Gixer1460

One coil feeds cyl 1 & 4 and the other does 2 & 3. White LT wire goes to coil 1, black/yellow does coil 2

If people were that interested in getting a 'proper running bike' that ticked all the performance boxes you mention, they wouldn't be building a draw through install ! For all their downsides, they are cool, oldskool and get the job done abit if moderately inefficiently!

Square / rectangular ones are a) a damn sight easier to fabricate, b) add pads for sensors & ports etc. and c) generally more compact in a space limited area!

First bit is no bad thing, but is equally applicable if cooler is mounted, fittings down, oil DOES NOT drain at engine off - its an urban myth perpetuated by people who don't understand physics! If the feed lines to the sump remain under oil, air cannot enter cooler so it cannot drain. When changing oil there is a stong chance that these lines will be uncovered and so cooler will drain so be prepared for additional oil in catch basin and for filling - most coolers will hold between 0.5 - 1.0L - just fill sump to regular line after oil has circulated.

I have a couple of Rajay Manuals but as they are pdf's - I can't post them up here! PM an email addy and i'll forward them. Rajay spared are getting ridiculously hard to source so good luck with seals and bearings and afaik, they don't really appreciate restricted oil flow due to their single bearing arrangement.

LOL's - two pages of discussions and recommendations and we come back to using stock carbs - I guess Suzuki san knew something !

And the crank ie. a new one!

Hope you have deep pockets afaik you can't get 1460 with just a big block / bore / pistons!

Never heard or seen that mod before - care to give any known details? I guess the issue is providing fuel to it, in an 'orderly' way and consequently not over-fuelling it ? Thinking sideways for a moment - I wonder if the fuel stage from a wet nitrous system could be used to similar effect as a thunderjet? ie. switched on big boost but independent of the carb mixture workings but still easily jettable - just a thought?

He no be here since last September so may not see this? But if the OP is Finish he's probably been snowed in since then LOL!

Bear in mind Summit's advice is generally based on single cam engines where any + move on one lobe has a corresponding - move on its corresponding partner. Its maybe why so many cams are produced just to obtain different LCA's?

That seems to be true, probably less overlap helps the torque - I think shorter numbers are recommended for forced induction also for much the same reason?

They do indeed! I destroyed a EFE top end using std rockers with some G4 cams - ran off the pads and wore the cams out in double quick time.

As said, only real way of comparison is use an engine dyno - a chassis dyno is just too much faff, and you'd have to be prepared to write off a couple of days to get meaningful results. Personally i've always had good results with 110 / 110 so never felt the need to chase other numbers.

For a good machinist, its not a big deal. Probably the longest operation is getting the top of the case parallel to bed of the machine. Centering the boring head on each bore is pretty painless. Agreed though that machining is the way to go for tighter fit. If, for example you took your case now to a machinist, say, for bigger sleeves, the job would be more complicated due to the DIY metal removal not leaving a uniform concentric circle to centre the machine on - pros & cons!

Blueprinting anything is a waste of time and money UNLESS you are restricted by racing class regulations! It will cost more money to blueprint a head than to tune it for performance - don't kid yourself that it will be cheap!

Appalogees - wasn't clear! Oh - and like i'm the first to commit that particular faux pas ! ! !

Eh ? ? ? Using a 1052 crank and without changing the bore - you'll end up with . . . . . . 1052cc ! You could put 1m long rods on the crank and you'd still only get 1052cc! You can ONLY change capacity by varying either the bore dimension and / or the stroke length !

And a fuel filter is NEVER unnecessary when fitted to an 'older' bike !

How are your engineering / fabrication / bodging skills? Measure the thread on the float bowl drain screws, then make / turn up a nipple with that thread and bored through, attach clear tube to each and cabe tie to something to keep vertical with open end higher than the top of float bowl - et voila - level guages! Don't forget to turn the fuel supply off when removing them ! ! !

Don't cut nothing - use as supplied! Different maker, different design, same end result!

Cam wheels have to match the crank as cam wheels have to be twice the number of teeth compared to the crank. As regard timing, i'd follow the 550 method to match the wheels and pins between. The issue that may occur is how the wheels bolt to the cams in relation to the lobes - align the lobes looking at the end of the cam of both and ensure the angle of the bolt holes is identical - your 1st picture shows the lobes are closely matched but the mounting bolt angles 'seem' slightly different ! ! If the above is true, then the stock timing marks won't work for you and you'll have to use the 650 timing data / angle specs and use a timing wheel, dial guage and ideally some slotted sprockets !

29's on a 1052 / 1127 / 1157 will be a bit too small when compared to std which were 36 or 40mm cv's. 29s were fitted to the GS 2v engines but they are rev limited when compared - if bored to 33mm they could make a torquey rev limited road bike!

Possibly just an elaborate spring seat solution to increase spring pressure marginally ?

Its not a case of 'over charging when revved' - its barely charging at all! At idle it should be 13+v and above 3000rpm around 14.2 - 14.6v! If the RR checks out ok then the genny is suspect - as said AC output looks low.