Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Thumpers' started by mrwwwhite, Oct 12, 2014.
What a nice looking garage
Cristian / Bob
Do any folks rebuilt these to run lower compression? There's a member on here who rebuilt a 640 with lower compression and claimes the bike runs a lot smoother.
Looks much better live
Don't really think so. It's fairly new engine so a rebuild is still a pretty expensive process. When people decide to do it normally hunt for even more power. RRP have a 13.5:1 piston
There's a super big difference between the old gen LC4 and the new injected one. I'm comfortable in saying, that is one of the smoothest singles out there so one would lower the compression only with reliability in mind. Having said that we have to take in account that there are at least two cases of '08 690's with over 100.000km on the original engine Noah's & Sherry Jo's and that says something about 690 reliability on the long term.
Thank you for your input.
100k w/o being opened up?
The old LC 4 started out with a ball bearing on the main shaft which turned out to be a failure point, so KTM upgraded this by going to a much stronger roller bearing which ended the problem...
Then along comes the new 690 LC 4 engine and what do they do but go back to a ball bearing on the mainshaft... This baffles the mind why they would do this... So far there has been several known cases where the newer engines crapped the mainshaft bearing...
Yes! Only menteinance and the dreaded rocker arm issue which in Sherry Jo's case was a bit more complicated (rockers and cam replaced similar to my post above). Noah had more time to research before his trip and he regularly checked the bearing and replace the rockers just in time.
With the rocker rollers you usually get a warning that they are on the way out.. If when checking your valve clearance you find that the gaps have opened this is an indicator that your cam roller bearings are failing... The normal is for the valve lash gaps to tighten up with valve wear not loosen...
I hope it's not an economical reason that made them go back to ball bearing design.
All I can say as a 690 owner and after spending countless hours and thousand km on the subject, the only pattern or bad design in the 690 is the rocker arm bearing.
The rest are isolated cases and as there's no perfect bike out there I would say it's a personal situation. (Frame, RR, Fuel pump, tank bolts etc etc)
True! Mine stayed in spec for over 20k and then one cold morning in Ukraine the noise was much bigger. I hopped to be able to nurse it back to Bucharest for the next 450km but after another 100km intake rocker failed. As I was not carrying replacemen rockers I took the risk of damaging the cam which in the end happend.
So what happens next?
Well... Airbox mod, Lowered pegz, injector cleaning, rally routed front brake line, new head bearings, side stand switch eliminator in order to finish the "re" build part.
Then off to the "build" part which I'm working on almost full speed (unfortunately being sick doesn't help).
How do you like the six horned monster
So cool that you've put the whole bike in a digital format. Now we just need to be able to click on options and add the parts we have on our bikes so we can have full replicas
It does help a lot.
Imagine all the clearances you can check digitally instead of real time. For example I've seen builders opening the forks and taking out the springs in order to check the full travel situation. THis way is just a matter of locking or unlocking a layer. Not to mention that I own a '09 (22-24 triple) but have the new (30-32) offset as well in a different layer.
:) That would be way cool. Custom designed tower: you just click what devices you use and presto you have a customised tower plate to perfectly accommodate them.
You're running the newer triple on your bike? I read somewhere that does something not great for the steering but I can't remember details. I'm also riding an 09
Nope! I'm running the original 22-24 triple on my '09 but digitally I've replicated the new '12-'15 30-32 Offset triple as well.
I'm currently on 24 setting for more turning radius but less high speed stability.
I'm running the same. Also adjusted the steering stops to get a few more mm of turning radius but man, trying to turn this thing around in the garage is a PITA
Of course. I've set the steering stops just before the fork tube to touch the frame. Big difference from 22. Yes stationary it's PITA but once you start moving I'm totally fine with the 24 setting (22 was a bit rough in city traffic or tight stuff).
Agreed! Coming from riding supermoto I like the twitchy/tight turning
So I'm guessing you guys have never had to turn a sport bike...
Little trick, pivot the bike on the side-stand by pulling the rear wheel up. The 690 frame serves well as a grab handle. Position yourself on the left side (side-stand side), grab the frame on the right-hand side and lift the rear wheel so the bike is resting on the front wheel and side-stand. Now pivot the bike.
Very easy but you may want to put a piece of plywood under the side-sand so you don't damage the floor of your garage.
I’ve discovered in Tinda more than 20k into my trip that both threaded inserts of the snorkel/airfilter bolts have come loose. Back there I just pushed them back in place but after some research here on the forum a better solution came up.
The idea is to drill a 6mm hole through the airbox and fit a bolt from inside through the threaded insert keeping all in place. You fix the snorkel/airfilter in place with a closed nut on both bolts.
The reports on the open airbox are not very encouraging. The suction noise is pretty big (not that I’m concerned of) but actually the power gain is minimal. After reading multiple times the TuneECU thread I came across Ama’s conclusion that with 4-6 20mm holes on both sides of the snorkel you get same AFR as with the open airbox. Time to put it to the test.
Without a proper dyno tune or at least an AFR reading I cannot know how this mod will work with the EVOII map and the Rally cam. Probably it will not be enough as the EVOII map is designed in conjunction with the K&N cone filter. Hmmm… but that is not good for enduro use.
One of my future project:
A new composite airbox that accommodates the TwinAir filter for 12-15 Rally bikes.
It looks like this in real life:
And the one I modeled is like this:
The design difficulty is to incorporate a velocity stack which the rally airbox lacks. This way you keep some of the torque in the mid range which on a competition bike ridden by Coma is not important hence the simple rubber boot design.
Also having a proper airbox will preserve the river crossing abilities compared to K&N Cone filter.
Unless you do like this: