Devilman

Ooh that's interesting, Do you happen to know if he included the 750 Dot head from the shortstroke motor in the flow tests also?

Almost everything in an 1100M/N gearbox is identical to that inside a Bandit 1200 gearbox, so not sure why you're seeing greater "robustness" from the GSXRs? Could it just be because Bandit 1200's get abused more in 2nd gear (wheelies) ? To a point yes this is true, though some things are objectively better than others I think most people would agree on the early (non-diaphragm) clutch for example Agree with @clivegto though, if you want quick easy 150+hp, Turbo does it every time

Not sure that is true when compared to the dot head, it has a different shaped port floor that gives a different angle onto the back of the valve? Bandit may be better for port work though, no idea on that I vaguely seem to recall something about the bandit cam cover not being inter-changeable with the 1052 / 1127 motors, although that was maybe only due to the different camchain guide rather than any physical reason it wouldn't fit ontop of the head?

If I recall the Bandit motor also has the double-bearing on the output shaft, which could make a bit of a difference if shooting for high HP. I think the "best" motor is a combination of parts from various different ages of GSXR 750, 1100 and Bandit 1200 lol. 1200 cases, gearbox and barrels, 750 Dot Head and Cams, 1052 Clutch and Cam Cover, 1127 Crankshaft

Honestly, I REALLY do not get this attitude that has been repeatedly displayed on this forum, from members and moderators alike. Unless someone is an absolutely dedicated oil-cooled nut looking purely to discuss anything and everything oil-cooled, the VAST majority of people coming here will be looking to get an answer to question, or information about a procedure / modification. So what the HELL is with everyone trying to act like an arrogant SOB, Gatekeeping the community and berating others for getting straight to the point? Who the HELL do people think they are, trying to be a sarcastic MOFO when someone has come here to ask for our HELP? This is the single most UGLY thing about the behavior of this Forum's members and it REALLY needs to stop. *Edit* Please note this is not specifically or only directed at you personally, it's an attitude I have seen across many different users of this forum

Funny, I was just thinking to myself how they looked like cheap tat when you notice their brand label is half obscured by the bottom of the gauge surround. I've seen better quality control from China to be honest.

Yeh should see the same or within 0.1-0.2v of battery voltage. It's just done that way as there is no real need to run a heavy cable all the way back to the battery from the alternator, as well as having one coming from it to the starter. The alternator is in effect charging the battery back along the heavy feed wire to the starter solenoid.

If you're talking about the heavy feed to the solenoid (the "switched" feed to the starter, rather than the control feed) , I would expect it to be at , or very close to battery voltage. (within 0.1 or 0.2v at most)

If you check @fatblokeonbandit's post earlier with the pics of the 2 alternators, you can see the 3 "peening" marks at the tip of the shaft on both of them.

It does indeed make mention of "re-staking" the nut after tightening.

Those pics come from an "Official" Suzuki manual for the Bandit 600, but the process is the same for all the oil cooled motors

Just checked through the Haynes GSXR, Bandit and a genuine Suzuki 600 Bandit manual for the Torque settings.. GSXR manual doesn't even list them (lol), the Haynes Bandit manual says 55-60nm (40-44lb/ft) and the genuine Suzuki bandit 600 manual also says 55nm (40lb/ft) As for removal, the vice / wood method is even what they describe in the official Suzuki manual :- Just be careful not to clamp onto / squeeze the "damper housing" below the gear (It's basically like a cush drive)

Yep on the gear itself, I just clamped it tight in a vice with a thick bit of hardwood on both sides to protect the teeth. As for Torque... I'd have to check the manwell () to be sure, but pretty sure I just set it to "German Torque" (Gutten Tight)

I just clamped it in a vice with a couple bits of hardwood to act as "Soft Jaws" so as to not mark the teeth of the gear

Robinson's Foundry, usual go-to place for Suzuki bits from what I recall. I guess I'll have to shop around a bit :O

At just over £130 for the set of 4 bushings from robinsons, It's not exactly pocket change though

Thanks, having looked at some pics of new ones, I can clearly see the stanchion bushings are well worn on the inside, with the copper coating gone in the middle of the inside, so looks like I gotta replace the full set Thanks, I had not considered places like that.. Just checked their site and sadly both the bushing sets are listed as Out of Stock, but I have sent them an enquiry email to ask if they're coming back in stock any time soon, else I may have to resort to Eblag (seen some for sale on there, saying they are K-tech, but who knows for sure?)

Hey all. I'm finally get a list of parts together to put the 750M forks back together after almost finishing the polishing and have been looking over the teflon bushings, but to be honest I'm not entirely sure just how far is considered "worn out". The bushings at the top of the stanchion still have all their teflon coating, but it's extremely smooth and seems to have lost most of that "copper sintered" appearance I recall them having. The inside of said bushing I am not sure if that is the copper worn through (as that's a "high spot" on the stanchion to get good contact) or meant to be that way? The bushings that are pressed into the fork tube are somewhat similar, the teflon is extremely smooth with very little sign of copper sintering and one of them does have some very fine visible lines / marks on it ... What says the collective knowledge of OSS? Are they buggered and I gotta replace the set? (Hope not cus they are bloody expensive from Suzuki ) *Edit* I should mention these are the same forks as I discussed in my other thread and if any of you have read that, you'll know the insides of these forks were butchered, assembled incorrectly, looked like they'd not had an oil change in 20yrs and generally abused

From the Bandit forums.... Make Model Year Shock Length Shock Stroke Suzuki Bandit 600 1995-2000 300 55 Suzuki Bandit 600 2000-2004 319 55 Suzuki Bandit 650 2005 319.5 65.5 Suzuki Bandit 1200 1996-2000 306 64 Suzuki Bandit 1200 2001-2005 320 (+6/-0) 61 Suzuki GSXR 600 1992-1993 312 (+12/-0) 67 Suzuki GSXR 600 2001-2003 325.5 (+6/-0) 74 Suzuki GSXR 600 2004-2005 332.5 (+6/-0) 74 Suzuki GSXR 750 1985-1987 290.5 61 Suzuki GSXR 750 1988-1991 312 (+12/-0) 67 Suzuki GSXR 750 1992-1995 312 (+12/-0) 67 Suzuki GSXR 750 1996-1999 356 (+6/-6) 79 Suzuki GSXR 750 2000-2003 325 (+6/-0) 74 Suzuki GSXR 750 2004-2005 332.5 (+6/-0) 74 Suzuki GSXR 1000 2001-2002 329.5 (+5.5/-0.5) 74 Suzuki GSXR 1000 2003-2004 332.5 (+6/-0) 74 Suzuki GSXR 1000 2005 –20006 319 70 Suzuki GSXR 1000 2007-2008 315 70 Suzuki GSXR 1100 1986-1988 315 69 Suzuki GSXR 1100 1989-1992 312 70 Suzuki GSXR 1100 1993-1998 312 70 Suzuki Hayabusa 1999-2006 330 72 Kawasaki ZX6R 2003-2004 340 (+12/-0) 72.5 Kawasaki ZX6RR 2003-2004 340 (+12/-0) 72.5 Kawasaki ZX6R 2005 335.5 (+12/-0) 64.5 Kawasaki ZX6RR 2005-2006 330 (+12/=0) 63.5 Kawasaki ZX7R 1996-2001 350 (+12/-0) 75 Kawasaki ZX9R 1994-1997 348 79 Kawasaki ZX9R 1998-1999 330 (+12/-0) 69 Kawasaki ZX9R 2000-2001 338 67 Kawasaki ZX9R 2002-2003 338.5 67.5 Kawasaki ZX10 1988-1989 314.5 67 Kawasaki ZX10R 2004-2005 338 (+7/-5) 69 Kawasaki ZX12R 2000-2005 338 (+7/-5) 67 H*nda CBR 600F 1987-1990 292 50 H*nda CBR 600RR 2003-2006 313 (+0/-6) 59.5 H*nda VFR 800FI 1998-2001 325 58 H*nda VFR 800FI 2002-2005 317.5 53.5 H*nda CBR 900RR 1992-1995 319 (+12/-0) 54 H*nda CBR 900RR 1996-1997 305 (+12/-0) 60 H*nda CBR 900RR 1998-1999 303 (+12/-0) 57 H*nda CBR 900RR 2000-2001 286 (+4/-2) 57 H*nda CBR 900RR 2002-2003 288 (+2/-4) 57 H*nda CBR 929 2000-2001 286 (+4/-2) 57 H*nda CBR 954 2002-2003 288 (+2/-4) 57 H*nda RC51 2000-2005 326 (+10/-2) 63 H*nda CBR1000RR 2004-2006 314 (+6/-0) 58 H*nda VTR1000F 1997-2005 346 60 H*nda VTR1000SP1 2000-2001 326 (+10/-2) 63 H*nda VTR1000SP2 2002-2005 326 (+10/-2) 63 H*nda CBR1100XX 1997-2005 319 52 Yamaha YZF600 1994-1999 360 (+12/-0) 70 Yamaha YZF R6 1999-2002 305 (+4/-2) 62 Yamaha YZF R6 2003-2004 295 (+5.5/-0.5) 62.5 Yamaha YZF R6 2005 300 (+0/-6) 62.5 Yamaha FZR 750 1987-1988 300. 5 54 Yamaha FZR 750R0W01 1989-1991 360 76 Yamaha FZR 1000 1987-1988 300.5 54 Yamaha FZR 1000 1989-1995 340 70 Yamaha YZF 1000 1996-2000 340 (+12/-0) 69 Yamaha YZF R1 1998-2001 300 (+11/-1) 65 Yamaha YZF R1 2002-2006 300 (+5.5/-0.5) 64.5 As you can see, very few have the kind of shock length you require, although a few are close. However none of this takes into account any type of clearance / fitment issues with regard to "eyelet" or "fork" bottom mount etc.. You also need to consider the stroke-length of the shock.. the SRAD has quite a long stroke at around 80mm.

Sorry to hear you got taken for a ride, that really sucks that people will sell-on faulty vehicles without saying a word about it. As others have said, best thing to do would be to upload a few pics of your bike and we should be able to help you identify the model. At that point it becomes a little easier to make recommendations or suggest parts / fixes

Just to re-iterate what others have said, if your headers are getting cherry red at 2.5k something is very wrong. Either your exhaust cam is early, your ignition timing is late, or the bike is running lean AF and getting very hot. Investigate and fix it fully before using it else you will kill the motor sooner or later.

What may I ask is the reason for wanting to replace the carbs? More Performance? Problems with your current set? The 36mm CV's fitted are pretty good for what they do to be honest

Oh it will definitely have different spring and damping rates, I'm kind of counting on that fact Bandits are pretty softly sprung to start with, it's not uncommon to upgrade B12's with a GSXR1000 rear shock (K7-K8 fit easiest from what @fatblokeonbandithas mentioned). It's from an '07 R6

I've slowly been sourcing together parts for the rear end of my Mk1 bandit, But wanted a double-check of the math to make sure I'm not going to cock anything up Standard Mk1 B6 Shock is 300mm center-to-center with 55mm stroke. Standard Mk1 B6 dogbones are 174mm center-to-center from what I've been reading, posted by kickstart and others in various threads. I have a very nice rear shock with 293mm center-to-center and 60mm stroke. I've a set of RF600 dogbones which as near as I can tell are 168mm center-to-center. From doing some measuring, raising the rear axle 1inch shortens the length between the shock mounts by 12mm (effective shock length center-to-center). Using that and comparing it to the apparent "rule of thumb" that 4mm change in dogbone length equates to a 1inch change at the axle (I assume this is what people are comparing to when measuring ride-height changes) it makes sense that a 4mm change in dogbone length will alter the distance between shock mounts by the same 12mm mentioned above. So in theory (please correct me if I'm wrong)... The (roughly) 6mm shorter shock should raise the axle by aprox 1/2" (effectively lowering ride height by 1/2") While the 6mm shorter dogbones should try to lower the axle by roughly 1.5" (effectively raising ride height by 1.5") Resulting in a net difference of 1" lower axle compared to standard, translating to a 1" increase in ride height? (or put another way, distance between a fixed point above the rear axle on the subframe and the rear axle itself should increase by a total of 1") Does that all sound logical and reasonable to you guys?

Get it powdercoated to look like Polished Ali, Best of both worlds