Float level checking

[Bonz]

...And I have a 20,000 mile 80SG that says the crude method will run with any like-model year bike in smoothness and performance. BTW, who's bitching?

My BS flag is staight up on the "anyone wanting average performance..." statement. You are chasing a needle in a haystack, but if it "floats" your boat to look down upon established methods that yield the same real world result, keep looking down! Heh, Heh, Heh...

Heaven forbid the fuel you used to check the float level is a different formulation next time you fill up...

[lvrsnr]

performance or performance based problems are not solved by attention to detail in only one or two areas, but on attention to details in all areas that apply. and what I find difficult is that anyone who strives to address all fundamental areas that do apply is labled as anal.

[Bonz]

Attention to detail is a good thing, however be sure not to confuse it with insistance on attention to details that have proven to be inconsequential. To me that is where the difference lies.

[lvrsnr]

HBONSER
many a float has been set using a float height only to find that the fuel level is less than desired, also well known is the fact that fuel level has a major effect on fuel / air ratio, to argue otherwise only shows lack of expirence or errogence. from which do you suffer?

[Bonz]

You asked a question about being anal, I offered an answer. Don't ask, if you might not like what you get for an answer.

As to your question, I suffer from neither, why haven't I seen you on the fourm before? Looks like we both joined in April of '08. Hard to make friends?

Enough with the tone you are putting forth, do it your way, K?

[lvrsnr]

oh have I touched a nerve. too bad soo sad. folks who post questions here have aready tried the obvious. its time to cosider all aspects, and if you are going to do something, do it right, not half *ssed. I would tell you to kiss my *ss but you would probably french me,

[Bonz]

That response is just plain sad, have a good day.

[LoHo]

Cool! An internet spat over thirty-year-old carb adjustments!

I think what is being said here is that there is an acceptable range, a +/-, for attention to any detail, and that that range increases with the number of variables, and these carbs are FULL of variables.

For example, Yamaha says that float height should be 23.0mm, +/- 0.5mm.
To some, that means 22.5 to 23.5 is acceptable. To others, that is sloppy, inprecise work.
To others, 23.0000000mm is the target. To some, that seems anal and excessive.
Me, I just wish my bike ran.

[Bonz]

That bike would run if you measured the fuel level in the bowls...

[motoman]

HBONSER
many a float has been set using a float height only to find that the fuel level is less than desired, also well known is the fact that fuel level has a major effect on fuel / air ratio, to argue otherwise only shows lack of expirence or errogence. from which do you suffer?

+1! For some of those that haven't been associated here from WAY back, this has been discussed here several years ago. Ken Talbot, for one stressed the importance of getting fuel levels EXACTLY the same on all four bowels. I can tell you from years of experience dealing with these carbs that a half a millimeter change in fuel levels WILL show on a plug and affect how it runs in a particular rpm range. For a start, what setting you use and how you do it HAS to be duplicated for all four, specially if not having the advantage of the later carbs. That actual fuel level, if done correctly WILL be the same on the early carbs as well as the later carbs. Just to give a little insight, one millimeter change WILL change actual fuel level 2.5millimeters. This IS a case of 'close is good enough' isn't good enough. If one is having minor running issues, and knows for sure they are carb related and not pri/sec. ign. issues will continue chasing their tail if they don't know for sure the fuel levels are the same in all four bowels. For the 81 and XJ models, that IS a running(idle) fuel level setting of 23mm, not a static fuel setting.

[Bonz]

Well heck Motoman, why didn't you come along and save me from myself just a bit sooner?

[motoman]

Well heck Motoman, why didn't you come along and save me from myself just a bit sooner?

Just had logged on..............

[Bonz]

There was sarcasm in my question, but thanks for the honest answer and keeping it clean, eh?

[motoman]

There was sarcasm in my question, but thanks for the honest answer and keeping it clean, eh?

Welcome.........I might add for those wanting to get increased mileage on their stock set-up, you wanna be careful dropping that main jet a step or two. With the emission thing becoming more dominent back then, these scoots were already set up as a lean-burn, so any jet size drop could easily result in a ventilated piston, specially on the 80 and later Specials having 110 mains across stock(lean and mean). When new, and having fuel back then that had a better 'bang', my Venturer with two-up @ 60mph(55 was limit stateside everywhere) would give a constant 43-46mpg on a trip. I complained then, as it was supposed to be closer to 50mpg! Even at that, with the crap for fuel now, any of these stock set up XS11's whether they be naked, full bagger, Special or Standard ought to be in the 40mpg range consistantly. Any mods such as intake/exhaust or final drive, all bets are off. With known excellent firing coils(sec. ign.) etc. anything sudstantually less IMO can be traced to 'close is good enough' on carbs, whether it be fuel levels, jetting, mixture settings or sync.

[mack]

Poor Newmaac

He's the one who started this thread and hasn't returned since. I think this banter has scared him off.
As I said, to each his own, my response was simply to state it can be done. Riders ask a question here, we answer. For those other than Newmaac, its your bike, tune it anyway you want to.