2008 C14 First Valve check at 37K -- Got My Bike Back From Dealer Today !!!

[C14-Pilot]

I bought my c14 in August of 08 and about a year and a half later when I got 15K miles on it I took it to my dealer and
asked him if I should have the valves checked. I told him that I had read where the same bike sold
in California the manual states that the valve adjustment should be done at 25k instead of 15k.
He called Kawasaki and asked them at what interval the valves should be checked and they told him
that the engine should be fine until at least 25k so I did not have it done at the time.

So later when I got 25k miles on it I took it back to the dealer and told him I was ready to have the 25K
valve adjustment done and He said if the engine sounded good with no noticeable valve noise He would
not think the valve check was necessary. At this point I was not sure if I should trust what the dealer was
telling me or not so I took it to a second dealer.

I asked this second dealer to give me an estimate on getting a valve check and adjustment done and I did not mention
what the other dealer had told me. The second dealer told me the same thing the first dealer did, he said that if
there was no noticeable engine noise He did not think it was necessary to do the valve check so I put it off again.

I took my bike to the original dealer this week to have a leaking valve cover gasket changed under warranty.
I asked the dealer to check the valves while He had the valve cover off and I gave him a shim map and ask him
to record his findings when He checked the valves. I got at an email from the dealer and He said that the valve
clearances were spot on and He had attached the shim map that I had requested.
I have attached the shim map, the bike now has 37,300 miles on it.
What do You guys think? Is it possible that after 37,300 miles there is no adjustment needed???

The dealer had ordered the wrong valve cover gasket so I did not get my bike back until today 01/20/12
I got my leaking valve cover gasket replaced "warranty covered" , valves checked and plugs replaced and
all I was charged was for the cost of the plugs $36.42. I believe the dealer treated me RIGHT!
He did not charge me anything for checking the valves and doing a shim map since He had the valve cover
off to replace the valve cover gasket. I will post pictures tomorrow of the plugs so You guys can see what
they looked like after 37k

Later,
c14-Pilot

 
 

[Jeremy Mitchell]

Unlikely, but it is possible.  The biggest thing is that you have documented proof that the valve check was performed, so you are covered by the GTPP if you have any problems.

I don't know what was changed on my first valve check since the previous owner had that done but I didn't get any paperwork. My C14's second valve check (I did it myself) there were no shims needed.  Then my third (dealer did it when they changed my valve cover gasket under warranty) they provided me with a shim map and there were no changes needed again.  All the measurements were within .001 from when I checked them 25,000 miles ago.  My bike currently has 42,000 miles on it and I will probably wait until 70,000+ before I check the valves again unless I notice any issues.

[B.D.F.]

Sure, and apparently you have a prime example in your possession.

Even when the valve lash is out of spec., it is not out by much in the cases I have seen. The thing to remember is that Kawasaki used the tolerance and may well have set some valves to the limit of that tolerance, either on the high or low side. So when an owner finds a bike that is outside of tolerance that person tends to assume that the clearance has changed from the middle of the tolerance but that is probably not the case; the clearance most likely started off very close to the current clearance but just inside the tolerance range. Also, it seems that most folks assume the clearance changed in a linear fashion over the miles on the bike and that again is probably incorrect; the clearance would change the most in the first few miles on the engine as the valves finish seating. After that the change in clearance is probably minimal over a LOT of miles. I think your example is a lot closer to typical than a lot of people would assume and <most> bikes could go their entire life without ever needing valve shims changed. Unfortunately there is no way to know without actually doing a valve lash check.

Brian

<snip>

I have attached the shim map, the bike now has 37,300 miles on it.
What do You guys think? Is it possible that after 37,300 miles there is no adjustment needed???

Later,
c14-Pilot

[rcannon409]

I dont know if I buy into the idea of noisy valves needing adjustment.  On the dirt bikes, which are very similar, the valves tighten up and get quiet.  Noise is a better thing to have than no noise.

Other than the interval being WAY sooner for the dirt bikes, I woudl expect the c14 to be the same.

[kdm]

I dont know if I buy into the idea of noisy valves needing adjustment.  On the dirt bikes, which are very similar, the valves tighten up and get quiet.  Noise is a better thing to have than no noise.

Other than the interval being WAY sooner for the dirt bikes, I woudl expect the c14 to be the same.

+1   A noisy valve is a happy valve- a tight valve can burn due to incomplete closing .

[Tim]

+1   A noisy valve is a happy valve- a tight valve can burn due to incomplete closing .

Yeah, what he said.

 This happened to a Honda friend of mine. The bike was one only produced a couple of years and getting a head gasket was a bit of a pain. Bike runs good now.

[lather]

While I agree that absence of valve noise is no substitute for a valve check, I see no reason to doubt your mechanic based on the info you posted. The shim map looks legitimate to me.  And I tend to agree with Brian that most engines typically don't go out of spec withen 40,000 miles.

In 40 years of riding I have never known anyone who had a valve clearance related failure and I have two long time riding buddies who never bother to have their valves checked.

[Pokey]

Not too hard to make a bogus clearance sheet.......just sayin. As for me, mine won't be getting checked till 20k. And a big +1 on what Lather just said!!!!

[Tarheelbob]

OK, I am going to chime in. First of all, all U.S. C-14's (yes, even California models) are specified by Kawasaki to perform the valve clearance inspection at 15,000 miles (24,000 kilometers). Every where else in the world, that valve inspect interval is at 26,000 miles (42,000 kilometers). That your dealers didn't recognize this would be a warning alarm for me.

Secondly, I am worthless and weak and easily swayed by nice riding weather, and I rationalized putting off my check because of others reported findings and the above interval discrepancy, until 23,500 miles. I am in the middle of it right now. Every single one of valves was on the tight side of the specification, or .001" out of spec to the tight side. Every one will be adjusted toward nominal. Most others here have found very little to worry about during their checks, but most have also noted the valves tend to the tight side.

If yours are all near mid-spec nominal, as shown in your map, that is very cool and not unprecedented. In my case, waiting until 37,000 miles wouldn't have resulted in any real valve noise, but it very well could of led to burned valves.

[Summit670]

Ok, thinking of getting an older C14 and have been watching the discussions on valve adjust intervals because I'm not hip on having to spend $600 or so every 15,000 miles but I could live with 25,000.

Now, thinking of noisy vs quite and the different rationales - is it possible that shim under bucket setups get noisier as they get more miles whereas the screw/locknut tappets get quieter?  I've had a couple Toyota dealerships tell me if the valves arent making any noise (4.7L Seqouia, shim under bucket) don't worry about it and though the owners manual says check clearance at 60,000 miles they have never had to adjust the valves.

On that note, thinking about the 60k Toyota interval, I'd also factor in the C14 adjust intervals in accordance with how hard you ride, ie, if you spend a lot of time near redline then I'd expect the valve adjust interval would be closer to 15k.??
 

[B.D.F.]

This is a perfect example of what I was mentioning earlier: it is natural to assume that since you were 0.001" below tolerance at 23.5K miles that the clearance tightened linearly (or evenly) during those miles. I propose two things about that- the first is that the movement occurred very early in the bike's use and then stabilized. Because no one ever checks the clearance at 1,000 mile intervals from new, we simply do not know when or [when how much] of the clearance changed. If the clearance was set to the low side initially (during the engine assembly) and then as the valve train seated the clearance tightened in the first 500 miles, it is entirely likely that the clearance had not tightened in thousands of miles. The second thing is that merely being 0.001" under tolerance is no where near -0- clearance and the possibility of burning a valve because it could not close. Again, I do not believe it is a linear thing.

Nothing wrong with checking the valves at the specified time, I am merely saying that we really do now know what has happened when we examine an engine with XX,XXX miles on it and find the clearances are out of tolerance. And I don't think it is anything to get overly worried about at any rate.

Brian

OK, I am going to chime in. First of all, all U.S. C-14's (yes, even California models) are specified by Kawasaki to perform the valve clearance inspection at 15,000 miles (24,000 kilometers). Every where else in the world, that valve inspect interval is at 26,000 miles (42,000 kilometers). That your dealers didn't recognize this would be a warning alarm for me.

Secondly, I am worthless and weak and easily swayed by nice riding weather, and I rationalized putting off my check because of others reported findings and the above interval discrepancy, until 23,500 miles. I am in the middle of it right now. Every single one of valves was on the tight side of the specification, or .001" out of spec to the tight side. Every one will be adjusted toward nominal. Most others here have found very little to worry about during their checks, but most have also noted the valves tend to the tight side.

If yours are all near mid-spec nominal, as shown in your map, that is very cool and not unprecedented. In my case, waiting until 37,000 miles wouldn't have resulted in any real valve noise, but it very well could of led to burned valves.

[Tarheelbob]

I propose two things...- the first is that the movement occurred very early in the bike's use and then stabilized...Again, I do not believe it is a linear thing.

Nothing wrong with checking the valves at the specified time, I am merely saying that we really do now know what has happened when we examine an engine with XX,XXX miles on it and find the clearances are out of tolerance. And I don't think it is anything to get overly worried about at any rate.

Brian, I completely agree. Also, it fits neatly into my rationale that with the valves set slightly to the loose side of nominal I should EASILY get another 25,000 miles without checking again.

[jjsC6]

I have not had mine checked yet, but I'm at 29,000 miles and plan to soon.  But I will confirm what has been said.  Two different dealers in Houston have told me it's a waste of time and money to check them anywhere near what the factory recommends.  I don't actually recall what one of them told me as it's been quite a while ago.  The other one told me that at the 26,000 miles I had on it at the time that it might not be a bad idea to have them checked, but they don't expect to find any out of spec.  BTW, the service manager at that dealer owns an 08 Concours, and the parts manager owns a ZX-14.

[Z71]

I have a '99 Mazda 626 with solid valve liters and shim under bucket adjusters.   Mazda also tells their dealers that if the valves do not make any noise, they do not need to be adjusted.  Unfortunately, this may be deceptive in cases where the clearances are too tight, which is undesirable, as it can lead to valve burning.

As it is, I checked the valve clearances for the first time on my Mazda at 290,000 miles (yes you read it right) and only two out of 24 valves were just above the upper limit of the adjustment range.   So I did not do anything.  Now at 322,000 miles the engine is doing just fine.

Keep in mind that shim under bucket adjusters are much less likely to come out of adjustment than screw type adjusters.   I have an older diesel Mercedes 300 DT with screw type valve adjusters and the valves clearances come out spec a lot more on that one.  This is why Mercedes requires these to be adjusted every 15k miles.

[jsa]

This is a perfect example of what I was mentioning earlier: it is natural to assume that since you were 0.001" below tolerance at 23.5K miles that the clearance tightened linearly (or evenly) during those miles. I propose two things about that- the first is that the movement occurred very early in the bike's use and then stabilized. Because no one ever checks the clearance at 1,000 mile intervals from new, we simply do not know when or [when how much] of the clearance changed. If the clearance was set to the low side initially (during the engine assembly) and then as the valve train seated the clearance tightened in the first 500 miles, it is entirely likely that the clearance had not tightened in thousands of miles. The second thing is that merely being 0.001" under tolerance is no where near -0- clearance and the possibility of burning a valve because it could not close. Again, I do not believe it is a linear thing.

I strongly agree...but how tight do the cold clearances have to be before a burned valve can become a reality?  How much of a safety margin is built into the low tolerance spec?

There is a long running thread at the fjrforum.com about what FJR owners are finding when they check their valve clearances and one rider just reported that he did his first valve check at 89K and everything was fine except for one exhaust valve that only had a .002 clearance (spec is .007-.010).  When he checked the valves again at 156K, he had one intake valve at .005 and several others that barely were within the spec of .006-.009.   It appears that the .002 exhaust clearance he found at 89k did not result in any damage to the engine since that was the same bike that turned 150K miles when he rode (and won) the 2011 Iron Butt last June. 

On the flip side, last fall another FJR rider did actually burn valves at 50K, the first water cooled engine that I had heard of, but he had never done a valve check.  His FJR was probably the 1 in a thousand that really needed a valve adjustment at 26K.

[katata1100]

My old '98 Honda CRV had screw adjusters that the manual said didn't
have to be checked until 105k. I thought this a long time to go, plus the same engine, when installed in the Acura coupe, was spec'd for valve check at 50k miles. I
checked them at 50k and 100k miles, then sold the car, it ran great.
Some people were foolish enough to believe their car could go over 100k miles without a valve check. Some found that they had burnt exhaust valves and needed a valve job costing over $2k! Some more vocal owners were able to get a discount on the work from Honda under their "goodwill program".
My experience with valve checks is that most valves will probably be in spec, a couple can be way out. After none or two checks, valves take on a set and seemed to stay in spec a long time. Noisy valves are not necessarily good as they can cost you a little power. Quiet valves can be tight valves, not good either. Judging whether your valves are in spec makes as much sense as a doctor guessing your blood pressure.
If I took my bike in at 25k miles and they said every valve was in spec, I'd think they didn't check them.
Tell you what, if you take your bike in at 25k miles and have it check and they don't check them like you paid for and leave you with a few tight valves, then....
at 48k miles, bike still in warranty, you take it in and it has a couple of burnt valves, I bet Kawa will tell the dealer to fix it on their dime.

[CB Schmaltz]

Wayne my gear head windsurf buddy says
Noise is Good
or at least better that a burned up valve
I had my 1000 mile ck
had one adjusted
 payed the$$$
now I'm waiting till 25k
btw
Mt Hood got a foot of snow
glad I went fro a ride saturday morning when it was warm n sunny

[lather]

"noisy" is rather hard to quantify in the context of casual discussion. Everybody is likely to have a different idea of what a noisy valve sounds like vs a quiet one. Additionally it takes a good, trained ear to distinguish from the various sounds coming from an engine.

What I was tought many years ago by a Kawasaki dealer  mechanic was that valve clearance noise should be noticeable on cold startup but should almost go away by the time the engine is up to operating temperature. The object of this lesson was a1984 Ninja 900 engine, the first ancestor of our C14 engines. However it did have thread valve tappet adjusters. However I believe the same holds true for Shim under Buckets as the source of the noice is metal to metal contact (cushioned by a film of oil) as the clearance is taken up.

On my second valve adjustment on my C14 I think I got a pretty good result in terms of measured values and the audible results as described above  reflect it. That was at 55,000 miles or so. I feel comfortable planning to do the next check based on how the engine sounds.

edit: I did not word that well. What I meant is my next valve check interval will be stretched beyond the specified 15000 miles depending on how the engine sounds.

[ZedHed]

The object of this lesson was a1984 Ninja 900 engine, the first ancestor of our C14 engines. However it did have thread valve tappet adjusters.

The Ninja 900 engine was the ancestor to the Concours 1000 engine -- nothing in common with the C14 engine (different engine families)  The Ninja and subsequent family engines used forked cam followers with threaded valve adjusters which was a very poor design that had to be adjusted often and caused accelerated cam wear because of faulty valve geometry and sketchy cam metallurgy.  Very much the same problems as the 1st Gen Honda VFRs.  Shim-under-bucket valve tappets are lightyears superior to that design and that is why Kawasaki finally incorporated it into the current engines.  The Ninja engines while strong performers also made tons of valve train racket hence the nickname "Rock-crushers"  Additionally those engines had problems with cam chain adjusters that contributed to that "nom de plume."

[B.D.F.]

The clearance has to be -0- or less than zero to risk burning a valve. As long as there is any clearance in the valve train at all, the valve will seat and cool. When a valve cannot seat at any time during the running cycles, the only way left for that valve to cool is through the valve stem, which is a lousy way to transfer heat (from a large area down a small shaft), or through induction cooling, another poor way to try to keep a valve's temp. within acceptable bounds. So in reality, as long as there is -some- clearance the valve face will rest on the valve seat and transfer heat away. This is not a linear thing at all- the temp. of the valve will not rise appreciably as the clearance becomes less and less until it becomes zero at which time the valve will get extremely hot, and possibly hot enough to actually melt the edge where the valve is thinnest (this is what we call a 'burned valve').

Brian

I strongly agree...but how tight do the cold clearances have to be before a burned valve can become a reality?  How much of a safety margin is built into the low tolerance spec?

There is a long running thread at the fjrforum.com about what FJR owners are finding when they check their valve clearances and one rider just reported that he did his first valve check at 89K and everything was fine except for one exhaust valve that only had a .002 clearance (spec is .007-.010).  When he checked the valves again at 156K, he had one intake valve at .005 and several others that barely were within the spec of .006-.009.   It appears that the .002 exhaust clearance he found at 89k did not result in any damage to the engine since that was the same bike that turned 150K miles when he rode (and won) the 2011 Iron Butt last June. 

On the flip side, last fall another FJR rider did actually burn valves at 50K, the first water cooled engine that I had heard of, but he had never done a valve check.  His FJR was probably the 1 in a thousand that really needed a valve adjustment at 26K.