Cam chain tensioners

Ernest Montague afm199 at earthlink.net
Sun May 17 17:27:37 PDT 2009


adjusted at loosest point is what I did.


On May 17, 2009, at 5:10 PM, zoran wrote:

> bs. chain goes tight/lose/tight/lose depending where cam lobes are.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Zoran Vujasinovic
> Twin Works Factory
> 775-786-4881
> www.twfracing.com
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernest Montague" 
> <afm199 at earthlink.net>
> To: "Suzuki SV650 Mailing List" <sv650 at micapeak.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:44 PM
> Subject: Re: Cam chain tensioners
>
>
>> not really making a defense here, just used them both.  The OEM keeps 
>> the chain really really taut, the manual does not.  And if the entire 
>> length of the cam chain follower is bathed in oil it's not going to 
>> really get much hotter at all.  However I know from experience that a 
>> too tight rear chain will make it harder to turn the rear wheel than 
>> a loose one.
>> On May 17, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Beth wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Ernest Montague 
>>> <afm199 at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> Not when the heat is carried off in steel and oil and dissipated by 
>>>> the
>>>> radiator
>>>
>>> It's a given that there is friction generated by the cam chain 
>>> rubbing
>>> against the teeth of the cam chain sprockets and guides. The question
>>> is how much and is there a significant difference between the tension
>>> the OEM automatic cam chain tensioner puts on the chain versus a
>>> properly configured manual cam chain tensioner. We're not talking
>>> about a complicated part of the engine.
>>>
>>> It's an interesting thought experiment, barring credible empirical
>>> evidence. And, yes, I question the evidence seeing that the person 
>>> who
>>> is trying to sell you the part is making the HP claims w/o conclusive
>>> proof. No offense intended toward all parties involved. I'm 
>>> interested
>>> in what's the truth, not what other people say.
>>>
>>> -Beth
>>>
>>
>



More information about the SV650 mailing list