KLX 250 ( 300 ) camshaft mod by Marcelino
#791
08-11-2015 | 10:20 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,561
From: Delaware, Ohio
1st Gear Member
If you are running the OEM tensioner, you did take it out and reset it, right?
If you did not, the plunger can extend to full extension. If you only removed the spring, it will be at the original forward position as before disassembly, so the chain will be tight. The OEM tensioner is made to index in only one direction. Removing the spring only takes the light pressure used to advance it off of the plunger. If the plunger/pawl are working right it will not retract. It will not retract unless you remove it and reset it, put it in without the spring, then reinstall the spring as the last step after getting the cams set. At that point the spring will push the plunger forward for adjustment.
If a manual tensioner, you should back it off and after reassembly, readjust. It will be about the same as before.
I had plenty of play in the chain when I did mine with the manual tensioner backed out. So there is a reason for the tight chain. You just have to figure out why.
#792
08-11-2015 | 11:11 PM
Senior Member
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 329
From: Kenora, NWO, Canada
1st Gear Member
Just to verify proper set up...
If you are running the OEM tensioner, you did take it out and reset it, right?
If you did not, the plunger can extend to full extension. If you only removed the spring, it will be at the original forward position as before disassembly, so the chain will be tight. The OEM tensioner is made to index in only one direction. Removing the spring only takes the light pressure used to advance it off of the plunger. If the plunger/pawl are working right it will not retract. It will not retract unless you remove it and reset it, put it in without the spring, then reinstall the spring as the last step after getting the cams set. At that point the spring will push the plunger forward for adjustment.
If a manual tensioner, you should back it off and after reassembly, readjust. It will be about the same as before.
I had plenty of play in the chain when I did mine with the manual tensioner backed out. So there is a reason for the tight chain. You just have to figure out why.
If you are running the OEM tensioner, you did take it out and reset it, right?
If you did not, the plunger can extend to full extension. If you only removed the spring, it will be at the original forward position as before disassembly, so the chain will be tight. The OEM tensioner is made to index in only one direction. Removing the spring only takes the light pressure used to advance it off of the plunger. If the plunger/pawl are working right it will not retract. It will not retract unless you remove it and reset it, put it in without the spring, then reinstall the spring as the last step after getting the cams set. At that point the spring will push the plunger forward for adjustment.
If a manual tensioner, you should back it off and after reassembly, readjust. It will be about the same as before.
I had plenty of play in the chain when I did mine with the manual tensioner backed out. So there is a reason for the tight chain. You just have to figure out why.
It's the OE tensioner. I removed it completely, reset it and reinstalled. The chain was tight before I took the cams out and the motor has never been apart. When I took the adjuster out I expected the chain to be loose on the slack side. It never was. Reinstalled the cam and same condition exists.
#793
08-12-2015 | 12:27 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,561
From: Delaware, Ohio
1st Gear Member
So that was covered...
I'm not sure at this point, but I will say I don't think there's adequate play in the chain to actually move it over the teeth with the cams in place. I had to pop mine out to move the cam sprockets on the chain to get the setting proper. Don't know if that is any help either. Since I wasn't there and didn't see it, I'm kind of shooting in the dark to give some idea of why.
I'm not sure at this point, but I will say I don't think there's adequate play in the chain to actually move it over the teeth with the cams in place. I had to pop mine out to move the cam sprockets on the chain to get the setting proper. Don't know if that is any help either. Since I wasn't there and didn't see it, I'm kind of shooting in the dark to give some idea of why.
#795
08-12-2015 | 02:24 AM
Senior Member
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 329
From: Kenora, NWO, Canada
1st Gear Member
Well got it running and starts and sounds normal. I ran it up the road and couldn't say much on the difference, a very short ride. I'm riding it to work tomorrow and I'll see how it performs at speed. I did notice it seemed a touch doggy right off the start then picks up quickly. I'm running a Kawi #40 pilot and 128 main with 2.5 turns out on the pilot. I've also uncorked the exhaust and put on the older style 300 snorkel. Wondering if I should turn the pilot out more to get of the doggy start?
#796
08-12-2015 | 03:00 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,231
From: North Texas
1st Gear Member
MCM responds well to a richer fueling curve from off idle to redline.. Assuming you're near sea level (better be with a #40 pilot), and running a DJ kit, you'll need a DJ140 to see the "biggy" MCM power above 7K..
#797
08-12-2015 | 03:10 AM
Senior Member
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 329
From: Kenora, NWO, Canada
1st Gear Member
So what would be the equivalent Kawi main jet size? I'm running a washer under my needle, could I just add a washer and see how it responds? I also previously drilled the slide.
#798
08-12-2015 | 03:48 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,231
From: North Texas
1st Gear Member
Well I don't know exactly which K jet will flow as a DJ140, but the DJ140 is only $2.00 from DJ.. The stock needle will work better for you when the main jet is sized correctly for top end power - that is the way a CVK works, the main jet affects fueling levels from off idle to redline.
It is actually possible that the stock needle will produce very good midrange fueling with the DJ140 main jet as the DJ needle tends to overfuel with properly sized main jets - this is near sea level with airbox lid off...
I have no idea how "uncorked" your exhaust is, but if it flows as well as a KLX300 system, then you can pull the airbox lid with the DJ140 and HANG ON!
If/when you decide to run a DJ kit, you'll have to use the DJ2206 kit since it is designed to run with a drilled slide.. I only have fueling/power data on the DJ stuff so that is all I know about..
It is actually possible that the stock needle will produce very good midrange fueling with the DJ140 main jet as the DJ needle tends to overfuel with properly sized main jets - this is near sea level with airbox lid off...
I have no idea how "uncorked" your exhaust is, but if it flows as well as a KLX300 system, then you can pull the airbox lid with the DJ140 and HANG ON!
If/when you decide to run a DJ kit, you'll have to use the DJ2206 kit since it is designed to run with a drilled slide.. I only have fueling/power data on the DJ stuff so that is all I know about..
Last edited by Klxster; 08-12-2015 at 04:04 PM.
#799
08-12-2015 | 05:52 PM
Senior Member
1st Gear Member
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 283
From: B.C. Canada 2000' ASL
https://www.kawasakiforums.com/forum...11/#post522977
Did some measuring of my own yesterday. Measured the holes in the DJ jets that i have . The jet numbers go up in increments of 4 so i assumed that the hole sizes would also be incremental. I used a drill set with small drills as pin gauges measuring each drill with a micrometer.
Stock jet which came with the bike, hole size Ø0.043"
DJ 112 = Ø0.043"
DJ 116 = Ø0.043"
DJ 120 = Ø0.046"
DJ 124 = Still in my carb ?
DJ 128 = Ø0.050"
DJ 132 = Ø0.054"
As you can see no consistent incrementation. 112 and 116 same size. 116 to 120 0.003" different and 120 to 128 is 0.004" with a 124 in between.
What I take from this is that the difference from stock to DJ 132 is only 0.011" , not a lot. Which means that 0.002" could have an affect on the running of the bike.
It would be interesting if others could also measure their jets for comparison. Maybe DJ' s quality control is lacking.
Stock jet which came with the bike, hole size Ø0.043"
DJ 112 = Ø0.043"
DJ 116 = Ø0.043"
DJ 120 = Ø0.046"
DJ 124 = Still in my carb ?
DJ 128 = Ø0.050"
DJ 132 = Ø0.054"
As you can see no consistent incrementation. 112 and 116 same size. 116 to 120 0.003" different and 120 to 128 is 0.004" with a 124 in between.
What I take from this is that the difference from stock to DJ 132 is only 0.011" , not a lot. Which means that 0.002" could have an affect on the running of the bike.
It would be interesting if others could also measure their jets for comparison. Maybe DJ' s quality control is lacking.
I'm not sure what the equivalent of a DJ140 might be in Keihin jets, they don't appear to be very linear and there may be more to them than just the size of the hole.
#800
08-12-2015 | 07:33 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,231
From: North Texas
1st Gear Member
TheWack's findings are in line with what the DJ jetting specialist told me - there is no direct correlation between DJ and K jets as the DJ jets flow differently due to the venturi design of their internals. Everyone wants to measure and compare the "holes" - this doesn't work with DJ jets..
Anyone can call DJ and verify these "facts".
Anyone can call DJ and verify these "facts".