Manual Cam Chain Adjuster

[wills]

After 75,000 miles and replacing the OEM hydraulic adjuster once, I had enough of the rattles at startup. This would sometimes last longer than I would like, but would eventually quiet down somewhat.

Installed the PSR and all the rattle is gone. I guess the chain stretches past the OEM adjuster's limits at higher mileage.

PSR is a nice alternative.

[B.D.F.]

Long, ugly story but no, it is not a matter of mileage. The problem is that the anti- retraction notches are too far apart and as the chain gets toward the end of a notch's travel, it retracts too much without any hydraulic pressure. So on startup, the cam chain rattles.... actually drags against the side of the crankcase I believe but at any rate, the engine rattles like a paint spray can until hydraulic pressure builds and again tightens the cam chain.

The manual or an earlier automatic type (not using hydraulics) cures the issue at the small cost of having to adjust it every 50K miles or so.

Brian

After 75,000 miles and replacing the OEM hydraulic adjuster once, I had enough of the rattles at startup. This would sometimes last longer than I would like, but would eventually quiet down somewhat.

Installed the PSR and all the rattle is gone. I guess the chain stretches past the OEM adjuster's limits at higher mileage.

PSR is a nice alternative.

[Rhino]

Put an APE in mine years ago and never looked back. I've tried to adjust it a few times since but it never seemed to need it.

I don't think the OEM goes past any limit. The OEM just has way too much slop in the ratchet system. And if your chain is at a point where full hydraulic pressure pushes it up to, but not quite past the next step, it can back off almost 1/4 inch when you shut down. It is a terrible design. I like the torsion spring/screw design on my Suzuki DR650 much better.

[B.D.F.]

Well, not terrible IMO. Terrible is usually reserved for stuff that does not work, not stuff that works badly.

A Chauchat is a terrible design. An F-104 is a terrible design (going by the survivability of the pilot, performance- wise it was great until it did its 'lawn dart' imitation). The KZ1300 cam chain tensioner is a terrible design (they full retract, causing the engine to make loud, funny noises on the way to stopping.... for the last time). The C-14 CCT is merely a functional design with a flaw, and a non- fatal flaw at that.

But is sure does seem Kawasaki likes to try new, 'less than wonderful' when they could just reach into the big box of KZ1100 CCTs and use them. ??

Brian

Put an APE in mine years ago and never looked back. I've tried to adjust it a few times since but it never seemed to need it.

I don't think the OEM goes past any limit. The OEM just has way too much slop in the ratchet system. And if your chain is at a point where full hydraulic pressure pushes it up to, but not quite past the next step, it can back off almost 1/4 inch when you shut down. It is a terrible design. I like the torsion spring/screw design on my Suzuki DR650 much better.

[Rhino]

Ok, if we are going to use the Chauchat as the benchmark for "terrible design", I stand corrected.

BTW: I've always LOVED the 104. My first model of a jet was a 104 (Revell probably). Looks like it is going Mach 3 parked on the ramp. Once saw a German 2 ship demonstration team in 104's at Moffett field. Awesome to watch loops that went almost out of sight on the top, back down to 20' at the bottom. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say a 104, as a pure interceptor, is still a better design than a C14 CCT. But I am prejudice 

[B.D.F.]

Well, I just like to keep the sides or limits back a ways or the next thing you know, a paint color that is a little off becomes 'atrocious' (not telling who does that by I live with her and she is not allowed to use adjectives anymore 'cause of things like that). And the fact is that the C-14 CCT does work, does not allow the valves to commit indecent acts with the piston tops and so kinda' falls out of the running of 'terrible' for me.

Chauchat: the designer, and especially adopters of that thing should have faced felony charges IMO. And I am not kidding- no telling how many French soldiers that thing killed. A bad design is fine and well, I have more than a few behind me, but to get it through testing, a proving session, adoption, procurement and finally disbursement is criminal. But ya' gotta' love the part where the American Doughboys dropped them on the side of the road at the point of deployment departure with the 'oh so Yankee' observation: might as well drop it here as to carry it to the trenches and drop it there. Funny, in a pathetic sort of way.

The 104.... hey, I love 'em too. The Air Force wanted to go fast. Kelly Johnson, ever the talented, brilliant and able designer, thought about that- going fast. He thought about it backwards in that he did not design a place to go fast, he chose something that went fast, a rocket, and put enough plane stuff on it so it could be flown. And fast it was. Performance was outsanding. Further, the place was small and hard to spot; in modern trials, it did well enough against F-15's that are what, 4 generations newer, that the report results had to be buried. And I saw a film of a German version being launched from a truck! Now, all that said, look at the crash statistics of American and German military deployment. The wings are just too small and require too much speed to be effective (i.e., to 'fly') and so in addition to a lot of take off and landing accidents, there were an extreme number of 'engagement' accidents due to airspeed falling off while engaging the OpFor. Both planes slow down but the other one continues to fly while the F-104 falls out of the sky. That plane killed too many pilots, and a high percentage of them were high- time in platform, indicating a problem with the basic airframe rather than an 'ensign killer' such as the B-26, et al.. Not a demanding plane to fly, one that was about impossible to keep w/in its required envelope.

Brian (holding firm to my limits. For example: OK, that smells bad but is it really the worst thing you ever smelled in your entire life? Really?)

Ok, if we are going to use the Chauchat as the benchmark for "terrible design", I stand corrected.

BTW: I've always LOVED the 104. My first model of a jet was a 104 (Revell probably). Looks like it is going Mach 3 parked on the ramp. Once saw a German 2 ship demonstration team in 104's at Moffett field. Awesome to watch loops that went almost out of sight on the top, back down to 20' at the bottom. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say a 104, as a pure interceptor, is still a better design than a C14 CCT. But I am prejudice 

[VirginiaJim]

I love all the century fighters (F-100 the best).  However, for serious work, bombers are the best.

[gPink]

Do F-100s have manual cam chain adjusters?

[VirginiaJim]

They probably did..

[B.D.F.]

Hey, they got those too: the Thunderchief F-105 (though it was a fighter- bomber, and spent most of its service in the bomber role). Mach 2, dual- role, pretty plane and oveall, a good performer. I just remember them from the Viet Nam era. Unfortunately, they were also the point plane in place as the Vietnamese received better and better AA and got better at manning it. Lots of them went down half- way around the world but not due to any fault of he plane or operation as far as I now.

I always thought the F-100 Super Sabre was pretty slick. More modern but still holding to that old- time look of the Sabre.

But really, the Starfighter was the belle of the ball for that whole era, and would still stand tall today on any tarmac or any piece of sky I think. A truly beautiful plane. So beautiful it makes up for Kelly's U2, which was certainly 'not attractive' (although very functional). The F-104 would have been spectacular if so many did not corkscrew into the ground. And even that was only when used outside a very stringent flight envelope really; I mean the planes did not just 'break up' in flight or anything.

And the Germans loved the things.... well, until they thinned the Luftwaffe's ranks a bit too far anyway. But being fresh off of a war where the enemy denied them access to runways, they were pretty sensitive about 'alternative launching' places and methods. So they wanted them to be able to be launched from trucks. Yep, trucks. And so it was designed, tested and it actually works: a Starfighter, with a pilot with brass.... well, a pilot on board, is mounted to a guide rail (shades of a V1 or Buzz Bomb), the rail raised to what looks to be about 40 degrees from the horizontal, and using the plane's engine and RATO packs, the damn thing is snot into the sky. Amazing to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCbegiIhLGg

Brian

I love all the century fighters (F-100 the best).  However, for serious work, bombers are the best.

[mikeyw64]

It seems the auto CCT is a "weak" point on many bikes, The CBR1100XX forums are awash with tales of woe regarding them.

When I had my CBR600 I ran that with an APE

[B.D.F.]

Well, it has bee rock- solid on C-14's. I am not aware of a single failure of any CCT on any C-14, and now the models with 100K miles are starting to pile up.

The OEM CCT will allow a cam chain rattle on startup, it lasts 2 to 3 seconds and that is it. They do not fail nor do they allow any valve and pistol tom- foolery (read: engine damage). Swapping them for a manual one simply removes that pesky, short and occasional rattle.

This is starting to turn into an Internet Urban legend. And a very good one, other than the fact that it just ain't so.....

Brian

It seems the auto CCT is a "weak" point on many bikes, The CBR1100XX forums are awash with tales of woe regarding them.

When I had my CBR600 I ran that with an APE

[wills]

If my rattle was 2-3 seconds I would have left it alone. It's more like 10-15 seconds which is unacceptable.

[B.D.F.]

Then I would suspect you are not building oil gallery pressure fast enough. The whole system should come up very quickly.

The lag between starting and hydraulic pressure means that every bearing in the bike is running on whatever oil is left from the last running period. Not good.

My suggestion would be to put an oil pressure gauge on that engine and see how long it does take to build pressure. If it really is that long, perhaps start by checking to see if the crankcase oil has a lot of gasoline in it (0.5% is normal, anything over 1% is not). Then check the viscosity of the oil you are using as well as how old it is. If new oil of the same type shortens that time period considerably then perhaps shorten the oil change intervals. If not, try a thicker oil (one with a lower number as the first of a multi- weight oil).

The manual CCT treats a symptom, not the problem. And the normal problem is long gone in well under 5 seconds so it makes me suspect you have some other problem(s).

Best of luck.

Brian

If my rattle was 2-3 seconds I would have left it alone. It's more like 10-15 seconds which is unacceptable.