New Poll- CONVERTED RUBBERMOUNTS ONLY! Oil Consumption

[cantolina]

Originally Posted by NRHS Sales

I'm sorry but comparing NRHS high performance kits which have high compression to a low compression kit is also comparing apples to oranges.

Most of the kits I sell are customers looking for more power and one of the ways we do this is by raising the compression. Higher compression equates to more cylinder pressures and higher heat. This can cause more wet-sumping, increassed blow-by, ect. All things that contribute to higher oil use. If you are so concerned about oil use I do not recommend you get 10.5:1 compression. You can't have it both ways.

I can make kits that have less compression but that does not seem to be what my customers want. The factory HD kits and most others kits are only running about 9.7:1 compression. You cannot compare those kits to a 10.5:1 kit.

Good point...I remember specifically that you gave me that choice when I spoke to you before my last conversion....

Everyone wants "badass", but folks tend to forget what that sometimes costs....

[JayFL459]

I agree with Dan.. But I voted anyway did a 1200 Conversion myself and the valve seals were not good on the original 883 replaced them and oil consumption was fairly high the first 1,000 miles then improved greatly. Have 5,000 miles since the conversion on it now and did not even have to add oil between the last 3,000 mile change...

[pquirk]

Originally Posted by NRHS Sales

I'm sorry but comparing NRHS high performance kits which have high compression to a low compression kit is also comparing apples to oranges.

Most of the kits I sell are customers looking for more power and one of the ways we do this is by raising the compression. Higher compression equates to more cylinder pressures and higher heat. This can cause more wet-sumping, increassed blow-by, ect. All things that contribute to higher oil use. If you are so concerned about oil use I do not recommend you get 10.5:1 compression. You can't have it both ways.

I can make kits that have less compression but that does not seem to be what my customers want. The factory HD kits and most others kits are only running about 9.7:1 compression. You cannot compare those kits to a 10.5:1 kit.

That's kind of my point, just asking if someone's "conversion" is having problems really provides zero useful information. I'm not sure I agree that 10.5:1 must result in high oil consuption, but that's why I made the comment about needing details. Trying to make any sense out of the rubbermount conversion issues without having all the relevant information it's a fool's quest.

[Gone]

Originally Posted by cantolina

Well, perhaps from your point of view, but for me, I'm interested in the phenomenon itself, not the suppliers....at least for now...

And yes, folks SHOULD give vitals....

I could have redone it with WAYYYY more options, but again, I'm interested in the issue ITSELF.....and I didn't want to cloud the waters....

We already know a pretty low percentage of folks had issues at ALL....I'm hoping to extrapolate the approx. percentage of THOSE who had converted....

Perhaps you could have extrapolated with the first poll, ignoring "outliers" or those that should/could/would not have replied. I just don't think your before/after oil consumption questions are adequate.

Some questions would be the ring gap at build, ring orientation in relation to the thust face, 90-deg. offset, etc. Miles on the engine before conversion; since conversion? Heat cycling after conversion (leads to microwelding that NRHS has discussed before)? Cross-hatch/hone angle? Piston-to-cylinder clearance? Experience level of the builder? One particular issue I had was the umbrella valves: I installed them on the exhaust side the first time around. Helluva oil consumption issue after porting but I learned/ relearned something there.

It's your poll. I hope it answers questions people have.

[Turbota]

FYI ... I don't have a conversion engine and did not vote in the poll for that reason.

However, I had my stock 04 1200 cylinders bored .030" and NRHS "Thunderstorm" 10.50 to 1 compression ratio forged pistons fitted in these cylinders by NRHS. The stock 1200 head chambers had to be CNC machined to alow the use of these Thunderstorm pistons since they are not flat-tops like the stock pistons. The standard Stage 2 porting was also done on the heads by NRHS.

I just want to say that I don't have any oil consumption problems with my 10.5 to 1 engine ... And I don't get any blowby pressure or oil from the breather tube that's routed to atmosphere down below the bike (no filter attached to this tube)

BTW ... I recieved the cylinders with the pistons already inserted in them ... I just pushed the pistons far enough down the cylinder bore to attach the pistons to the connecting rods.

About the only thing out of the ordinary with this setup was that alot of material needed to be removed from the head surfaces to properly contour the heads for the Thunderstorm style pistons, that it caused me to need to purchase .050" shorter pushrods in order to get back the required 100 thousands lifter preload.

Oh ya ... I am also using roller rocker arms since my cams have .567" lift. These rollers reduce the excessive side loading on the valve guides you get when using high lift cams.

The rev limiter is set at 7,000 ... I shift at 6,800 - 6,900 when beating on it (haven't broke anything yet ... fingers crossed)

For what it's worth ....

[Terp84Alum]

Originally Posted by NRHS Sales

I'm sorry but comparing NRHS high performance kits which have high compression to a low compression kit is also comparing apples to oranges.

Most of the kits I sell are customers looking for more power and one of the ways we do this is by raising the compression. Higher compression equates to more cylinder pressures and higher heat. This can cause more wet-sumping, increassed blow-by, ect. All things that contribute to higher oil use. If you are so concerned about oil use I do not recommend you get 10.5:1 compression. You can't have it both ways.

I can make kits that have less compression but that does not seem to be what my customers want. The factory HD kits and most others kits are only running about 9.7:1 compression. You cannot compare those kits to a 10.5:1 kit.

So are you saying don't buy your kit if someone is concerned about overheating or oil consumption? Did I read this wrong?

[cantolina]

Originally Posted by pquirk

That's kind of my point, just asking if someone's "conversion" is having problems really provides zero useful information. I'm not sure I agree that 10.5:1 must result in high oil consuption, but that's why I made the comment about needing details. Trying to make any sense out of the rubbermount conversion issues without having all the relevant information it's a fool's quest.

Originally Posted by wacosporty

Perhaps you could have extrapolated with the first poll, ignoring "outliers" or those that should/could/would not have replied. I just don't think your before/after oil consumption questions are adequate.

Some questions would be the ring gap at build, ring orientation in relation to the thust face, 90-deg. offset, etc. Miles on the engine before conversion; since conversion? Heat cycling after conversion (leads to microwelding that NRHS has discussed before)? Cross-hatch/hone angle? Piston-to-cylinder clearance? Experience level of the builder? One particular issue I had was the umbrella valves: I installed them on the exhaust side the first time around. Helluva oil consumption issue after porting but I learned/ relearned something there.

It's your poll. I hope it answers questions people have.

I think the misunderstanding here is my not explaining my endpoint...

12.5% of ALL Rubbermount owners responding to my last poll said they had oil consumption issues...

I think I can say quite comfortably that looking now ONLY at converted bikes will show the difference from TOTAL Rubbermount concerns about oil consumption...AND show the percentage of conversions with problems....its a statistical analysis, not necessarily a means of understanding the "problem"

What I'm getting at is that I truly think this is all much ado about nothing....

That's my BELIEF....

This poll won't help folks understand WHY this is happening....this poll is designed to find out if the average Rubbermount owner considering a conversion really should GIVE A CRAP about the "issue" ENTIRELY, except perhaps for some common sense limitations and warnings...

Would I like to understand the phenomenon? Sure I would, but a poll's not gonna get me there....FIRST, let's find out if we should even GIVE a crap....IN GENERAL...

This is in no way taking lightly the concerns of those affected....I'm just "doing the math" for a moment....

(A side note for those who wrote and asked.....the non-rubbermount owner who shows up in this poll by name is NOT counted in the statistics...I have already fixed it.... )

[blacksmith_wills]

Hi,

It's like this, no oil use before, now uses oil. Is that a consumption problem?

No, I just would rather it not use oil. It's tells me something is not right. I would prefer it be right.

I posted my oil use after the conversion in another thread, I'll have to go find that number because I forgot what it was exactly.

I'll edit this post with those numbers when I find them.

EDIT: Looks like I was using about 1 quart every 2000 miles. More than I would like. Cantolina, feel free to move this to a yes vote, I guess the question was if I used more oil after th conversion. That would be yes.

Regards,

Matt

[cjburr]

Originally Posted by cantolina

I think the misunderstanding here is my not explaining my endpoint...

12.5% of ALL Rubbermount owners responding to my last poll said they had oil consumption issues...

I think I can say quite comfortably that looking now ONLY at converted bikes will show the difference from TOTAL Rubbermount concerns about oil consumption...AND show the percentage of conversions with problems....its a statistical analysis, not necessarily a means of understanding the "problem"

What I'm getting at is that I truly think this is all much ado about nothing....

That's my BELIEF....

This poll won't help folks understand WHY this is happening....this poll is designed to find out if the average Rubbermount owner considering a conversion really should GIVE A CRAP about the "issue" ENTIRELY, except perhaps for some common sense limitations and warnings...

Would I like to understand the phenomenon? Sure I would, but a poll's not gonna get me there....FIRST, let's find out if we should even GIVE a crap....IN GENERAL...

This is in no way taking lightly the concerns of those affected....I'm just "doing the math" for a moment....

(A side note for those who wrote and asked.....the non-rubbermount owner who shows up in this poll by name is NOT counted in the statistics...I have already fixed it.... )

Chuck, you have well and truly lost your mind if you think this issue isn't something someone with a rubbermount should worry about.

Why would anyone take that risk with their hard earned money ??

[cantolina]

Originally Posted by cjburr

Chuck, you have well and truly lost your mind if you think this issue isn't something someone with a rubbermount should worry about.

Why would anyone take that risk with their hard earned money ??

Well, 67% of respondents so far MIGHT disagree with you....

WORRY about? Maybe not....Pay closer attention to some details? Maybe MORE important...

As for having lost my mind, well....of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the MOST....

Be patient with me...I really AM going somewhere with this....I have been since last year when I started the first poll...

There's lots better things I could do with my time...in my life...than post polls for kicks...

The very fact that I AM trying to analyze this at ALL means I really do want to help...My "help" may, or may not help, or even be appreciated by everyone...but that's never stopped me before....