Swing arm maintenace

Gadget says 94 ft-lb for the swingarm & 79.6 for the axles, so my memory isn't as bad as I thought.

That's for the 1500 BTW.

[ponch]

I am just checking due to the respect given Gadget's site. Yes my bike is a 1600, but there is no distinction on the site. I just wondered if anyone had a factory manual and could verify what I read is correct. Sometimes there are typos...

[Yellow Jacket]

Originally Posted by ponch

I am just checking due to the respect given Gadget's site. Yes my bike is a 1600, but there is no distinction on the site. I just wondered if anyone had a factory manual and could verify what I read is correct. Sometimes there are typos...

According to the 2005-2008 Service manual for the 1600:

Swingarm pivot shaft - 94 ft-lb
Rear Axle Nut - 80 ft-lb
Front Axle shaft - 80 ft-lb
Front Axle clamp bolts - 21 ft-lb

Cheers, Bob

[ponch]

Is that a Kawasaki Manual? Mine lists 15 ft lbs for the clamp bolts, 79.6 ft lbs for the axles and the pivot shaft. OK. I guess the factory manual, at least the one I have could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Yellow Jacket

According to the 2005-2008 Service manual for the 1600:

Swingarm pivot shaft - 94 ft-lb
Rear Axle Nut - 80 ft-lb
Front Axle shaft - 80 ft-lb
Front Axle clamp bolts - 21 ft-lb

Cheers, Bob

[ponch]

My manual is a few years old, so may be they revised it. I bought it used. I'll have to get a new one.

79.6 ft-lbs is 80 ft-lbs for all practical purposes.

I'd use the 21 ft-lbs for the pinch bolts. 15 ft.-lbs is sorta low for those IMO but 21 won't hurt 'em. The 1500 uses 25 ft-lb on the pinch bolt, though its single bolt is just slightly larger.

[ponch]

The decimal is for informational purposes. I set the torque wrench to 80...I will say the splines on the engine side needed grease much more than the pinion side. It was as if there was nothing, but there was a Vaseline like grease inside the tube on the swing arm. Not a good grease. I used Mobil 1 grease. The swing arm is back together and wheels are on, I just have to put the exhaust back on, the rear header pipe, and the bags. I bought the exhaust gaskets from HD.

Originally Posted by caddmannq

79.6 ft-lbs is 80 ft-lbs for all practical purposes.

I'd use the 21 ft-lbs for the pinch bolts. 15 ft.-lbs is sorta low for those IMO but 21 won't hurt 'em. The 1500 uses 25 ft-lb on the pinch bolt, though its single bolt is just slightly larger.

Originally Posted by ponch

The decimal is for informational purposes. I set the torque wrench to 80...

Exactly. The decimal was only there in the manual because the guy that translated the metric units over didn't understand the ordinary precision inherant in the process. If he had, he'd have written 80 & saved the effort.

I only mention this because people do get carried away with the importance of accuracy in some things. For instance, in structural engineering nothing was ever calculated to more than three decimal places. It just wasn't necessary, and in almost every case if you went to the 4th you were wasting effort. You just can't tune things that finely in the real world. Certainly nobody builds them that finely when it comes to bridges and buildings & other such things. But for some reason we're starting to see calculations in the building code taken to the 4th decimal place. It's nonsense.

People are kidding themselves, like that guy that wrote "79.6 ft-lb".

Even a very expensive torque wrench is only accurate to plus or minus 2 ft-lbs. in 100 (2%) and that's under conditions of a controlled laboratory environment, and throughout a limited range of its available readings.

Us ordinary slobs working in the garage with a Craftsman torque wrench are lucky to get within 5% of the true value.

ALSO: a torque wrench is far less accurate at the low end of it's range. If you find yourself setting 16 ft-lb on a torque wrench that goes up to 250 ft-lbs, you should be reaching for a smaller torque wrench.

[macmac]

I think there is a error on the book for the 1600. page 2-10 says 94 foot pounds for the Swingarm Pivot Shaft, which is the bolt. Page 13-5 repeats this figure. pg 13-20 repeats this as well.

I swear somewhere is say the 74 foot pounds as well and I believe that is what I did! Well time to go and check that and see.

Oh my wrench does the 1/10ths doesn't every ones? yeah right..... ;-)

[ponch]

I just want it to be right with my fat a$$ on it. I torqued it to 94 today and I only had time to torque a few other bolts. I still have to put the exhaust pipe and bags on. I wouldn't want to do this all the time, not with the lift I have. I'd like the bike about 3' or a little more off the ground. I hate bending over.

Originally Posted by caddmannq

Exactly. The decimal was only there in the manual because the guy that translated the metric units over didn't understand the ordinary precision inherant in the process. If he had, he'd have written 80 & saved the effort.

I only mention this because people do get carried away with the importance of accuracy in some things. For instance, in structural engineering nothing was ever calculated to more than three decimal places. It just wasn't necessary, and in almost every case if you went to the 4th you were wasting effort. You just can't tune things that finely in the real world. Certainly nobody builds them that finely when it comes to bridges and buildings & other such things. But for some reason we're starting to see calculations in the building code taken to the 4th decimal place. It's nonsense.

People are kidding themselves, like that guy that wrote "79.6 ft-lb".

Even a very expensive torque wrench is only accurate to plus or minus 2 ft-lbs. in 100 (2%) and that's under conditions of a controlled laboratory environment, and throughout a limited range of its available readings.

Us ordinary slobs working in the garage with a Craftsman torque wrench are lucky to get within 5% of the true value.

ALSO: a torque wrench is far less accurate at the low end of it's range. If you find yourself setting 16 ft-lb on a torque wrench that goes up to 250 ft-lbs, you should be reaching for a smaller torque wrench.

[ponch]

It's done. Took the bike for a ride. Metzlers are so much better.

It's kinda like changing oil?

New oil is always better than old oil, no matter what the brand.

New tires are always better than old worn out tires.

Not that Metz ain't good tires. I like 'em.

They're just not quite so much better as they feel to you right now.

You see this when you change them out for your next set of Metzlers. Suddenly you'll be thinking, "Did Metzlers get better since last year?"

[ponch]

I'll take it regardless. The one thing I noticed it didn't seem to track in grooves as much as the bridgestones ever did.

Originally Posted by caddmannq

It's kinda like changing oil?

New oil is always better than old oil, no matter what the brand.

New tires are always better than old worn out tires.

Not that Metz ain't good tires. I like 'em.

They're just not quite so much better as they feel to you right now.

You see this when you change them out for your next set of Metzlers. Suddenly you'll be thinking, "Did Metzlers get better since last year?"

On the 1600, does it feel like the front wants to "fall in" to turns if you have like 38 or 40 psi in the front tire? I had to let mine down a little until I wore the middle down a little on the front tire.

[ponch]

The shop the mounted the tires puts the max in, that's what they recommend with the metzlers. it falls into turns much easier than the bridgestones did at any pressure.

Originally Posted by caddmannq

On the 1600, does it feel like the front wants to "fall in" to turns if you have like 38 or 40 psi in the front tire? I had to let mine down a little until I wore the middle down a little on the front tire.