financial institutions of the world ... they all run z/OS.
So I guess my point is -- so what if H-D has "antique" technology? I've ridden a Harley ... it was a frickin' blast. It rumbled and roared and was a purely visceral experience. I don't want one, but it *was* fun.
But I suspect that was your point all along, right?
The Harleys are fun to ride but the engine crankshaft design does leave a lot to be desired. If they would go to a forged/machined crank they could eliminate lots of engine problems. I like my Harley but one of these days I am going to get P.O.ed about the quirks and trade it in on a Yamaha or Honda I can see that day coming. Reliability is king in my book.
- Status
