Kawasaki ZX-10R Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
:dontknow:
Okay so I decided to take the plunge and put the thin head gasket in today after looking at it for three months. I have never been inside a bike engine before but I research it extensively and felt comfortable performing the mod. I break everything down fine, but when I take the head off pistons with a large amount of carbon build up are revealed. The valves look to have an equal amount of build up.

I have 2,900 miles on my 04' and I always use premium or race gas. I swithced to Fuchs synthetic oil at 500 and have changed oil at 1000, 1500 & 2300. I have Two Bros slip on, PCIII, Block-Off Plates & a TRE. I have had some problems with low rpm valve chatter and slightly higher operating temps. Aside from that this thing ran extremely fast and had no performance problems. In fact it is faster than most of the other 10's around here.

Why would I have this carbon build up? Is there something I need to do or fix before I put it all back together? What is the appropriate way to clean this crud off? Your input is appreciated!
:eyecrazy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
652 Posts
Mine was the same way. I used a razor knife a just scraped it off. It came off very easy. This was at 1700 miles. I could see the carbon build up in the can tip which says i was running too rich. All that build up actually bumps your compression. Im willing to say thats why everyone says " my bike is running stronger as i put more miles on her ". I run a cleaner in the fuel tank once in a while now tho. This is IMO. :dontknow:
 

·
Supercharged Mod
Joined
·
4,392 Posts
What map do you have in the PCIII, and how was that map developed?

Another tipoff - How's your fuel consumption?

To further a suggestion above, the air/fuel ratio at 5% - 20% throttle and above 3000-ish rpm needs to be in the 15:1 range, slightly lean of stoichiometric.
 

·
Supercharged Mod
Joined
·
4,392 Posts
One other thing - Are you sure the "low rpm valve chatter" isn't really "detonation"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,060 Posts
GoFaster said:
What map do you have in the PCIII, and how was that map developed?

Another tipoff - How's your fuel consumption?

To further a suggestion above, the air/fuel ratio at 5% - 20% throttle and above 3000-ish rpm needs to be in the 15:1 range, slightly lean of stoichiometric.
Just curious... Why set it leaner than stoich? Haven't heard anyone suggest this b4.

BTW, I also agree that unless he's had a custom map done, chances are he is running rich. Hence, the carbon build-up.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,196 Posts
The stuff used in Chevron gas (Techron) and in BK Industries product 44K is effective in removing carbon buildup from pistons and intake valves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
the race gas is probly most of your problem. I have a friend who ran a couple of tanks full of race gas through his bike and it carboned so bad it fouled the plugs. He install new plugs and ran pump gas ever since with no more problem. The race gas burns dirtier and will actually cost you horsepower in most engines if they are tuned for pump gas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I have run the race gas about every 5 or 6 tanks. I also run a Muzzy slip on map because it seemed stouter despite the Two Bros pipe. Granted this much richer than the Two Bros map and significantly more than Ivan's map. The bike just seemed stronger with that map.
So is the consensus that the map is too rich and I need to run something to clean through the tank regularly?
Any map recomendations?
:beer:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,945 Posts
max-out said:
the race gas is probly most of your problem. I have a friend who ran a couple of tanks full of race gas through his bike and it carboned so bad it fouled the plugs. He install new plugs and ran pump gas ever since with no more problem. The race gas burns dirtier and will actually cost you horsepower in most engines if they are tuned for pump gas.
Right you are. Race gas in a stock motored bike is a power loser.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Take it in and have it custom mapped, I gained a little HP (about 5) and the air fuel on the other map I was runnig was way off. THis softened the throttle response also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
CanyonCarver said:
Just curious... Why set it leaner than stoich? Haven't heard anyone suggest this b4.

BTW, I also agree that unless he's had a custom map done, chances are he is running rich. Hence, the carbon build-up.


Leaner than stoich? Any experiance i have seen people do that even by accident has eneded up with a blown motor
 

·
Supercharged Mod
Joined
·
4,392 Posts
CanyonCarver said:
Just curious... Why set it leaner than stoich? Haven't heard anyone suggest this b4.

BTW, I also agree that unless he's had a custom map done, chances are he is running rich. Hence, the carbon build-up.
What I've seen of custom maps, it's likely that it is rich BECAUSE it is a custom map (that wasn't done correctly) ...

It has been conventional wisdom since, oh, about the 1950's that the most suitable engine-tuning approach is to set full-load air/fuel ratio to whatever produces maximum torque, and set part-load "cruise" air/fuel ratio to whatever minimizes BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption), and that's typically a bit lean of stoichiometric. At idle (near zero throttle) it's often necessary to go a bit on the rich side to keep the engine running smoothly. At lower revs under load (lugging), it might be necessary to go a bit rich to avoid detonation. The TuningLink thing from Dynojet doesn't seem to attempt to do this. Fiddling with air/fuel ratio to get maximum output at PART throttle might give a bit quicker "feel" to the throttle but it's TOO RICH. At part throttle, why look for maximum output? If the rider wanted more power, he'd open the throttle more. Might as well shoot for lowest BSFC, which will be slightly lean. The engine will be happier (cleaner inside), it won't wash as much lube oil off the cylinders, it won't foul the plugs as quickly, your wallet will be happier (lower fuel consumption), and the earth will be happier (lower emissions).

Even Dynojet jetting kits for carbs address this. The correct needle setting (i.e. part load) was always the leanest setting that gave good driveability.

Keep in mind that modern emission-controlled, fuel-injected automotive engines run at stoichiometric almost over the entire speed and load range, because that's what's necessary to keep the 3-way catalyst happy.

With this engine and most other bike engines, there's a bit of a complication because the PC is mapped against throttle position rather than "load", and at very low RPM it can be at almost full "load" even though the throttle is only opened a small amount. The 50%-"load" point might be at (say) 10% throttle at 2000 rpm, (say) 15% throttle at 3000 rpm, etc. I don't know the numbers because there's no way to know without doing a lot of dyno work that I haven't done. Heck, I have a stock bike, so why have a PowerCommander???

As for "it might break something" ... At part load and moderate revs, heat load on the pistons and valves isn't an issue, and detonation won't be an issue at PART LOAD.
 

·
Supercharged Mod
Joined
·
4,392 Posts
snoopnoon said:
Leaner than stoich? Any experiance i have seen people do that even by accident has eneded up with a blown motor
Only if they're too lean at full load and high revs (that's a recipe for burned valves and pistons), or too lean with the engine lugging (and pinging madly, indicating violent detonation).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,228 Posts
You can run mr9 or u4 if you want to run some kind of race gas. For a gas additive cleaner, I use lucas oil products. It works great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,060 Posts
GoFaster said:
What I've seen of custom maps, it's likely that it is rich BECAUSE it is a custom map (that wasn't done correctly) ...

It has been conventional wisdom since, oh, about the 1950's that the most suitable engine-tuning approach is to set full-load air/fuel ratio to whatever produces maximum torque, and set part-load "cruise" air/fuel ratio to whatever minimizes BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption), and that's typically a bit lean of stoichiometric. At idle (near zero throttle) it's often necessary to go a bit on the rich side to keep the engine running smoothly. At lower revs under load (lugging), it might be necessary to go a bit rich to avoid detonation. The TuningLink thing from Dynojet doesn't seem to attempt to do this. Fiddling with air/fuel ratio to get maximum output at PART throttle might give a bit quicker "feel" to the throttle but it's TOO RICH. At part throttle, why look for maximum output? If the rider wanted more power, he'd open the throttle more. Might as well shoot for lowest BSFC, which will be slightly lean. The engine will be happier (cleaner inside), it won't wash as much lube oil off the cylinders, it won't foul the plugs as quickly, your wallet will be happier (lower fuel consumption), and the earth will be happier (lower emissions).

Even Dynojet jetting kits for carbs address this. The correct needle setting (i.e. part load) was always the leanest setting that gave good driveability.

Keep in mind that modern emission-controlled, fuel-injected automotive engines run at stoichiometric almost over the entire speed and load range, because that's what's necessary to keep the 3-way catalyst happy.

With this engine and most other bike engines, there's a bit of a complication because the PC is mapped against throttle position rather than "load", and at very low RPM it can be at almost full "load" even though the throttle is only opened a small amount. The 50%-"load" point might be at (say) 10% throttle at 2000 rpm, (say) 15% throttle at 3000 rpm, etc. I don't know the numbers because there's no way to know without doing a lot of dyno work that I haven't done. Heck, I have a stock bike, so why have a PowerCommander???

As for "it might break something" ... At part load and moderate revs, heat load on the pistons and valves isn't an issue, and detonation won't be an issue at PART LOAD.
Won't dispute anything you say here, but still see no need for leaner-than-stoich mixtures of 15:1 or more. Sure, low BSFC is good, but most or all factory FI systems with cats and OBDII, O2 sensors and other fun stuff shoot for 14.7:1, or stoich. Without wide-band, five-wire O2 sensors, they have no way to shoot for 15:1 that I'm aware of.

Yeah, stock settings are often rich, but also many times lean. Most of the PCIII maps I've seen tend to add fuel at part-throttle to compensate for lean running where emissions testing is done, with other areas of the map removing fuel to run a little leaner for power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,118 Posts
I bought some BG44K to run through the bike, not going to use the entire can at once since it can treat 20gals, but anyone else use this stuff?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,196 Posts
Yeah, I use the stuff and it might be my imagination but I think it works. Every time I buy a used bike I run half a can through it. On the ZX-6R I could see the carbon build up on the back of the intake valves. After running the 44K through it the carbon was gone. I've been using Chevron 93 in the ZX-10R pretty much exclusively hoping to avoid the same problem. Since I have heard of low mile ZX-10Rs with carbon build up I might run some through it anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,118 Posts
i usually run the chevron in the bike and car also, but in the hill country i use either shell or exxon, today i'll but that bg44k in and see what happens. bike has 12k on the clock so it may be time for it.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top