OK, so been thinking...
696 specs: 88mm bore with at 57.2 mm stroke
the stroke on the 620 is 61.5
using the same bore you basically get a 750.
What kind of work would need to be done for the engine to be able to accept the longer stroke of the 620 crank?
Or would it be easier to get a larger bore? how big of a bore would the engine hold on the 696?
how about the 92mm of the 900 motors?
with old 92mm bore with the stock crank you basically get a 750 motor, or with the 620 crank you get an 800.
then valves...
what are you thoughts first on the bore x stroke capabilities of the 696 motor. i'm about to have the engine out of the frame... so been looking hard at what i want to really do with this bike.
Depending on the piston pin height of the stock 696 pistons, a 91mm overbore kit from CA-Cycleworks (There are two available BTW one for the 800 (859) and one for the 750 (799).) would turn your 696 motor into a 750. (Valve to piston clearance and valve to combustion chamber clearance notwithstanding).
If you're going to stroke the motor, why not an 800 crank? 66mm stroke would be much more torque than the 620 crank would at 61.5mm versus your stock crank at 57.8mm.
(I have a low-mile '04 SS800 crank available for sale BTW... [evil])
ok, so what would need to be done for the 66? any internal case mods?
would it be easy to run the stock bore . it gives me an 800 that way or an 850 with the 91 bore kit.
the 91mm bore kit with stock stroke only gives 750
what would be more cost effective?
ok i'll bite how much for the crank :)
seems that stroking the motor with a valve job/head flow work would be a pretty good upgrade though.
Also thought about working the airbox or eliminating it.
If you left your stock bore, then stock or hi-comp 800 pistons should work in your 696 motor. It depends on the piston design and if Ducati has changed the deck height of the 696 versus the older small case engines. (Deck height is measured from the centerline of the crankshaft (big ends) to the top of the cylinder barrel BTW.)
The rods should be the same but I don't know as I haven't torn down a 696 motor yet. No internal case mods to fit the 66mm stroke crankshaft.
$120 for the crank + shipping.
has anyone taken apart a 696 motor yet?
I think you may have the perfect bike to try it out on. ;)
GREAT :o
oh.. and if anyone wants to donate parts to the cause for my efforts ;)
Ok here's some info i found. Seems the intake valves are the bigger 44mm. probably just need to clean up the intake runners and the airbox inside.
In the event of damage or excessive wear the barrel must be renewed as it has a silicon carbide coating (which provides the cylinder walls with excellent anti-friction and anti-wear properties) and therefore cannot be rebored.
Intake valve diameter 44 mm
Exhaust valve diameter 38.5 mm
The intake valve guides are made from cast iron, whereas the exhaust valve guides are bronze
Connecting rod Connecting-rod big-end diameter 43.67 mm
Nominal diameters Ø 18 mm
Piston Ø 18 mm/0.020 to 0.015
Gudgeon pin Ø 18 mm/0 to 0.004
Quote from: Raux on September 09, 2009, 11:30:53 AM
GREAT :o
someone needs to send me the shop manual ;D edit- may have it.. checking now
oh.. and if anyone wants to donate parts to the cause for my efforts ;)
Its too big to send...
http://ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=22342.0 (http://ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=22342.0)
Quote from: sroberts152 on September 09, 2009, 12:01:16 PM
Its too big to send...
http://ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=22342.0 (http://ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=22342.0)
yeah i got it.. forgot
The 696 uses a setup like a DS1X00 with a gasket between the cylinders and heads. Because of this the overbore kits maynot work. The heads flow beter with better cams and bigger valves than the 800 heads. If your willing to split the cases I think an 800 crank could produce some more power. I would love to see the results. If you do tear into your motor if you can figure out if the bore spacing on the 696 is different from the older small case engines it may help me in a project.
Quote from: caperix on September 10, 2009, 03:02:32 PM
The 696 uses a setup like a DS1X00 with a gasket between the cylinders and heads. Because of this the overbore kits maynot work. The heads flow beter with better cams and bigger valves than the 800 heads. If your willing to split the cases I think an 800 crank could produce some more power. I would love to see the results. If you do tear into your motor if you can figure out if the bore spacing on the 696 is different from the older small case engines it may help me in a project.
i called the Kamna shop today but they said i need to talk to Herr Kamna who wasn't available today. soooo i'll call again. i had also sent them an email.
I expect they will say 'sure... how much money do you have' but i'll counter with... i know of an untapped market and now you have an engine to play with.
if i got the 66mm crank don't i need the rods to go with which would be shorter right? the 696 has a 10.7:1 compression ratio already so seems there wouldn't be much room for stock conrods to be used.
Either shorter rods, or pistons with a shorter pin height. The piston pin height is measured from the centerline of the piston pin to the top of the piston face (generally not including the dome of the piston).
Likely, the pistons from an 800 would at least get you close providing the combustion chamber hasn't changed significantly from the old small cased motors to the new ones.
Quote from: Duck-Stew on September 18, 2009, 10:19:54 AM
Either shorter rods, or pistons with a shorter pin height. The piston pin height is measured from the centerline of the piston pin to the top of the piston face (generally not including the dome of the piston).
Likely, the pistons from an 800 would at least get you close providing the combustion chamber hasn't changed significantly from the old small cased motors to the new ones.
i was thinking the new combustion chamber design (which i read was one of the big changes between the 695 and 696) would work better with the stock 696 pistons. therefore, i guess shorter rods. but by how much? i'm thinking it's gonna need to be taken apart and measured and then decided...all of which is beyond me, so i'm back to waiting on contact from Kamna.
looks like Ducati beat me to the punch and made the new HM 796 with 66mm stroke we've been talking about. wonder what they did with the pistons and what compression ratio they are runnning? the upgrade gave only 1hp but 5.1 lb ft more torque.
hmm i still think with the stroke and cleaning up the exhaust intake, dp ecu or PC V (or both) and maybe even bigger valves... you can get some great power out of this little motor.
I thought I read the displacement was still going to be the same as the 696, the new number is going to mean something about performance. Kind of like the new BMW 328i and 335 both having the same 3.0 liter motor.
Which BTW I think is a bad idea if true
Quote from: dbran1949 on September 23, 2009, 11:59:54 AM
I thought I read the displacement was still going to be the same as the 696, the new number is going to mean something about performance. Kind of like the new BMW 328i and 335 both having the same 3.0 liter motor.
Which BTW I think is a bad idea if true
it's on the ducati website. 66mm stroke for certain.
and while i'm thinking about engine stuff.
throttle bodies. seems all the air cooled monsters run 45mm throttle bodies. but the 4v's are running 50mm. wonder if the 4v throttle bodies will fit on the 2v engines? anyone tried this or knows how to get larger throttle bodies?
Quote from: Raux on September 23, 2009, 12:08:10 PM
it's on the ducati website. 66mm stroke for certain.
I didn't even check there, going off what I read in an earlier post that linked to hell bent for leather.
This is good news, I really didn't want to see Ducati playing with displacement numbers. (I don't mean a few ccs of course if they wanted to call the 796 an 800 that would be fine)
The 4V throttle bodies are mounted differently and would require some custom machining to get them to fit. Someone was doing 748 throttle bodies on DS1000 motors a while back but with serious re-welding/re-configuring of the ports and the frame too IIRC.
They chose (IMO) the engine designation of 796 to differentiate it from the older 800 motor as it's really very little the same motor anymore. And, BTW, both motors displace 803cc's.
the marketing folks probably thought seven-nine-six sounds better than eight hundred. I read something years ago about auto manufacturers like to label product with things like stx or vx etc. Things that end in x like six are supposed to trick our brains into thinking "sex"
Can you bore out the 696 throttle bodies? We do it for cars all the time.
I am surprised at how little of a gain the extra 100cc of displacement gave in power. Though some of that may just be how the motor is tuned. I did not see a dyno graph on Ducati's website to see when those numbers happen. The numbers are very close to what the 1000 ds makes. At 45mm per throttle body I wouldn't think they a very big restriction, 5mm increase is not much and the 4 valve heads do flow alot more at higher rpm. The 696 uses cams similar to the 1X00 ds, if they swap that may be worth looking into.
My thoughts on extra displacement and the new bikes not making much more power:
Emissions standards are getting awfully strict lately. Lower amounts of fuel in = lower emissions but has the side effect of lower power too. Me thinks a DP ecu & exhaust kit fitted to the new HM796 would see large gains over the stock power curve.
Quote from: caperix on September 23, 2009, 02:43:21 PM
I am surprised at how little of a gain the extra 100cc of displacement gave in power. Though some of that may just be how the motor is tuned. I did not see a dyno graph on Ducati's website to see when those numbers happen. The numbers are very close to what the 1000 ds makes. At 45mm per throttle body I wouldn't think they a very big restriction, 5mm increase is not much and the 4 valve heads do flow alot more at higher rpm. The 696 uses cams similar to the 1X00 ds, if they swap that may be worth looking into.
so you thinking a 1x00DS cam swap would provide more air to the motor than a 50mm TBs?
it's possibly just a 696 motor with a 66mm crank, so it may not have any reason to make much more power. especially if the 696 is overvalved or just overrated to make it look better on paper. it certainly looks like your normal 1000ds based head design.
Quote from: Raux on September 23, 2009, 08:14:26 PM
so you thinking a 1x00DS cam swap would provide more air to the motor than a 50mm TBs?
I just don't think the airflow of the 45mm TB's are being maxed out. They are used on all 2 valve bikes from the 620's to the 1100's. I'm not sure if the cams would be an improvement or not, the 696 uses more agressive cams than the old 800. I still wonder if the 796 was tuned for a broad flat torque curve compaired to the 696.
well the 66mm crank got here today. sending it to a shop to get lightened [evil]
also maybe moving from 44/38 valves to 45/40 with ported and polished heads
have a friend i'm gonna ask to do a CF airbox or i'll use lightweight aluminum to build one. there's a HUGE filter taking up room inside where the crankcase breather tube goes. gonna go to a K&N for the breather anyway, so gonna try and expand the airbox size inside. may think about working tubes from the new front fairing to get some ram air action. with the BMC filter i got and larger velocity stacks i think i should be getting as much air into the motor as i can
Also gonna work on getting the flywheel lightened.
looking at 848 clutches as well maybe an ergal slipper to lighten the load.
i think that's about it for the motor. besides the PC V to run all the changes. which still isn't available for the 696
Sounds good.. deff want to see what it does for you.. so when I can get mines ill have more options..
here's what ducati kaemna said for pricing in euros
lightweight flywheel exchange approx 100,-
porting/polishing approx 680,- complete with new valve guides and new valve adjustment ready to install
mounting valves with cutting the current seats included
crank lightening/balance lightening and balance up from 448,-
piston cutting for larger valves and to keep compression ratio below 12:1 depends on how much work it is ,
approx 110,- max i think .
soooo i may have to cut back.. that's almost 2k dollars of engine work. i wasn't planning on more than 1k
may just got with the flywheel, crank balance and if needed piston work (waiting on parts list for HM 796 to see what they did for the change)
1k alone for valve work is too much.
went with the lightweight flywheel from the ducshop. 84 vs 130 dollars for Kaemna's work!
and i am picking up a pair of spare 696 heads to try my hand at polishing the ports myself. i know i won't be able to do major port work or do the work for the larger valves in unless i can find a local shop that can 3angle for cheap.
i'll probably have to send the pistons still to them for the cutting to work with 66mm crank. and leave room for the 45/40 valves if i can find another shop to do the work or find out how much they would charge just for the valve seat work.
Maybe you already read this, but a press release says the 796 is a 803cc 88 x 66 comp 11:1 lighter cases ....
It has a new crankshaft and a 848-type lightened flywheel
didn't read that but it's not unexpected.
the 11:1 ratio is new though. the stock M800 compression was 10.5 so apparently either the pistons are completely new or the old rods are smaller.
really need to take a look at the parts catalog when it comes out so i can check the rod and piston part numbers compared to other bikes.
Ducati's really good about putting the parts catalogs up in November so you may not have to wait that long man...
Was told by a great Ducati engine builder that the valves aren't a good idea so I am not goint to go to 45/40 valves. just going to polish the heads myself (pray for me)
Did he give a reason?
Quote from: cokey on October 14, 2009, 05:41:43 AM
Did he give a reason?
the bigger valves don't work well. good enough for me.
lol.. aight..
basically the valves get too close to the cylinder walls the airflow isn't so good.
This is the projected build.
803cc,
88mm x 66mm
port/polished 40/38 valvetrain.
Custom undertail exhaust 2-into-2
BMC Airfilter
lightened flywheel
possibly an 848 clutch
DP ECU
PC V (if it ever comes out for the 696)
Magnesium alternator cover
Magnesium Clutch cover
Custom AL or CF airbox with more volume and 916 intake funnels
Electreaon quick throttle cam
EDIT: forgot the DS1000 cams that are coming too!
http://www.motowheels.com/italian/myproducts.cfm?parentcategoryid=1054%7CMonster%20Engine%20%26%20Performance&productID=6784&showDetail=1&categoryID=1079 (http://www.motowheels.com/italian/myproducts.cfm?parentcategoryid=1054%7CMonster%20Engine%20%26%20Performance&productID=6784&showDetail=1&categoryID=1079)|MON%20Engine%20Fuel%20%26%20Air&vendoridtodisplay=0&filterFor=&collection=168%7CEuropean%20Motorcycle%20Parts
I like your project - you're crazy, but I like it [thumbsup]
yeah you can preorder it, but Dynojet hasn't released it yet, checked their website.
my target is to make as much HP as the 1100 :o
What about a nemesis it has alot more tuning options then the pc. It is a Mirelli product though so they may not make in plug and play for the semens equiped 696.
Quote from: caperix on October 21, 2009, 02:39:24 PM
What about a nemesis it has alot more tuning options then the pc. It is a Mirelli product though so they may not make in plug and play for the semens equiped 696.
aren't the nemesis like a grand AND A HALF or more
i think the DP ECU with the PC V and maybe the Autotune.
also a speed sensor and temp sensor will allow for more adjustment. say increasing or decreasing on cold starts, or setting it up for in town 20% throttle and low speed riding with better fuel economy.
seems pretty flexible.
The nemisis is expensive, around 1000 last I looked. It is an ecu replacement though, so you would not need to get the DP ecu. The power comander does have a big advantage in that everyone knows how to tune them and maps are easy to find. But it does tend to "fight" the o2 sensors on newer bikes requiring o2 elimiators or the DP ecu at extra cost.
Quote from: caperix on October 22, 2009, 02:31:43 PM
The nemisis is expensive, around 1000 last I looked. It is an ecu replacement though, so you would not need to get the DP ecu. The power comander does have a big advantage in that everyone knows how to tune them and maps are easy to find. But it does tend to "fight" the o2 sensors on newer bikes requiring o2 elimiators or the DP ecu at extra cost.
the dp ecu eliminates the o2 sensors altogher right? so with the PC V it should work great?
As far as I know it does, some one may correct me on that though.
afaik the siemens dp ecu are all lambda enabled.
maybe you could turn it off using the aprilia tool - i'm not sure if the axone will talk to it as an aprilia, haven't got to try yet.
Quote from: brad black on October 24, 2009, 07:46:41 PM
afaik the siemens dp ecu are all lambda enabled.
maybe you could turn it off using the aprilia tool - i'm not sure if the axone will talk to it as an aprilia, haven't got to try yet.
tell me more about this aprilia tool?
When I got my 50cc tuned, the boys in the shop plugged in their Game Boy.
I have no idea, but maybe this is something close to what Brad is talking about
http://www.ultimateparts.net/shop/category.php?id=17147&n=Aprilia-Special-Tools-Y-Electronic-Tools-DIAGNOSTIC-TOOLS (http://www.ultimateparts.net/shop/category.php?id=17147&n=Aprilia-Special-Tools-Y-Electronic-Tools-DIAGNOSTIC-TOOLS)
I also like your project. It has some great potential. I have a 2 into 1 undertail exhaust you may like. Still working on the tank skin though.
Quote from: MOUSEMAN on October 27, 2009, 12:17:49 PM
I also like your project. It has some great potential. I have a 2 into 1 undertail exhaust you may like. Still working on the tank skin though.
i am interesting in the mid pipe you used to go 2-1. i already have some mufflers coming, and i also have a second complete exhaust system to work with a couple of ideas.
i could run stock, 2-1, 2-2 or 2-2 with a cross pipe.
Ryan has a 2-1 that comes up high under the center of the bike.
i'm going to try a 2-2 tucked high under the tail. if there are issues i'll try the same setup with a cross pipe at the same location as the current Y pipe.
the apirlia tool is the axone, someone else's version of the dds sort of thing. the game boy (a real game boy) was used for some of the scooter models.
the 2004 on rsvr's come with a seimens ecu, but i'm not sure if it's similar to the 696 ecu in terms of ecu itself, software or diagnostic procedure. with the aprilia ecu you can turn off the lambda input and remove the sensor (never actually tried it) or switch to a second pre loaded map that is the open muffler, open loop map. so if you fit pipes you don't need to replace the ecu, just change the enabled map.
Quote from: brad black on October 27, 2009, 06:27:25 PM
the apirlia tool is the axone, someone else's version of the dds sort of thing. the game boy (a real game boy) was used for some of the scooter models.
the 2004 on rsvr's come with a seimens ecu, but i'm not sure if it's similar to the 696 ecu in terms of ecu itself, software or diagnostic procedure. with the aprilia ecu you can turn off the lambda input and remove the sensor (never actually tried it) or switch to a second pre loaded map that is the open muffler, open loop map. so if you fit pipes you don't need to replace the ecu, just change the enabled map.
oh so now someone tells me... DP ecu is already on the way.
Quoteand i am picking up a pair of spare 696 heads to try my hand at polishing the ports myself.
[thumbsup] Good on ya. Hope you can post before and after pics?
well i've done some more figures.
i think the volumetric efficiency of the stock 696/796 heads is about 79%
i've got to hit about 94% to reach my goals
with the 803cc that may give me numbers of 95hp and 69 lbft of torque at the crank (81hp at the wheel)
with the stock 696 being 80/50 and the 796 being 81/59 that's about 18%/37% and 17%/17% relative increases.
of course this is all mathematical and not practical application. i'm sure i won't be able to specifically increase the VE 15%. but who knows.
I like numbers.
FYI, Ducati changed the official horsepower to the below. They did it sometime between last Fall, this Spring. Maybe they did it knowing they would be releasing the MiniTard & it officially making 81hp?
Power*: 78.8 hp - 58.8 kW @ 9000 RPM
Torque*: 50.6 ft-lb - 7.0 kgm @ 7750 RPM
I like your numbers too. I'd be interested in how you make out. As soon as the 796 was announced & I realized I could turn my 696 into an 800, I've been thinking about it. Add that to the fact that the heads on our 696 are much better than the ones used on the s2r800, they could produce alot of power.
Quote from: z0mb1e_DUC on October 29, 2009, 03:40:11 AM
snip...
Add that to the fact that the heads on our 696 are much better than the ones used on the s2r800, they could produce alot of power.
And by 'better' what do you mean? I have the S2R800, could i gain more power by adding 796 or 696 heads?
Curious...
RB
My understanding is the heads on the 696/796 are designed like the 1000/1100DS heads. In fact, the 696 is still a 695cc motor, but due to the new head design & increased intake/exhaust flow, Ducati went with the 696 label to differentiate between the two. 696(78 or 80hp, not sure, I've seen both) makes more power than a 695(72hp). If Ducati's numbers can be believed, the 696 actually makes more power than what the 2007 s2r800 (77hp) was listed at. FYI, bore size is the same on the 696 & 800, so it might be feasible to get it to fit. That's what got some of us thinking about fitting the crank from an 803cc motor to the 696.
suppose it would be feasible to put the 696 head on the 800. basically you would get the hp/tq of the new 796. but i also think the new Siemens computer does some more magic too. not sure of the valve sizes of the 800, but that may have something to do with it too.
The 696 heads have bigger valves and higher lift cams than the 800 heads. The 800 has 43 mm intake and 38 mm exhaust valves with 10.8 mm of lift on the intake and 10.3 mm of lift on the exhaust. The 696 has 44 mm intake and 38.5 mm exhaust valves with 11.2 mm of lift on the intake and 10.8 mm of lift on the exhaust. Hopefuly those numbers are correct I have collected them form various sources. Because the 696 uses a gasket between the cylinder and head it is likley that you would need to install the 696 cylinders along with the heads to put them on a 800. I do not know if the bore spacing is the same on the 696 as it was on the old small case engines. I have put some thought into doing this to my 620 to make a nice 750.
ok reviving this due to questions about internal changes.
The shop i'm working with says cracking the case to change the crank is expensive, not in labor, but parts. He says bearings, con rod bolts, seals, etc. all have to be changed.
for those of you with experience, what are the critical things i will need?
Also, for the .44mm difference in deck height I need i was thinking about (if this all works out) adding metal spacer to raise the head. question is should i put it between the case and the cylinder or the cylinder and the head?
this is a parts list for a rebuild i was recommended. is there more or less that i need for this (ignore the ergal cam parts :D )?
44440035A DOF DU PDU OIL FILTER DUCATI STD
2 73740241A DU PDU CAM BELT Z=70 696MR/09
1 96436603B DU PDU ERGAL ROLL.KIT 1000M-SS-
1 942470014 SEALANT DU CEM LIQUID GASKET
1 79120461A DU PDU GASKETS SET 696 MR/09
1 066049268 DU PDU SEAL,25X47X7 750M/98
1 93041231A DU PDU SEAL RING 18X30X6 LAYSHAFT
0 1 93040931A DU PDU SEAL RING 17X25X4 696MR/09
1 85110191A DU PDU WASHER D.22,5 MONSTER/04
1 88640351A DU PDU O-RING, inspection cap lh
1 85250051A WSB DU PDU WASHER, SIDE BIG 2001 on
1 22032083A WB DU PDU GASKET,DRAIN PLUG
1 88210031A DU PDU RING
Quote from: Raux on December 16, 2009, 08:46:21 PM
Also, for the .44mm difference in deck height I need i was thinking about (if this all works out) adding metal spacer to raise the head. question is should i put it between the case and the cylinder or the cylinder and the head?
I would think between the case and the cylinders. Otherwise you would have two gaskets for the head instead of one. Twice the vulnerability to a high pressure leak.
The base gasket sees lower pressures so it would be the one I would recomend spacing. I have heard of people stacking multiple gaskets on the 900's to change deck height, Im not sure if there are any cons to doing this though. I have also seen cylinder head spacers for turbo kits in car applications, usually a small aluminum spacer squeezed between 2 head gaskets.
Definitely put the spacer between the cases and the cylinder.
Actually, the base gasket/shim listed in the parts catalogues says it's 0.4mm thick.
So, an additional base gasket on each cylinder should do the trick.
Quote from: Raux on December 16, 2009, 08:46:21 PM
ok reviving this due to questions about internal changes.
The shop i'm working with says cracking the case to change the crank is expensive, not in labor, but parts. He says bearings, con rod bolts, seals, etc. all have to be changed.
for those of you with experience, what are the critical things i will need?
Also, for the .44mm difference in deck height I need i was thinking about (if this all works out) adding metal spacer to raise the head. question is should i put it between the case and the cylinder or the cylinder and the head?
this is a parts list for a rebuild i was recommended. is there more or less that i need for this (ignore the ergal cam parts :D )?
44440035A DOF DU PDU OIL FILTER DUCATI STD
2 73740241A DU PDU CAM BELT Z=70 696MR/09
1 96436603B DU PDU ERGAL ROLL.KIT 1000M-SS-
1 942470014 SEALANT DU CEM LIQUID GASKET
1 79120461A DU PDU GASKETS SET 696 MR/09
1 066049268 DU PDU SEAL,25X47X7 750M/98
1 93041231A DU PDU SEAL RING 18X30X6 LAYSHAFT
0 1 93040931A DU PDU SEAL RING 17X25X4 696MR/09
1 85110191A DU PDU WASHER D.22,5 MONSTER/04
1 88640351A DU PDU O-RING, inspection cap lh
1 85250051A WSB DU PDU WASHER, SIDE BIG 2001 on
1 22032083A WB DU PDU GASKET,DRAIN PLUG
1 88210031A DU PDU RING
On the older engine (2008 & older) that I've rebuilt, they have a 'red' bolt which is accessable from under the alternator cover. It's got red paint on the head of it b/c it's special. It's got an oil passage running through it. I don't know if the 696 motor has the feature or not but if it does...then the bolt has to be replaced.
The list looks fine from what I can read off of the brief descriptions and all look necessary except the DP Ergal roller kit...
Quote from: Speeddog on December 18, 2009, 10:27:35 AM
Definitely put the spacer between the cases and the cylinder.
Actually, the base gasket/shim listed in the parts catalogues says it's 0.4mm thick.
So, an additional base gasket on each cylinder should do the trick.
+1! Sounds good to me.
hmm couldn't find it in the manual.
the deck height needs to raise 4.4mm going only 4mm gives me a compression ratio of 13:1 up from 12.2:1 with the extra .4
is that a little too high?
i looks like that gasket is aluminum. i might be able to machine one that is 8.4mm instead of putting 2x4mm
man i tell you though. reading the manual... phew taking apart and putting an engine back together is a jigsaw puzzle x 1million.
Wait a minute.
How much do you need to raise the deck height?
Is it 0.4mm?
4.4mm?
8.4mm?
4.4 mm
Which cambelts are you going to use?
Sorry if that seems an obscure question....
The 696 belts will be *way* too short if you raise the head 4.4mm.
yeah that was something i had been thinking about as well. the timing belts have to be 8.8mm longer
Hmmm... The 696 belts (from your parts listing above) are 70 teeth. You'd likely need a set of 72 tooth belts (as the belts are only available in an even # of teeth).
I don't have the info in front of me, but IIRC those would be M900 belts.....
Quote from: Duck-Stew on December 21, 2009, 03:14:08 PM
Hmmm... The 696 belts (from your parts listing above) are 70 teeth. You'd likely need a set of 72 tooth belts (as the belts are only available in an even # of teeth).
I don't have the info in front of me, but IIRC those would be M900 belts.....
Stu, I knew you would have the answer [thumbsup]
Got an email from Dynojet. the PC V should be out last this spring for the Siemens controlled bikes !!!
Quote from: Speeddog on December 19, 2009, 07:43:47 AM
Sorry if that seems an obscure question....
The 696 belts will be *way* too short if you raise the head 4.4mm.
This just
came arrived in my email from CA-Cycleworks
Exact fit timing belts
http://www.ca-cycleworks.com/exactfit/?utm_source=California+Cycleworks+E-Newsletter&utm_campaign=40417a1e0d-Newsletter_1_18_2010&utm_medium=email (http://www.ca-cycleworks.com/exactfit/?utm_source=California+Cycleworks+E-Newsletter&utm_campaign=40417a1e0d-Newsletter_1_18_2010&utm_medium=email)
Quote from: dbran1949 on January 20, 2010, 02:11:30 PM
This just came arrived in my email from CA-Cycleworks
Exact fit timing belts
http://www.ca-cycleworks.com/exactfit/?utm_source=California+Cycleworks+E-Newsletter&utm_campaign=40417a1e0d-Newsletter_1_18_2010&utm_medium=email (http://www.ca-cycleworks.com/exactfit/?utm_source=California+Cycleworks+E-Newsletter&utm_campaign=40417a1e0d-Newsletter_1_18_2010&utm_medium=email)
thanks for the link.
alright... since i actually haven't even started tearing apart the motor... have one more direction i have looked at...
boring. no not as in i'm bored.
how big can the cylinders on the small bikes be bored out to?
the current bore is 88mm. i 'think' Brad has a 90 on his chart.
| Bore/Stroke | 88mm | 89mm | 90mm | 91mm | 92mm |
| 57.2mm | 695cc | 711cc | 727cc | 744cc | 760cc |
| 66mm | 802cc | 821cc | 839cc | 858cc | 877cc |
Quote from: Raux on January 29, 2010, 10:14:32 PM
alright... since i actually haven't even started tearing apart the motor... have one more direction i have looked at...
boring. no not as in i'm bored.
how big can the cylinders on the small bikes be bored out to?
the current bore is 88mm. i 'think' Brad has a 90 on his chart.
| Bore/Stroke | 88mm | 89mm | 90mm | 91mm | 92mm |
| 57.2mm | 695cc | 711cc | 727cc | 744cc | 760cc |
| 66mm | 802cc | 821cc | 839cc | 858cc | 877cc |
Not sure exactly what power characteristics your looking for but the new Hypermotard is using an 88mm bore stroked from 57.2 to 66mm to get 803cc outta the 696 motor so with that stroke your gonna have a shit load of torque can you 3rd gear power wheelies
Quote from: Link on January 30, 2010, 05:24:19 AM
Not sure exactly what power characteristics your looking for but the new Hypermotard is using an 88mm bore stroked from 57.2 to 66mm to get 803cc outta the 696 motor so with that stroke your gonna have a shit load of torque can you 3rd gear power wheelies
yeah i have the 66 crank waiting to be put in, just wondering if an overbore is possible with the smaller motors.
ca cycleworks have 91mm pistons for the small 2v motors. but you'd need a custom piston to suit the late head piston shape i'd think. all the old 750 to 788 kits were 90mm.
OK to revive an old thread with a new idea.
So i'm working on an idea to increase the volume of the airbox for the motor. And in doing so, i've been playing with some ideas about fueling and intakes.
I came into the possession of some intake cones with the shower injectors from a 999 (although haven't arrived so don't know if the ejectors are included or just the mounts... i do hope they are or i paid too much-- last second ebay grab, no time to ask questions)
so i'm thinking about building the airbox around the new injector/cones and pluggin up the old injector holes.
any thoughts on the idea?
Injection timing could be *slightly* off due to the increased distance between the injector and valve.
If you're going *that* far...why not have the throttle bodies over-bored? [evil]
Quote from: Duck-Stew on March 06, 2010, 07:29:53 AM
Injection timing could be *slightly* off due to the increased distance between the injector and valve.
If you're going *that* far...why not have the throttle bodies over-bored? [evil]
ok, need to think about the injection timing issue. going to try and get the injectors as close to the butterflies as possible i think.
for the TBs...already planned
we measured everything out. we're going slightly larger on the ends and smoothing everything from there to get more flow to the reworked heads.
the stock butterflies are pretty big already, so not going to increase those, so there will be more of a venturi effect going on, maybe speeding up the intake charge enough to compensate for the increased distance from teh injectors
that with the larger volume airbox, the better flowing heads and reworked exhaust... DP ECU and the new PC V... [evil]
Part of the reason the injectors on an SBK are placed above the bell mouth is to help keep the fuel atomized in the center of the air stream as it goes into the intake throat. If you move the injector too far down the bell mouth (closer to the butterfly), would you lose some of that effect? Maybe? Would it be noticeable?
ok will look at that.
as soon as i get the injector setup in the mail. i'll start measuring things out.
ok another question...
sprockets. i'm going back to the 15t front sprocket due to changing the ride height and want to give the chain more lift off the swingarm in the front. but what about rear sprockets>
the stock 45 is going away for sure, but to what?
any ideas? lightweight? up how many teeth? 46 or 48 is that all available?
Not sure if this will help. I made this table a while ago while trying to decide what to do with my S4RS. It is simply a selection of 14 and 15 fronts with rear sprockets from 38 through 50, then sorted by ratio
This way if you are running a 14-45 @ 3.214 you can go to a 15 front then choose either 48 or 49 to maintain similar characteristics. (very simple excel spreadsheet as you can imagine)
Front Rear Ratio
15 38 2.533
15 39 2.600
15 40 2.667
14 38 2.714
15 41 2.733
14 39 2.786
15 42 2.800
14 40 2.857
15 43 2.867
14 41 2.929
15 44 2.933
15 45 3.000
14 42 3.000
15 46 3.067
14 43 3.071
15 47 3.133
14 44 3.143
15 48 3.200
14 45 3.214
15 49 3.267
14 46 3.286
15 50 3.333
14 47 3.357
14 48 3.429
14 49 3.500
14 50 3.571
perfect thanks. going to get the lightweight 48 then.
Quote from: Raux on March 06, 2010, 12:14:01 PM
sprockets. i'm going back to the 15t front sprocket due to changing the ride height and want to give the chain more lift off the swingarm in the front. but what about rear sprockets>
i am also raising my bike, can you explain your descision here? How does height and number of teeth play off each other. thanks
Quote from: DucatiTorrey on March 08, 2010, 04:32:56 AM
i am also raising my bike, can you explain your descision here? How does height and number of teeth play off each other. thanks
the front 14t sprocket is a bit smaller than the 15t thereby lowering the chain closer to the swingarm especially at the pivot point. if you raise the ride height you push the rear of the swingarm down also reducing the chain height closer to the pivot point. mind you this is static suspension height. everything changes when you are going boing boing... but imagine how low the chain will go when your going over a pot hole and the rear suspension drops in there.
so to ensure the chain comes up off of the pivot point area i'm going back to 15t AND going up to 48t in the rear (which raises the chain also).
these aren't huge amounts, but everything helps. don't want your chain cutting into that slider on your swingarm.
if my math is correct the radius of a 14t is 93% the size of the 15t
Quote from: Raux on March 08, 2010, 07:40:55 AM
the front 14t sprocket is a bit smaller than the 15t thereby lowering the chain closer to the swingarm especially at the pivot point. if you raise the ride height you push the rear of the swingarm down also reducing the chain height closer to the pivot point. mind you this is static suspension height. everything changes when you are going boing boing... but imagine how low the chain will go when your going over a pot hole and the rear suspension drops in there.
so to ensure the chain comes up off of the pivot point area i'm going back to 15t AND going up to 48t in the rear (which raises the chain also).
these aren't huge amounts, but everything helps. don't want your chain cutting into that slider on your swingarm.
if my math is correct the radius of a 14t is 93% the size of the 15t
perfect, didn't think of that. this changes things for me this spring then. Again, thanks!
Quote from: DucatiTorrey on March 08, 2010, 08:34:17 AM
perfect, didn't think of that. this changes things for me this spring then. Again, thanks!
what are you running now?
stock, i was going to a 14t, but the lift is priority, so looks like im going taller in the back
Quote from: Raux on March 06, 2010, 09:27:45 AM
ok will look at that.
as soon as i get the injector setup in the mail. i'll start measuring things out.
they arrived today. injectors included :D man these things are cool
going to the shop on saturday and measure everything out.
Hows the progress coming on this? Since you have an extra head, have you thought about sending it to someone to see about a custom ground camshaft? Wondering how much there is to gain there? Since the head is better flowing, it seems likely that a new cam could retain most of the current low to mid range while increasing the high rpm pull, no?
lack of funds necessitated a pause.
have the PC V, 1100 cams, lightweight belt gears, etc but still need more (larger airbox, flywheel, lighter starter gears, possible dry clutch parts)
Nice thread [evil], does your monster going fast now ? !..because i'm building one from a single engine but new and stock...
i've already putted a light flywheel in my MTS1000 and it's quite nice..i've read you have done the same with your 696 (796 or not yet ?) did it was a good change ? or the 696 got already a lightflywheel ? (lighter than my old 2 kg Mts stock ..(565 gr now..and i'll never change it back [thumbsup]
txs
i've put all the mods on hold. maybe this winter.
but yeah i hope to get a 15% increase in power
Any word if those 1100 cams will work on 696?
I'll find out after riding season. I'm tearing the motor down then.