Author Topic: Air Injection System Removal (Read 6331 times)

connieklr · « **on:** October 29, 2017, 06:54:18 pm »

Getting ready to do a 35K mile valve check on my 194K mile '95, and am seriously thinking of removing the air injection system, and machining a couple of cover plates to replace the reed cages. Previous renditions I have seen have folks tapping the exhaust portals and plugging them with some small plugs. Can't anyone explain to me why this plugging procedure is (absolutely) necessary? Unless I'm missing something, I can't.

????????????

TIA

Outback Jon · « **Reply #1 on:** October 29, 2017, 07:00:56 pm »

Turning the reed valves over achieves the same thing. No tapping necessary.

Don't forget to plug the hole in the airbox, too.

MAN OF BLUES · « **Reply #2 on:** October 30, 2017, 08:39:59 pm »

Quote from: Outback Jon on October 29, 2017, 07:00:56 pm

Turning the reed valves over achieves the same thing. No tapping necessary.

Don't forget to plug the hole in the airbox, too.

Interesting....

A friend of ours (Guys and mine) we shall call him Tim.... did just this same thing, by mistake once... altho he didn't block the air tube off... his bike backfired and sputtered making a horrendous racket, till I popped the reeds back out and installed thm reed side down... as original...
As these "ports" do lead directly down into the exhaust flow path, and the purpose is to draw air to clean up combustion, I have to say flipping the reeds still allows backpressure pulses to back flow.. thus his dillemma...

Guy,
If you wish to pull them, and cap them, and plug the hose hole in the airbox with a rubber plug,nit works... but id do that optional step along with it all... plugging the actual ports in the head.. I'm silly like that, but I know there is a back pulse that can and does pressurize the cavity.
Its an easy procedure, I did one once for some huy insisting it done... I took pieces of cotton gauze, and made plugs attached to some 20# fishing line, greased them goobery, and poked them into the ports... then using iirc a 5/16" tap, (no drilling required) goobered with grease, tapped each hole, and then pulled the gauze and greasy chips booger back up and out... then threaded a short setscrew into the hole, goobered with black RTV into the port, and backed it with a second setscrew, goobered also.. this seals the ports, and is totally reversable if so desired...
Then add caps, or not, it'll be all sealed then.
COGZilla still has reeds, so did Touch Of Gray...

Bob_C_CT · « **Reply #3 on:** October 30, 2017, 11:20:57 pm »

I have block off plates, reeds upside down. So the next time I do the valve adjust I should tap and plug the holes while I have the valve cover off?

MAN OF BLUES · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2017, 11:29:41 pm »

well, no, i'm sure with the blockoffs sealed with some sealant, it offers resistance..

I just gave my take on the way the reeds worked as installed, and what I personally would do.
Seems like there have been no Issues reported by using block off's only, but then again, people tend to not pay a lot of attention to detail.. and never question it. If a seal at some point, becomes compromised... will they know?

Steve in Sunny Fla · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2017, 12:10:38 am »

Tap the head and install plugs with sealant on them. Then you'll never have to worry about oil getting sucked into the exhaust. Steve.

Nosmo · « **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2017, 02:38:10 am »

Every time I read one of these threads I want to ask....so now I will.

I installed home-made block-off plates many years and about 45,000 miles ago. All I did was plug the airbox hole and bolt the plates on over the existing reed valves, nothing else. I never tapped anything. What am I missing? Engine runs great, no oil going anywhere it isn't suppose to as far as I know. No backfiring, afterfiring, missing. nothing. What the heck was I supposed to tap and plug?

Steve in Sunny Fla · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2017, 02:41:24 pm »

Quote from: Nosmo on October 31, 2017, 02:38:10 am

Every time I read one of these threads I want to ask....so now I will.

I installed home-made block-off plates many years and about 45,000 miles ago. All I did was plug the airbox hole and bolt the plates on over the existing reed valves, nothing else. I never tapped anything. What am I missing? Engine runs great, no oil going anywhere it isn't suppose to as far as I know. No backfiring, afterfiring, missing. nothing. What the heck was I supposed to tap and plug?

you don't have to tap and plug anything, but doing it will prevent any possibility of the well gaskets letting oil into the exhaust. Steve

connieklr · « **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2017, 06:10:28 pm »

I didn't want to say anything until I had one pulled out, but this is what I recollected if the reeds were simply flipped:

I'm not into forcing something into position, so me thinks I'll just do the deed, tap and plug the ports. The valve cover is coming off anyway to check the valves, so no big deal.

MAN OF BLUES · « **Reply #9 on:** October 31, 2017, 07:17:34 pm »

Another interesting factoid.... and question....
Did you have a thick gasket, located below the reeds assembly, on your cover?
Just asking, as when I was trouble shooting Tim's bike, he mentioned he bought new gaskets...and they didn't fit.. back then we both had '86 models... I ordered a pair of gaskets, and held onto them, but at my next chance, when I removed the reeds and was doing a valve check, found the gaskets would not fir... they were like 1/8" thick and in the microfiche shown to "live" below the reeds assembly in that recess, but in the manual (physically not shown), were explained to fit between the reeds and the top cover... big mystery to me anyways, and I never could make them fit in there... weird.

Another mystery part I'll never understand on this bike...

connieklr · « **Reply #10 on:** October 31, 2017, 07:43:50 pm »

Quote from: MAN OF BLUES on October 31, 2017, 07:17:34 pm

Another interesting factoid.... and question....
Did you have a thick gasket, located below the reeds assembly, on your cover?
Just asking, as when I was trouble shooting Tim's bike, he mentioned he bought new gaskets...and they didn't fit.. back then we both had '86 models... I ordered a pair of gaskets, and held onto them, but at my next chance, when I removed the reeds and was doing a valve check, found the gaskets would not fir... they were like 1/8" thick and in the microfiche shown to "live" below the reeds assembly in that recess, but in the manual (physically not shown), were explained to fit between the reeds and the top cover... big mystery to me anyways, and I never could make them fit in there... weird.

Another mystery part I'll never understand on this bike...

I didn't pull it out, because at first glance it looked a little thin. Because of that, I didn't mess with it for fear I'd fook it up. Again, I only pulled one valve set out just to confirm what the pictures showed and that I'd remembered. I'll take a closer look tomorrow when I head back out to the garage to pull the cover.

Will be interesting to see where the valves are sitting. I thought it had only been ~35K since my last check, but it'll actually be ~54K. The last time I looked, which was around 35K, they were all well within spec. Dang - time flies when you're having fun.

Have also pulled the carbs (always fun once there's a chill in the air). I want to up the pilots a notch (and shim the needles) to see if that has any effect since installing the Delkevics. Bike hasn't been as seamless off idle as it used-to-wuz with the OEM pipes. No big hurry. Will be taking the KLR on the Brrr Ride. There's a couple of semi off-road places over in WV I want to visit IF the wx cooperates.

drumstyx · « **Reply #11 on:** October 31, 2017, 11:06:06 pm »

The gaskets there are very thick, but no thicker than you can get at your local NAPA, as I've done to make my own when experimenting. I have an '02, and there was a thick gasket there (from the factory, presumably). They were *under* the reed valves. I remember explicitly because if they weren't, they'd have been ripped the first time the covers were removed for a valve adjustment, as they're paper and quite delicate.

Honestly, the blockoff plates alone have been just fine. I experimented in thought about how a pulse might make its way into another cylinder, and IIRC, it simply doesn't happen. I tried installing the valves with gasket and blockoff plate (not inverted) and it made no difference vs simple blockoff plates.

That said, I've found I DO have to remove the blockoff plates (or perhaps just the screws, it's been a while since I did a valve adjustment) to get the valve cover out. Perhaps it'd be nice if I could tap and block off the ports, then I wouldn't have to deal with *anything* sticking up and could just fill/cover the area with...well anything. JB weld? Drywall putty???

Bucky · « **Reply #12 on:** October 31, 2017, 11:24:47 pm »

The might-oughta-wanna? report:

If a state decides to emi$$ion$ test motorcycles, you might wanna keep the old emissions plumbing around for good luck.

Would a Connie fail emissions without the plumbing? Dunno. Hope I never have to find out.

The Feds threatened to withhold highway funding unless CT got on the emissions testing bandwagon. As we have botched numerous attempts at it, we likely spent 4 times more than the Feds may have withheld. That's how we roll here -- if it costs a dollar, we want to spend $14 instead. ranty rant rant...

drumstyx · « **Reply #13 on:** October 31, 2017, 11:31:46 pm »

Quote from: Bucky on October 31, 2017, 11:24:47 pm

The might-oughta-wanna? report:

If a state decides to emi$$ion$ test motorcycles, you might wanna keep the old emissions plumbing around for good luck.

Would a Connie fail emissions without the plumbing? Dunno. Hope I never have to find out.

The Feds threatened to withhold highway funding unless CT got on the emissions testing bandwagon. As we have botched numerous attempts at it, we likely spent 4 times more than the Feds may have withheld. That's how we roll here -- if it costs a dollar, we want to spend $14 instead. ranty rant rant...

I can't speak for the state of affairs in the USA, as I know some states have never had ANY sort of testing, safety or emission, but in Canada e-testing has been statistically proven to currently be a waste of time and money. It achieved its purpose; getting old major polluters off the road. These days, manufacturing-level standards, not to mention fuel economy, are enough of a driver that they're no longer necessary. Modern vehicles don't have failing emissions systems like olds vehicles. British Columbia (Canada's California, as far as that eco-friendly thing goes) has recently completely removed the emission testing system.

Outback Jon · « **Reply #14 on:** October 31, 2017, 11:39:29 pm »

Quote from: Bucky on October 31, 2017, 11:24:47 pm

Would a Connie fail emissions without the plumbing? Dunno. Hope I never have to find out.

I believe that the plumbing mostly came into use when you closed the throttle on deceleration. So it likely wouldn't have any effect on a static emissions test. Maybe if the state required a test hooked up to a dyno.

Bucky · « **Reply #15 on:** October 31, 2017, 11:40:15 pm »

Here in CT, you take a an hour or three out of your work day, pay $20, cash only, go wait, and basically find out if your "check engine" light is working.

If you are without means and have an old vehicle, you get to spend up to $400 for post failure repairs to take a shot at compliance.

Its basically a program to waste your time and money, and punish the poor.

This is the truth, so help me God, Buddha, whoever you choose -- In CT, we were issued stickers prior to the start of emissions stating "This vehicle has not been tested." Is that stupid to the point of a brain explosion. Why, yes - it is.

drumstyx · « **Reply #16 on:** October 31, 2017, 11:55:54 pm »

Quote from: Bucky on October 31, 2017, 11:40:15 pm

Here in CT, you take a an hour or three out of your work day, pay $20, cash only, go wait, and basically find out if your "check engine" light is working.

If you are without means and have an old vehicle, you get to spend up to $400 for post failure repairs to take a shot at compliance.

Its basically a program to waste your time and money, and punish the poor.

This is the truth, so help me God, Buddha, whoever you choose -- In CT, we were issued stickers prior to the start of emissions stating "This vehicle has not been tested." Is that stupid to the point of a brain explosion. Why, yes - it is.

Yep, 3 or 4 years ago Ontario changed to code-reading only, removing the tailpipe emissions test -- basically the same test you can run on a $50 code reader. They've just this year made the test 'free', in that the taxpayer now pays for the scam

Bucky · « **Reply #17 on:** October 31, 2017, 11:57:50 pm »

We do dyno runs for emissions here.

It's only money...

... mine

Outback Jon · « **Reply #18 on:** November 01, 2017, 11:49:49 am »

Quote from: Bucky on October 31, 2017, 11:40:15 pm

If you are without means and have an old vehicle, you get to spend up to $400 for post failure repairs to take a shot at compliance.

I believe the number is $1500 here in NY.

connieklr · « **Reply #19 on:** November 01, 2017, 01:33:41 pm »

Quote from: Bucky on October 31, 2017, 11:24:47 pm

The might-oughta-wanna? report:

If a state decides to emi$$ion$ test motorcycles, you might wanna keep the old emissions plumbing around for good luck.

Would a Connie fail emissions without the plumbing? Dunno. Hope I never have to find out.

The Feds threatened to withhold highway funding unless CT got on the emissions testing bandwagon. As we have botched numerous attempts at it, we likely spent 4 times more than the Feds may have withheld. That's how we roll here -- if it costs a dollar, we want to spend $14 instead. ranty rant rant...

I have a bad(?) habit or rarely throwing anything away - first wife excluded.

Anything I remove will be neatly tucked away somewhere safe........... where I won't be able to find it the next time I go looking for it.

CmosBob · « **Reply #20 on:** November 01, 2017, 07:16:49 pm »

Quote from: Bucky on October 31, 2017, 11:24:47 pm

The might-oughta-wanna? report:

If a state decides to emi$$ion$ test motorcycles, you might wanna keep the old emissions plumbing around for good luck.

Would a Connie fail emissions without the plumbing? Dunno. Hope I never have to find out.

The Feds threatened to withhold highway funding unless CT got on the emissions testing bandwagon. As we have botched numerous attempts at it, we likely spent 4 times more than the Feds may have withheld. That's how we roll here -- if it costs a dollar, we want to spend $14 instead. ranty rant rant...

Dont be giving Dan Malloy any ideas, please.

MAN OF BLUES · « **Reply #21 on:** November 01, 2017, 08:03:07 pm »

Quote from: Bucky on October 31, 2017, 11:57:50 pm

We do dyno runs for emissions here.

It's only money...

... mine

Dyno runs.....

Look at the screen next time they "dyno" your car......
Ohio does EPA testing also, has for decades... they let you pull in, and drive tires sit on a rolling drum, but it ain't a dyno... they test fuel filler cap on a tester for leakage, run the plugin diagnoscs on the ECU, check milage, run the vehicle up to and hold 35 mph on the "dyno".. its just a speedo thing... and check system...
If you have dash lights saying service engine, they can refuse the testing, but if you are smart, and have issues with dash lights, you can stop at Autozone, use their code reader, and go in and erase all the stored error codes on the way to the test station... then you can sign a form, and submit to a sniffer test....run at speed.
My 98 gmc sonoma, with check engine light, once cleared, aces the emissions every single time I've had it inspected, all emissions are below 10% of the range they check as minimum... so its a cleaner engine than most on the road... then I get a clean bill of health for 2 years before needing another test...
They will NEVER do testing on bikes here, and in Va., the only inspection they do is for burned out bulbs, horn, and a visualnwalknaround... never see them doing emissions in future either for any vehical, as they won't spend the money to setup all the inspection stations which are mostly garages doing brake, tire, and minimal autonservices...

I still don't understand the emissions thing, hell, with all the dieselntrucks and busses, I see everyday belching black smoke, I have to think its a bad joke...

Locomotiveman · « **Reply #22 on:** November 01, 2017, 09:18:04 pm »

Myself, I put the Block-off plates on for 3 basic reasons. 1. To free up precious space when pulling the cover. 2. Eliminating Ugliness, possible vacuum leaks and whatnot. 3. Simplify, simplify, simplify. I am puzzled why someone would NOT do it.... Locomotiveman

connieklr · « **Reply #23 on:** November 02, 2017, 04:44:45 pm »

Tapped and plugged (5/16"-18 x 1/4" set screws) the ports, and waiting on a quote for a 12" x 12" chunk of 3/8" alum. plate so I can machine the covers.

Checked the valves and I had four (4) that were .001" below the max setting...... which is always where I set them. Not bad since they've barely budged in 54K miles.

EDIT: I sit corrected. I did a really quick check yesterday when I first pulled the cover because I was curious where they were sitting. Digging deeper into them today ready to adjust, and I only had two exhaust that were a really snug .009"; backed them off slightly. Am happy!!

Brooke_Benfield_OR · « **Reply #24 on:** November 02, 2017, 09:21:43 pm »

Quote from: Locomotiveman on November 01, 2017, 09:18:04 pm

Myself, I put the Block-off plates on for 3 basic reasons. 1. To free up precious space when pulling the cover. 2. Eliminating Ugliness, possible vacuum leaks and whatnot. 3. Simplify, simplify, simplify. I am puzzled why someone would NOT do it.... Locomotiveman

Not trying to get in anybodies face here but this is why I never did it on my C10s.

The system causes no penalty whatsoever to performance when functioning properly and reduces emissions by admitting fresh air into the exhaust system under relatively heavy acceleration to help pollutants burn before they reach the atmosphere. That's a win/win in my book.

The way I see it is the benefits of removing the AIS don't outweigh the advantages of leaving it in, so I don't really understand why folk do it.

To each their own.