Author Topic: 86 vs 92  (Read 4037 times)

Offline zsiska

  • Arena
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
  • Country: 00
86 vs 92
« on: July 15, 2011, 02:06:45 pm »
I am going to pick up an 86 parts bike this weekend.  It is complete except plastics and seat.  Just wanted to make sure the majority of parts will fit my 92 (motor, wheels, carbs, etc)  My plan is to rebuild, clean and paint parts from the 86 and then swap them out to my 92 to avoid to much down time.  So what will I be able to use and what won't I? 

Thanks

Offline MAN OF BLUES

  • Arena
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Country: 00
  • WHISKEY.Tango.Foxtrot.
Re: 86 vs 92
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2011, 02:31:43 pm »
They are identical.

30 YEARS OF KAW.....

Offline zsiska

  • Arena
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
  • Country: 00
Re: 86 vs 92
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2011, 02:50:16 pm »
They are identical.

Thanks.  I was thinking they were but just wanted to make sure. 

Offline Summit670

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 480
  • Country: us
Re: 86 vs 92
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2011, 03:20:18 pm »
I have an 87.  They are pretty much the same but:
Front brake lines may be longer on newer bike
Handlebars are taller
Mufflers have diff finish
Bags are not shiny
Mirrors may have diff accordian rubber (more pleats) and diff internal joints

The stuff you care about though, I'm sure it is the same.
Arctic Cat M8 163 rules

Sleds, Dirt Bikes, ATV's, Street Bikes, Mountain Bikes.  Heck, I guess if it has handlebars I'll give it a try.

Offline Pfloydgad

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Country: us
  • When I was a child, I caught a fleeting glimpse
Re: 86 vs 92
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2011, 07:17:31 pm »
You might want to swap motors and carbs, the 86 had the best motor because it was the first yr. Mama Kaw changed the power thing after 86.
MOB, SISF, is this right, I have heard this from multiple service techs over the yrs.
Be safe all.
Greg
Why did we have to run for cover with the promise of a brave new world unfold beneath the clear blue sky ?

Offline MAN OF BLUES

  • Arena
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Country: 00
  • WHISKEY.Tango.Foxtrot.
Re: 86 vs 92
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2011, 10:18:36 pm »
years ago you saw and heard my 86 in Marietta Greg, I think I heard comments on it being the quietest, and nicest running conni most people there ever heard, and i tend to agree..... 8) ;)

30 YEARS OF KAW.....

Offline txfatboy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Country: us
Re: 86 vs 92
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2011, 11:42:56 pm »
I think the only reason the 86 engine is "more desirable" is the cams tend to be more durable (they usually don't suffer from the pitting problem), BUT some of the 86 engines did have a problem with soft valves and would "tulip" and eventually kill the cylinder due to loss of compression.
Woody
2014 V-Max
1991 Connie, 17 inch wheels,  ZRX1200 forks with racetech valves and brakes, zx9/ zzr1200 hybrid rear shock, 2 min mod and exhaust cam sprocket from SISF, tubular handle bars, hywy pegs, HID headlight and LED running lights.

Offline MAN OF BLUES

  • Arena
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Country: 00
  • WHISKEY.Tango.Foxtrot.
Re: 86 vs 92
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2011, 01:32:54 pm »
I think the only reason the 86 engine is "more desirable" is the cams tend to be more durable (they usually don't suffer from the pitting problem), BUT some of the 86 engines did have a problem with soft valves and would "tulip" and eventually kill the cylinder due to loss of compression.

chances of getting your hands on one of the bad ones is like finding a needle in a haystack today..... most of them have been tossed, and after 25 years, I wager they all are gone now. None of those valves lived 30k miles. most were shot before they got 20k on them.

30 YEARS OF KAW.....

Bob

  • Guest
Re: 86 vs 92
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2011, 01:53:55 pm »
chances of getting your hands on one of the bad ones is like finding a needle in a haystack today..... most of them have been tossed, and after 25 years, I wager they all are gone now. None of those valves lived 30k miles. most were shot before they got 20k on them.


 :yikes:  Mine only has about 12K!

Offline Outback_Jon

  • Arena
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
  • Country: us
Re: 86 vs 92
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2011, 02:19:33 pm »

 :yikes:  Mine only has about 12K!

Guess you might be REALLY, REALLY lucky to have found one!    :rotflmao:

I hope you didn't, though.  That's a really nice 86 you've got.
"Outback Jon" Gould *** South Cairo, NY *** COG #9506 *** 2006 C10 "Blueline" *** CDA #0157

Offline MAN OF BLUES

  • Arena
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Country: 00
  • WHISKEY.Tango.Foxtrot.
Re: 86 vs 92
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2011, 05:23:57 pm »

 :yikes:  Mine only has about 12K!


ssshhhhhhhhhhhhh
just pretend it has 112,000 on it.....everything will be fine. :rotflmao: :chugbeer:

I believe a lot of the effected ones were cali bikes... if it makes you sleep better.....unless yours is a Cali bike.........heheheeheh

mine was, and it had 138, 000 on it when I sold it, and it ran purrrrrrfectly

30 YEARS OF KAW.....

Offline zsiska

  • Arena
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
  • Country: 00
Re: 86 vs 92
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2011, 08:12:15 pm »
Well I picked up the 86 today.  Complete bike minus the seat and one or two peices of plastic.  $75 for the entire thing. Supposedly the motor was running good when left to sit.  I opened it up some and everything so far seems to be moving freely and no signs of any internal damage at all.  Time to go to work rebuilding, cleaning, painting, and swapping to my 92.  Now might be a good time for some high performance SISF mods to build an 1100 (or whatever it is) motor while there is a spare on the workbench.  Also does anybody know if Jim Miller is still powdercoating?  Haven't seen anything from him in a while.