BMW Luxury Touring Community banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I need I need one 2.700 and three 2.750 buckets and I have two 2.850 and two 2.900 that I no longer need. Before I plunk down the $21.30 that new ones cost each, I wanted to see if anyone is willing to swap or has these size buckets you will sell me for something less than $21. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Voyager said:
I need I need one 2.700 and three 2.750 buckets and I have two 2.850 and two 2.900 that I no longer need. Before I plunk down the $21.30 that new ones cost each, I wanted to see if anyone is willing to swap or has these size buckets you will sell me for something less than $21. :)
Is there any kind of consensus on these things wearing to mate to a cam and NOT being reusable? I've heard folks swapping them like crazy and other folks saying you oughn'ta.
 

·
Wrencher Extraordinaire
2005 K1200LT
Joined
·
15,065 Posts
Rocketsled said:
Is there any kind of consensus on these things wearing to mate to a cam and NOT being reusable? I've heard folks swapping them like crazy and other folks saying you oughn'ta.
Not an issue. In fact many dealers will swap them for you. I have a bag full at home but none of the sizes he needs. Most of mine are 2.85 and up as you always go smaller.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Rocketsled said:
Is there any kind of consensus on these things wearing to mate to a cam and NOT being reusable? I've heard folks swapping them like crazy and other folks saying you oughn'ta.
If they had noticeable wear, then I would not use them again. A mic should tell you that quickly. I haven't mic'd mine yet as I need to borrow a mic from my dad, but I will check. However, from a visual inspection mine look like new. There are simply no wear marks at all. I was amazed at how pristine they look.

I will probably have to buy new ones as I suspect most people are in the same boat as me - they have thick ones and need thinner ones. So, it is probably a moot point, but I would have no qualms putting in used followers if they look as good as my current used ones!

I am going to wait one mare day and then give Bob's or Max's a call and see what they can do for me. My fear is they may have to order them and I may be down for a while.

This sure makes me appreciate the hydraulic lifters on my former Kawasaki Voyager XII... Or even the locknut style adjusters on many other mechanical lifter engines. I understand the durability advantage of the bucket/shim design, but when they do need a change, and mine did after only 27,000 miles, it sure is a pain. I am surprised that all of my intakes are so tight. I even went back and double-checked them just to make sure I had measured them right and I was able to duplicate exactly my first measurements. Makes me wonder if htey weren't a little tight right from the factory. Most people here seem to have not needed an adjustment at so few miles.

The exhaust side wasn't nearly so bad, which again seems surprising as normally one expects the exhaust valves to wear and recede more quickly than the intakes. I am attaching the spreadsheet I used to record my data and make the calculations. Unless I looked up the spec ranges incorrectly, all but one of the intake valves was either at the spec limit or out of spec on the tight side. In contrast, the exhast valves were almost all well within spec, with only two at the limits, one high and one low, but non were out of spec. And the engine was stone cold as it hasn't run in more than a week and it was probably no more than 60 F in my garage.

If anyone has time to look at my attached pdf file and sees anything amiss, please drop me a note!

Matt
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,886 Posts
Voyager said:
I am attaching the spreadsheet I used to record my data and make the calculations.

Matt
Matt,

Nice, simple, clean... I like it.

Any chance you can attach the xls/xlsx file so I do not have to re-key it all? If you cannot upload it, please email to me using the handle above @aol.com.

Thanks!
Tony
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
deputy5211 said:
Matt,

Nice, simple, clean... I like it.

Any chance you can attach the xls/xlsx file so I do not have to re-key it all? If you cannot upload it, please email to me using the handle above @aol.com.

Thanks!
Tony
I don't think .xls is a supported file type for upload, that is why I converted to .pdf. I believe there is a place on the site for such files, but I admit to not being super familiar with this site outside of this forum and the HOW. Let me see if I can find a place to upload it and it not I will attempt to email to you.

Matt
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
deputy5211 said:
Matt,

Nice, simple, clean... I like it.

Any chance you can attach the xls/xlsx file so I do not have to re-key it all? If you cannot upload it, please email to me using the handle above @aol.com.

Thanks!
Tony
Tried to upload to the technical documents section, but got a message that .xlsx is a forbidden file type (see attached). I will now try to email to you.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
Let me see what I have when I get home this evening. I believe I have several 2.75's.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
NCrider said:
Let me see what I have when I get home this evening. I believe I have several 2.75's.
Will do. My plan is to order in the morning any that I can't find through the forum here.

Thanks,
Matt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
Matt

Sorry I've got 2.85s, 2.95s and a 3
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
NCrider said:
Matt

Sorry I've got 2.85s, 2.95s and a 3
Me too! Hey, I appreciate you taking the time to check.

Thanks,
Matt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
If they had noticeable wear, then I would not use them again. A mic should tell you that quickly. I haven't mic'd mine yet as I need to borrow a mic from my dad, but I will check. However, from a visual inspection mine look like new. There are simply no wear marks at all. I was amazed at how pristine they look.

I will probably have to buy new ones as I suspect most people are in the same boat as me - they have thick ones and need thinner ones. So, it is probably a moot point, but I would have no qualms putting in used followers if they look as good as my current used ones!

I am going to wait one mare day and then give Bob's or Max's a call and see what they can do for me. My fear is they may have to order them and I may be down for a while.

This sure makes me appreciate the hydraulic lifters on my former Kawasaki Voyager XII... Or even the locknut style adjusters on many other mechanical lifter engines. I understand the durability advantage of the bucket/shim design, but when they do need a change, and mine did after only 27,000 miles, it sure is a pain. I am surprised that all of my intakes are so tight. I even went back and double-checked them just to make sure I had measured them right and I was able to duplicate exactly my first measurements. Makes me wonder if htey weren't a little tight right from the factory. Most people here seem to have not needed an adjustment at so few miles.

The exhaust side wasn't nearly so bad, which again seems surprising as normally one expects the exhaust valves to wear and recede more quickly than the intakes. I am attaching the spreadsheet I used to record my data and make the calculations. Unless I looked up the spec ranges incorrectly, all but one of the intake valves was either at the spec limit or out of spec on the tight side. In contrast, the exhast valves were almost all well within spec, with only two at the limits, one high and one low, but non were out of spec. And the engine was stone cold as it hasn't run in more than a week and it was probably no more than 60 F in my garage.

If anyone has time to look at my attached pdf file and sees anything amiss, please drop me a note!

Matt

Hey Voyager I know this is a old thread but I just happen to come across this because I just check mine with in the past month and I was wondering what I can get away with;; I had one intake that was at .16mm and one exhaust at .26mm the rest were in the middle
INTAKE SPEC .15 TO .20mm

But I see you had three intake that were .10mm and two at .13mm and so forth I just have to know do you still have LT and if so did you just swap out the buckets and it is still running good it seems like you would of burnt the values some I was just curious maybe I can wait a nother 100,000:D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Hey Voyager I know this is a old thread but I just happen to come across this because I just check mine with in the past month and I was wondering what I can get away with;; I had one intake that was at .16mm and one exhaust at .26mm the rest were in the middle
INTAKE SPEC .15 TO .20mm

But I see you had three intake that were .10mm and two at .13mm and so forth I just have to know do you still have LT and if so did you just swap out the buckets and it is still running good it seems like you would of burnt the values some I was just curious maybe I can wait a nother 100,000:D
I still have my LT. Getting ready to replace clutch due to high gear slippage.

I have 48,000 on it so about 21K since I replaced the shims. Runs great, other than the off idle hesitation that remains elusive.

I think as long as you bring the clearance at least to the minimum spec limit you should not have to worry about burnt valves. BMW should have allowed for normal wear in between check intervals. If all of yours are in spec, I'd keep riding until the next check interval.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
I have one intake valve a bit tight at 0.13 mm and seven others at the minimum specified clearance. I pulled the buckets out and measured them tonight. PDF of my spreadsheet is attached. In summary:

To bring the one out-of-spec valve into range I will need one 2.90 and will have one 2.95 spare.

To bring all the valves to the mid to max clearance, I will need two 2.70 and two 2.85. I will then have two 2.80 and two 2.95 as spare.

Does anyone want to trade? Thanks, Jim
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,404 Posts
I have one intake valve a bit tight at 0.13 mm and seven others at the minimum specified clearance. I pulled the buckets out and measured them tonight. PDF of my spreadsheet is attached. In summary:

To bring the one out-of-spec valve into range I will need one 2.90 and will have one 2.95 spare.

To bring all the valves to the mid to max clearance, I will need two 2.70 and two 2.85. I will then have two 2.80 and two 2.95 as spare.

Does anyone want to trade? Thanks, Jim
I have a 2.90 for you. Pm sent for your address.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
If they had noticeable wear, then I would not use them again. A mic should tell you that quickly. I haven't mic'd mine yet as I need to borrow a mic from my dad, but I will check. However, from a visual inspection mine look like new. There are simply no wear marks at all. I was amazed at how pristine they look.

I will probably have to buy new ones as I suspect most people are in the same boat as me - they have thick ones and need thinner ones. So, it is probably a moot point, but I would have no qualms putting in used followers if they look as good as my current used ones!

I am going to wait one mare day and then give Bob's or Max's a call and see what they can do for me. My fear is they may have to order them and I may be down for a while.

This sure makes me appreciate the hydraulic lifters on my former Kawasaki Voyager XII... Or even the locknut style adjusters on many other mechanical lifter engines. I understand the durability advantage of the bucket/shim design, but when they do need a change, and mine did after only 27,000 miles, it sure is a pain. I am surprised that all of my intakes are so tight. I even went back and double-checked them just to make sure I had measured them right and I was able to duplicate exactly my first measurements. Makes me wonder if htey weren't a little tight right from the factory. Most people here seem to have not needed an adjustment at so few miles.

The exhaust side wasn't nearly so bad, which again seems surprising as normally one expects the exhaust valves to wear and recede more quickly than the intakes. I am attaching the spreadsheet I used to record my data and make the calculations. Unless I looked up the spec ranges incorrectly, all but one of the intake valves was either at the spec limit or out of spec on the tight side. In contrast, the exhast valves were almost all well within spec, with only two at the limits, one high and one low, but non were out of spec. And the engine was stone cold as it hasn't run in more than a week and it was probably no more than 60 F in my garage.

If anyone has time to look at my attached pdf file and sees anything amiss, please drop me a note!

Matt
I tried to remake the calculations made in different kinds of excelsheets found here at bmwlt.com.
Thought I should at least try to share the excelsheet. Let me know if it doesnt work like it should.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B9KOmCw_Rrd6aW9lT1MzTUpBUnM&usp=sharing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
I was also fiddling around with my spreadsheet to have a layout matching the valve arrangement and added cam lobe measurements since I wanted to see if there was a appreciable difference in valve opening at the opposite ends of range. There wasn't. If anyone wants the Excel file, PM me.
 

Attachments

1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top