Riders Of Vision

General => TechTalk => Topic started by: Lucky on December 31, 2007, 08:37:19 PM

Title: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Lucky on December 31, 2007, 08:37:19 PM
next big idea:
I now have two Visions: my Black & Gold 82  - ("BG") which has a complete 83 fuel system, and my 'new' silver 82. (Cafe Vison - "CV")

BG has had the carbs cleaned synqed, pilots set, etc, etc, multiple times, starter's been rebuilt, starter clutch fixed, valves adjusted, all electricals gone over, etc, etc. 
In short, all the things we tell everyone to do, reccomended tips & fixes, all of it.

it's still high strung... BG has almost allways been touchy to start, everything has to be just right.

CV on the other hand had massive crud in the tank, hasn't had the carb tops even taken off, starter never pulled, stator case not pulled (by me anyway) has the original fuse box, charging is questionable, and i'm fairly sure i'm losing coolant into the engine...

all i've done is clean out the tank,change the oil several times, new battery & umm..that's it (start & run wise)

She starts & runs like a champ. CV will start if i look at it & wisper "Start"


I want to figure out WHY.

is it carbs? is it electrical? is it valve adjustment? is it compression? is it definativly a combination of elements? is our whole universe just an atom in the sneeze of a giant & everything is about to end? oh wait, different conversation....

anyway, i'm thinking, if i take specific measurements of the varoius systems on both bikes, compair them to each other, 7 when available, published specs.
it might lead to an answer to why some Visions are easier to start than others.

so, the question is, what to measure?  probably most of it is obvious:

Electrical system:
--voltage drop of the starting & ignition curcit. (point a to b, b to c, c to d, a to d, etc)
--Amprage draw the same way

Fuel system:
--?? not sure what to measure, this probably would involve equipment i don't have, like an exhaust gas analizer.

Engine:
compression, freewheeling rpm (no ignition, but with plugs in & out??).

What else? what tests specificly?
i need your ideas & insight!

also, if you have the same situation, a 'good' bike & a 'hard' bike, & i find something that's obviously differerent between my 2 bikes, you could confirm it by running the same test on yours.

i can't garentee how far i'll go with this, but i think this idea has potential.

i think i have to start by listing all the similaritys & differences between the 2 bikes. Ex: both 82 engines, both have vacuume flappers, one has 82 exhaust, one has macs, one has 82 fuel system one has 83, etc etc... for a baseline.
then i have to come up with a list of tests end probably end with a flowchart (think Electrex) for hard starting....

Whew, ok comments please.

--Lucky
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: kwells on December 31, 2007, 08:46:14 PM
I would also chart ambient air temps/humidity as well as engine temps and how they heat up.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: QBS on December 31, 2007, 10:17:29 PM
What about installing the cv carbs on bg?  Plug the '83 petcock return port, of course.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Lucky on December 31, 2007, 10:35:44 PM
Qbs, of course, great idea

Kevin, as as i've observed that's never made a difference, so i'm not sure why it'd be importaint? one always starts easier whatever the outside conditions. as an example, i started the bikes yesterday, thay had both sat a couple of weeks, & it's been in the high 30's, to mif 50's. BG took longer than usual, which is "normal" but CV still started right up, as if it was 85 degrees out...  i'll chart it, but to CV it makes no difference...
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Rick G on January 01, 2008, 12:35:55 AM
Lucky , I commend you for your initative, but some times is how you hold your mouth!! 
Back in the 60's  when starting a Triumph or BSA  especially the big BSA  singles,  some times they would start effortlessly and some times you would have to stop and rest a while before continuing. The only differance we could define, was how you held your mouth!! Of course this  was with out todays "electric leg"
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: QBS on January 01, 2008, 03:00:00 AM
Variations in jetting?
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: YellowJacket! on January 01, 2008, 09:11:53 AM
CV is thanking you for rescuing it and paying you back (nicely) for all you had to endure to get her home.

Either that or its a nasty a$$ gremlin with a bad attitude thats just tempting you to take both your bikes apart only to find out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with either of them.  ;D

David
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Night Vision on January 01, 2008, 09:39:43 AM
I'm not sure about 83 carbs, but there are some passages in the 82 carbs for the choke circut, that until CndLouie pointed them out, I did not know about. Unfortunately, I found that out too late for the first set I dipped... Haven't tried the second set yet, but will in a month or two.

I did notice that when I was first learning how to sync and tweak the carbs after disassembly, that the pilot screw settings had a big influence on how easily the bike started. The pilots also seemed to have a big influence on how high the engine reved with the choke on, and how long it would warm up on choke without loading up.

I could have them set so that it started very easily, but ran like poop or had the stumbles. Currently, the carbs are tuned so that she runs great and gets good mileage, but like a lot of Visions, has it's own particular starting routine. Full choke, two twists, and a roll on when I hit the go button. The idle goes up to 2-2.5k and will hold for about a minute until it starts to load up. I slowly back the choke off, and the idle increase back to 2k or so. Then after that, choke off... drops to 1k... idles smoothly, and gradually warms up.

Bottom line: I think the pilot settings are the variable, and even a 1/8 of a turn can make a difference in starting and running.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Lucky on January 01, 2008, 10:13:02 AM
I've played with the pilots till i'm blue in the face, they do make a difference, & the passages for the enricher (choke) curcit are critical, so that will be part of it.

a couple of things worth noting:
--i did notice Glens 83 seemed to be 'looser' when starting, much higher cranking speed, his was the only 83 (engine) i've ever seen, there are differences in the internals, but mine are both technicly 82's. i'll have to check the vin numbers to see how close they are though.

--I remember when i used to run electric RC cars, Trinity & Reedy Modified motors were adjustable. the end plates with the brushes were slotted, so you could adjust torque vs rpm.  what changed was the relationship between brush position & case magnets.  i'm thinking this may also have a similar corelation in our starter motors.  the 2 bolts that hold the whole thing together are mighty long & thin, & any failure of the locating tabs in the end plates could allow this devieation....  hmmm.

i'm pretty sure electrical testing will be first, that and a carb swap...

Q: how would i go about testing the condition of the valve shims, other than actually pulling the covers (don't want to if i don't need to)  compression? leak down?
i have to replace the valve cover gaskets on BG at some point, so i could measure them at that time, but even though, i'd think restoring the shims to specs, if needed, would increase compression & make it harder to start...

keep 'em comming!
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: tben on January 01, 2008, 10:25:12 AM
Lucky, I'd be interested in what your findings are on brush position. When I rebuilt my stater the little tab that holds the brush plate in place was almost bent sideways and the brushes were rotated about 4 degrees of where they were supposed to be. I bent the tab back when I reinstalled it. At the time I did not notice any difference between cranking before and after but I was not looking for a difference either.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Kevin on January 01, 2008, 11:05:04 AM
The 3 Vision's I've restored, Dustin's bike has always been a hard starter and is the most responsive- kick in the pants. Carlie's princess bike can sit for weeks and will fire right up. I went by the numbers on both bikes. One older Yamaha mechanic told me,  "they are not Visions they are nightmares". :o     
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Brian Moffet on January 01, 2008, 01:37:19 PM
Quote from: Lucky on January 01, 2008, 10:13:02 AM
Q: how would i go about testing the condition of the valve shims, other than actually pulling the covers (don't want to if i don't need to)  compression? leak down?
i have to replace the valve cover gaskets on BG at some point, so i could measure them at that time, but even though, i'd think restoring the shims to specs, if needed, would increase compression & make it harder to start...

I think lower compression engines will start easier because of the increased starter motor speed.  But that's a guess.

The Valve shims really can't be tested for looseness without pulling the covers.  They may be able to be tested for being too tight, but I suspect that if they are that tight you would know it.  Usually when they are off, the just change when the valve opens and closes, they don't really keep the valve open or closed all the time.

Also, I was impressed that only one of my shims was off by 1 shim size after some 40,000 miles of use.

Brian
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Ron_McCoy on January 01, 2008, 06:23:39 PM
In Sept. 06 I had a shifting problem, wouldn't come out of fifth gear.  This is at 43,000 miles.  This bike had always been a hard starter.  I bought it new in 84.  I mean hard starter, as in not knowing if you were going to get to go for a ride or put it on the charger and take the truck. Valve clearances were correct, carbs squeaky clean, new battery or old, the thing was a hard starter.  I swapped in an engine out of one of my parts bikes with 19,000 miles on it.  I used the same carburetors, left side case with the same stator and ignition pickups, same starter, plug wires, etc, even the same new plugs that I had just installed in the original engine, and the new one starts right up, even before synching the carbs.  Its been in there for almost a year now and continues to be an easy starter.  The original engine ran really good once started and idled very well. Also once started, it would start easily the rest of the day.  The original also seemed more powerful.  I don't know why, since all the components that affect starting were shared by both engines, but the one that's in there now starts dramatically better.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: QBS on January 01, 2008, 06:34:26 PM
Ideas': very small intake manifold vacume leaks on one bike and none on the other.  Variatons in spark coils, and or related connections.  Variations in TCI boxes (swap them out and see what happens).
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: YellowJacket! on January 01, 2008, 06:34:58 PM
Could it be related to the field that the stator generates while the bike is being cranked?

David
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Ron_McCoy on January 01, 2008, 07:07:56 PM
One thing I forgot to mention.  When I installed the replacement engine, it had a vacuum leak that was bad enough that it wouldn't idle at all, but it would still fire right up and run with the choke on.  It turned out to be the gaskets under the intake boots.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Lucky on January 01, 2008, 09:11:27 PM
Ron, Brian & Kevin all seem to be saying a similar thing: the engines that seem to have higher performance are harder to start.
I never rode Glens bike, but he rode mine & said it was 'peppier' at the time i associated it to the fact that his had a fairing & mine didn't. I also haven't really ridden CV more than a few hundred yards, becuse it has cracks in the tires you could wedge pennys in..

QBS, i've swapped TCI's both between bikes & with spares, no difference.
Intake leaks though may be something i'd put on the 'cumulative' list and defenatly will be looked at.
variations in spark coils: easy enough to swap coils, pick-ups though are another matter.  i can do static tests, swaping them out is another matter....

Dave, I've mused before about the possable loss of magnatism in the rotor over the last 25 years.  coupled with stator condition, another area to chart.

Also, i think oil viscosity may have something to do with it... Kevin, do you use the same oil in all 3 bikes?

just by this thread, i'm leaning toward something like engine looseness or compression.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: kwells on January 01, 2008, 09:38:36 PM
actually no...I use 15w50 Mobil 1 in the Sprint and 0w40 Mobil 1 in the V. The 3rd V isn't yet operational so I cannot compare the 2 V's.  I do notice that the Sprint has a slightly slower engine turnover on a cool morning. 
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Lucky on January 01, 2008, 09:57:07 PM
Quote from: Kevin on January 01, 2008, 11:05:04 AM
The 3 Vision's I've restored, Dustin's bike has always been a hard starter and is the most responsive- kick in the pants. Carlie's princess bike can sit for weeks and will fire right up. I went by the numbers on both bikes. One older Yamaha mechanic told me,  "they are not Visions they are nightmares". :o     

i meant the same or different oil in these two..?
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: supervision on January 01, 2008, 10:22:00 PM
 I have a hard starting bike too. It usually fires on one cly for a second. The fast idel is inconsistent.  This thread is making me think about going through my carbs, and try to make progress on better starting!  On the subject of lower compression, turning faster, thus starting easier, might be true, as long as too low of compression doesn't keep it from starting.  Like a tight valve makes a warm engine difficult to start.  Lucky, if you were to switch the carbs one bike to the other, it would be the best sure indicator between your two bikes,  you would know right now if it is fuel.  If it stayed the same then look at compression or spark coils.  I have never heard of the pick-up coils making hard starting, they usually fail when warm. 
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Rick G on January 01, 2008, 10:52:56 PM
The first Vision I had in MN and OR.  was a hard starter , the colder it got the worse it was It had 17000 miles on it, when I got it. Ran like the, proverbal striped a++  ape . reved to 11500 and picked up the front wheel going into 2 nd.
After I turned it upside down in pudding creek , I started with a differant bike , I used the same carbs , differant wiiring harness  amd TCI box ,but of course a differant engine,  except for the starter clutch and stator.

It has always  started better than the first one , even in very cold weather , and after sitting for a week or two. It has never seemed  as quick as the first one ( although ,to be fair , it has had a differant top ends installed and two different short blocks  and lives at 3500 feet elevation .

Also, my experence with MAC pipes, is that the engine will pull from a lower RPM  and pull stronger,  but top end rpm is reduced.  As for starting, pipes don't seem to make much differenc, either way.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Lucky on January 03, 2008, 08:38:23 AM
ok, here is a link to d/l a preliminary chart in Excel, look it over & let me know what else you think should be added (or removed)
--Lucky
http://www.xz550.com/EASY%20VS%20HARD.xls
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: don_vanecek on January 03, 2008, 10:36:23 AM
Lucky, interesting post, will sure follow it in the future.  The only comment that I have is I have always wondered why my Vision will be so much harder to start when it sits a few days and even worse a week or two. If I run it most every day (and follow correct starting procedure) it will usually start right up every time. Also, if I rode at 30-40 degree temps I would sure be worried the bike would start.  I think most of this is fuel system related and that perhaps it's too bad these fancy carbs didn't just come with good old choke plates. These engines should not have starting problems after sitting only a week or two and should have no problems until you get to temps perhaps below 30 or so.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Night Vision on January 03, 2008, 04:35:50 PM
Quote from: Lucky on January 03, 2008, 08:38:23 AM
ok, here is a link to d/l a preliminary chart in Excel, look it over & let me know what else you think should be added (or removed)

what is C9 - Alignment ?
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: QBS on January 03, 2008, 06:44:49 PM
Don, you are priming your carbs after their week long naps aren't you?
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Lucky on January 03, 2008, 09:50:50 PM
NV, that's starter alignment.  checking to see if the brush plate is inexed to the body of the starter properly.  i'll ammend that .
--Lucky
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Rick G on January 04, 2008, 12:49:09 AM
I don't know Don,  The mixture enrichener type of choke is better than a butterfly choke  as far as I'm concerned (providing , that it is in good condition.  This is based on my experence with my  butterfly choke equiped bikes I rode and worked on .  It seems like  the bikes that came with mixture enricheners  were better starters.  At least  we don't have to "tickle"  the carbs  to flood them , like the Continental and British bikes, up through the seventies.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: supervision on January 04, 2008, 07:57:13 AM
 Rick, remember that if your accl pump is working it is the same effect as tickeling.   Some people might have never heard of tickeling, so I'll explain, their was a spring loaded pin that you held down which sank the float, making fuel over run the throat direct to the intake.  Butter fly chokes are far more effective IMO, because when you close them, as soon as the engine begains to turn, it pulls fuel direct over the top.
  I have never given this much thought about our enrichment circut, but I'm starting to think that they can be a cause for slow cold starts.
I wonder if EPA killed butter fly chokes?
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Coil Coyle on January 04, 2008, 02:29:00 PM
Quote from: don_vanecek on January 03, 2008, 10:36:23 AM
Lucky, interesting post, will sure follow it in the future.  The only comment that I have is I have always wondered why my Vision will be so much harder to start when it sits a few days and even worse a week or two. If I run it most every day (and follow correct starting procedure) it will usually start right up every time. Also, if I rode at 30-40 degree temps I would sure be worried the bike would start.  I think most of this is fuel system related and that perhaps it's too bad these fancy carbs didn't just come with good old choke plates. These engines should not have starting problems after sitting only a week or two and should have no problems until you get to temps perhaps below 30 or so.

I think this one is the gasoline evaporating from the float bowl. Using Prime before trying to start should eliminate this one.

The Vacuum fuel pump may be the variable in all of the differences, put it in your chart, Lucky.

$0.02
;)
Coil
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: don_vanecek on January 04, 2008, 02:44:24 PM
Yes, I've learned to put the fuel selector on prime when the bike has sat for awhile. Still interesting (no maddening) why a Vision (mine anyway) will be hard starting from sitting only a week or two. I have sometimes opened the carb drains thinking there is no gas in the carbs (but of course I always get gas to run out).  Somewhat off subject, I once had a Yamaha 180 twin for a year or two (a 1967 two stroker), it was an incredable starter, push the botton and it was just on-no cranking, just instant on!

For whatever significance it is, I did notice harder starting in Colorado in June, I suppose to be expected as we were at 8500 feet and temps of 60 or so at first.

Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: arfa vmax on January 04, 2008, 03:37:08 PM
hi i would do a compression check on both bikes first,then swap parts over 1 at a time say tci first as that would be the easiest,run both bikes for a while and note any difference then swap back and swap something else and do the same.By a process of elimination you should find the component if any that makes a difference.If no difference it must be the engine itself.Sounds like a lot of work i know but could give interesting results.When i build my v up the carbs are getting changed for sure.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: kwells on January 04, 2008, 03:41:11 PM
yah...while that would be a true scientific method...it would definitely increase the experiment time.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Tanno on January 04, 2008, 03:58:05 PM
Lucky.... for tests

Electrical: Voltage tests - Everyone here knows already the low voltage issues.
             Amperage tests - Good to see especially if you see the voltage dropping. With this test, you can find out where your problem is. Bad connections can be hunted down by visual inspection, amp testing on each side, voltage drop measuring, also temp testing.

Starter - Bad brushes can cause slow starting. I'm having this issue more often than it should. I've installed three sets of new brushes since I got the bike (June 07). These brushes that come with the set availible from ebay are junk. They are a high carbon brush typically used for standard motors not starters. Starter brushes should have a higher copper content to withstand the hundreds of amps that they are subjected to. As the brushes get worse on contacting, amperage goes up and voltage will drop.

Engine.... run compression tests. I can't find my haynes manual at the moment, but I would suspect the pressure should be between 90psi and 160psi and shouldn't be more than about 5psi difference to maintain smooth running (since we are twins). Low pressure could mean several things; worn piston rings, worn valve seats, incorrectly adjusted valves, bad head gasket.
           If compression is low in one or more cylinders, you can isolate the problem to the valves or rings by squirting a little 30 weight motor oil into the cylinder through the spark plug hole and repeating the compression test. The oil temporarily seals the rings.
           If the compression readings are higher the second time around, it means the rings and/or cylinder is worn. No change in the compression readings would tell you the cylinder has a bad valve.
           A leak down test requires the removal of all the spark plugs. The crankshaft is then turned so that each piston is at top dead center (both valves closed) when each cylinder is tested. Most people start with cylinder number one and follow the engine's firing order.

A threaded coupling attached to a leakage gauge is screwed into a spark plug hole. Compressed air (80 to 90 psi) is then fed into the cylinder.

An engine is great condition should generally show only 5 to 10% leakage. An engine that's still in pretty good condition may show up to 20% leakage. But more than 30% leakage indicates trouble.

The neat thing about a leakage test (as opposed to a compression test) is that it's faster and easier to figure out where the pressure is going. If you hear air coming out of the tailpipe, it indicates a leaky exhaust valve. Air coming out of the throttle body or carburetor would point to a leaky intake valve. Air coming out of the oil fill hole would tell you the rings and/or cylinders are worn.

A leakage test can also be used in conjunction with a compression test to diagnose other kinds of problems. A cylinder that has poor compression but minimal leakage usually has a valvetrain problem such as a worn cam lobe, broken valve spring, collapsed lifter, bent push rod, etc. If all the cylinders have low compression but show minimal leakage, the most likely cause is incorrect valve timing.

Fuel system.... run pressure tests. More fuel is needed during cold starts. If the pressure is barely enough, then hard starts you will have. The choke's job is to richen the mixture. In most autos, it chokes the air. In most cycles, it adds more fuel. Again, if you have low fuel pressure and the cycles choke adds more fuel, your fuel pressure will drop even further which reduces required flow for starting.

Oil always has a factor when it's cold....regardless what weight.

Just my 5¢
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: YellowJacket! on January 04, 2008, 05:29:58 PM
Compression test would definitely confirm or discredit the "tighter engine" theory.  Good idear.

Also, how many of the hard starters have MAC"S??  Mine and Lucky's regualar riders do and they are hard starters. CV has stock exhaust.  Infact, if memory serves me correctly, YJ started mych more easily with stocks than MAC's and that was even with my jets reversed.

Add MAC's to the equation.

David
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: QBS on January 04, 2008, 06:08:34 PM
This thread is starting to get confused.  Lucky started it.  So, I am formally requesting that he define what he means by "hard starting".  Do his bikes crank with equal authority, but one takes longer to fire off?  Do they crank with unequal authority?, or what?  Clarification is requested, por favor.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Lucky on January 04, 2008, 09:22:00 PM
Well QBS, this will be a bit subjective i guess, but one bike simply starts easier.
BG's 'procedure' varies wildly, even if i set it to prime everytime, keep it on the JR, etc (in short, do all the things we reccomend) it can often take several minuets to get her to 'catch'.

Cafe Vision seems to always start within 5 cranks at the most.

so, my definition of hard starting: not knowing how many minuets from turning the key to ready to ride,
Easy starting: knowing exactly, in advance, how long between inserting the key & kicking up the side stand...
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: supervision on January 05, 2008, 10:20:02 AM
 Thanks for the info about the leakage test.  That makes sence that if you put air on top deadcenter you will hear where the leaks at.  I'm am curios what mine would sound like, bet my rings leak   If you destroy an old spark plug, and adapt it to an air hose, you'd be in business.  Take off the metal washer and put on a rubber one
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Rick G on January 05, 2008, 07:40:12 PM
Dave ,In my case, my bike with stock mufflers was the slower starter. The  one I have now,  has MACs and starts quicker  , even after a long sleep.

Tanno , I need to see more than 90 PSI on a compression chec. 100 PSI absolute minimum 120 is better.
I have seldom seen two cylinders closer,than 10 psi apart , 2 or 4 cylinder engine. Other than that your information is worth printing out
MY XT200 yamaha, (single cyl. 4 stroke) had 155 psi, of compression , but would not start . Ignition was ok, carb cleaned. So I did a leak down  test and heard lots of air coming out of the  oil filler. Upon tear down , found the bottom of the bore badly rusted . Someday I''ll rebore the thing, so I can ride it!
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: kwells on January 05, 2008, 08:18:01 PM
Hey it is WINTER Rick.  Since you don't have any Vision projects.....well you know what follows
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Rick G on January 06, 2008, 06:45:05 PM
Its winter here too , only the cold  nasty weather won't last as long as some folks get .
We got hit with a pretty good storm, lots of snow up by the Grand Canyon , Flagstaff  and on the Hualapie mountains (pronounced Wallapie)  The drive way washed out again  so  I had to go out and  fill the gorge created by the rain , with rocks and a coat of gravel
I do  have stuff to do on the Vision,replace the rear tyre and do remeadial work on the paint damaged by gas. I also need to replace the copper rings in the rear exhaust.  but the yard is muddy and its nasty out, I'll start in february , as its usually shirt sleeve weather by then . Besides, I have the Honda to ride  and I need practice sliding around in the mud.   :D :D :D :D To quote the XL forum "Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there in lurks the skid demon".  Poetic huh??   
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: YellowJacket! on January 06, 2008, 07:24:43 PM
Lucky should have a nice warm day on tuesday to work on CV since it will be in the stinkin 70's here.

David
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Lucky on January 06, 2008, 07:28:50 PM
i'm sick as a dog, plus i have to work, doubt i'll be doing anything else...

why do they say "sick as a dog"? my dog never gets sick, plus when she does she's perfectly fine 30 seconds later....
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Walt_M. on January 06, 2008, 07:33:11 PM
The stinkin' 70s? It was 78 here in Orlando today and I loved it! Last Thursday it was 31 and today was much better. Yay global warming!
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: YellowJacket! on January 07, 2008, 05:49:35 AM
Quote from: Lucky on January 06, 2008, 07:28:50 PM
i'm sick as a dog, plus i have to work, doubt i'll be doing anything else...

why do they say "sick as a dog"? my dog never gets sick, plus when she does she's perfectly fine 30 seconds later....

I never understood "Cold as Crap" either.  In my experience, crap is usually pretty warm. :o

Hope you feel better friend.  ;D

David
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Rick G on January 07, 2008, 10:00:16 PM
Kind of an oxymoron , like cold as hell.  Maybe stated by someone who was more moron,than oxy. ;D ;D
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: gph on January 08, 2008, 11:00:13 AM
Add to the spreadsheet, check float (fuel) level. I don't recall seeing that mentioned in carb rebuild posts.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: h2olawyer on January 08, 2008, 03:00:24 PM
Quote from: gph on January 08, 2008, 11:00:13 AM
Add to the spreadsheet, check float (fuel) level. I don't recall seeing that mentioned in carb rebuild posts.

Maybe that's because it is covered well in the carb instructions in the Haynes manual???

H2O
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: acee125 on March 18, 2008, 04:55:00 PM
Any update on this?
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Lucky on March 18, 2008, 11:15:57 PM
not yet, i've been working on the tail & tank.  i'll work on this when i actually have the bike up & running
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: tben on April 05, 2008, 01:08:30 PM
Bump: Normally my vision starts after 2 turn overs whether warm or cold but I tried to start it today without my front exhaust connected and it took lots of throttle play and about 20 turn overs. My vision also starts better with the Cdnlouie mod on my macs. This leads me to think that back pressure has a big influnce.
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: motorcyclezen on April 09, 2008, 10:34:24 PM
Lucky,

Know very little about the subtleties of the Vision. The best suggestion I saw on the board was to swap out components between the bikes. Electrical and fuel. It's the only way to really know. We used to troubleshoot and repair comm equipment that way when I was in the Marines.

Ed--
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Lucky on April 09, 2008, 11:29:40 PM
i'm slowly getting closer to being able to try some swapping.  i'm working on body & fuel tank restoration, then it needs tires & investigation as to where the coolant is really going. after it's basicly good to go, i'll probably start with the coils.

wouldn't that suck after this whole thread, it wound up being the first thing i tried, lol!
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: bmeyer6472 on April 12, 2008, 12:24:53 AM
Lucky-

You probably know this already, but my experience with hard starting was due to the plug caps.  I swapped everything I could think of and nothing worked. I finally bought two new plug caps and the problem was fixed. My Vision starts almost immediately now, even though the "fast idle" is very slow to come in. Depending on the temperature, between 2 and 4 twists of the throttle, full choke, and it's going. At first the idle is very slow, even at full choke, and it therefore sometimes dies and has to be restarted, but after running for about 10 seconds, the fast idle kicks in and it's off to the races.

But anyway, if you haven't tried it, new plug caps are cheap, and may be effective.

Bob
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Lucky on April 12, 2008, 06:00:26 AM
they were replaced a couple of years ago & it was the same.  probably just the way mine is, they are all different, lol
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Night Vision on April 12, 2008, 09:33:56 AM
try some D7EA plugs.....
Title: Re: Hard starting vs Easy starting
Post by: Lucky on April 12, 2008, 08:30:44 PM
actually i put Iradium plugs in at the same time...
if i listen to my Macs, it's a rear cyl issue, coil or idle curcit...