Register free!

The Green Industry's Resource Center



Reply
 
Thread Tools   Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-01-2010, 03:18 AM
WVDpoker WVDpoker is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 74
who's rebuilt a kawasaki fh680v?

I'm rebuilding my DS07. Installing connecting rods to crankshaft. Spec in manual calls for 15 foot lbs torque for the bolts connecting the caps to the rods making a circle around crankshaft. I'm at 13 foot lbs at all 4 bolts for both connecting rods and the shaft is very hard to turn by hand even with the pulley connected. I'm worried I'll damage my new parts if I torque them to the full 15 foot lbs. I'm also worried the engine won't run because the torque spec might be wrong. The wrench has been tested. Everything is installed correctly. Does the engine have to run a bit before "it loosens up" an the crank turns easy. I've oiled everything as the install manual said. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-01-2010, 03:42 PM
pugs pugs is offline
LawnSite Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southwest of Chicago
Posts: 2,769
What part number connecting rods are you using? The A, B and C use a different part number than the D, G and H...not sure what happened to E and F but dont see them in the parts lookup.

Also I dont think Kawasaki offers undersize rods so I doubt thats the problem. Did you measure the crank to make sure it was in spec?

Should turn relatively easy when assembled...especially if you dont have the cam or anything else in there besides the pistons/rods/crank.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-01-2010, 11:30 PM
WVDpoker WVDpoker is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 74
connecting rod

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugs View Post
What part number connecting rods are you using? The A, B and C use a different part number than the D, G and H...not sure what happened to E and F but dont see them in the parts lookup.

Also I dont think Kawasaki offers undersize rods so I doubt thats the problem. Did you measure the crank to make sure it was in spec?

Should turn relatively easy when assembled...especially if you dont have the cam or anything else in there besides the pistons/rods/crank.

I needed a new crankcase-they didn't make it anymore so they had me order crankcase assembly:
1 KAW-99996-6 KAWASAKI ENGINES PART $403.52 $403.52
076 99996-6076/999966076
The service guy called Kawa and said we needed different connecting rods:
2 KAW-13251-7 KAWASAKI ENGINES PART $42.88 $85.76
005 13251-7005/132517005
even though they look like the same rods as the old ones

We have the service manual from year 2000. The crankcover is designed a little different (lubrication system) but the new crank looks the same too. The torque spec has to be wrong-maybe they changed it with the new design-what should I torque it at?

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-02-2010, 12:15 AM
dishboy dishboy is offline
LawnSite Gold Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: zone 6
Posts: 3,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVDpoker View Post
I needed a new crankcase-they didn't make it anymore so they had me order crankcase assembly:
1 KAW-99996-6 KAWASAKI ENGINES PART $403.52 $403.52
076 99996-6076/999966076
The service guy called Kawa and said we needed different connecting rods:
2 KAW-13251-7 KAWASAKI ENGINES PART $42.88 $85.76
005 13251-7005/132517005
even though they look like the same rods as the old ones

We have the service manual from year 2000. The crankcover is designed a little different (lubrication system) but the new crank looks the same too. The torque spec has to be wrong-maybe they changed it with the new design-what should I torque it at?

Thanks
If it is tight it is not torque, but clearance. Ever hear of plastigauge?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-02-2010, 01:22 AM
WVDpoker WVDpoker is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 74
connecting rods

Quote:
Originally Posted by dishboy View Post
If it is tight it is not torque, but clearance. Ever hear of plastigauge?
well-if you loosen the bolts to less foot lbs the crank turns really well-no I haven't heard of plastiguage
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-02-2010, 12:36 PM
pugs pugs is offline
LawnSite Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southwest of Chicago
Posts: 2,769
If you are using the original D crankshaft, those rods should be right although they forward to 13251-7016. Have you measured the crankshaft to make sure its in spec?

You shouldnt need to change rods just because you replaced a crankcase though...unless the original versions interfered with the casting somehow...

In reality for the amount you have in parts and your labor you would have been better off buying a new engine with a 2 year warranty.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-02-2010, 02:40 PM
WVDpoker WVDpoker is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 74
connecting rods

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugs View Post
If you are using the original D crankshaft, those rods should be right although they forward to 13251-7016. Have you measured the crankshaft to make sure its in spec?

You shouldnt need to change rods just because you replaced a crankcase though...unless the original versions interfered with the casting somehow...

In reality for the amount you have in parts and your labor you would have been better off buying a new engine with a 2 year warranty.
Well labor is free right now with no snow and no grass I have nothing better to do. The engine would have been $1700. Plus this will only be a backup machine-but I do see your point. But with new crank, case, cover-the engine is practically new -for $500 "real dollars"

I can use the old connecting rods they seem to keep the crank moving at the full 15 foot lbs spec. I'm trying to find a newer service manual for a different torque spec. Or I can use the new ones and torque them at a force that keeps the crank turning easy and put some lock tite on the bolts. I can go out and get platiguage but there is no clearance spec in the manual-Is there a default clearance spec?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-02-2010, 06:43 PM
pugs pugs is offline
LawnSite Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southwest of Chicago
Posts: 2,769
Well I was poking around in Kawasaki a bit more....was your engine originally setup to oil the top bearing through the crankshaft? And your new crankcase has a passage to do that job instead? Just want to check this out because if this is the case you are in for some trouble. At the same time they changed the oil pump and side cover and crankshaft to go along with that style of crankcase.

Also looks like you are making them way too tight...may have already damaged something:

Connecting Rod Big End Cap Bolts
(For M7 P1.0 screw thread spec.: 21 Nm, 2.1
kgfm, 15 inlb)
Connecting Rod Big End Cap Bolts
(For M6 P1.0 screw thread spec.: 9.8 Nm, 1.0
kgfm, 87 inlb)

I think that 2nd one is a misprint and it should read 8.7 inlbs.

Also the dimensions are in the book in section 7 near the beginning. Hard to copy and paste as it has dimensions for all the FH verticals in a table.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-02-2010, 09:20 PM
WVDpoker WVDpoker is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by pugs View Post
Well I was poking around in Kawasaki a bit more....was your engine originally setup to oil the top bearing through the crankshaft? And your new crankcase has a passage to do that job instead? Just want to check this out because if this is the case you are in for some trouble. At the same time they changed the oil pump and side cover and crankshaft to go along with that style of crankcase.

Also looks like you are making them way too tight...may have already damaged something:

Connecting Rod Big End Cap Bolts
(For M7 P1.0 screw thread spec.: 21 Nm, 2.1
kgfm, 15 inlb)
Connecting Rod Big End Cap Bolts
(For M6 P1.0 screw thread spec.: 9.8 Nm, 1.0
kgfm, 87 inlb)

I think that 2nd one is a misprint and it should read 8.7 inlbs.

Also the dimensions are in the book in section 7 near the beginning. Hard to copy and paste as it has dimensions for all the FH verticals in a table.
Not sure what you mean by side cover but the crankcase kit came with the crank shaft, we got the oil pump for relatively cheap. The 87 inlbs seems right on. 8.7 seems way to little. The book we had had the torque spec 52in lbs vs 15 foot lbs for the different hp engines. We may order new connecting rods but they don't appear to be damaged. The inside isn't stripped. We may have weakened the bolts. Hopefully we can find new bolts w/o ordering new rods. Thanks for all your help and finding the new specs!!!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-03-2010, 12:56 AM
pugs pugs is offline
LawnSite Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southwest of Chicago
Posts: 2,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVDpoker View Post
Not sure what you mean by side cover but the crankcase kit came with the crank shaft, we got the oil pump for relatively cheap. The 87 inlbs seems right on. 8.7 seems way to little. The book we had had the torque spec 52in lbs vs 15 foot lbs for the different hp engines. We may order new connecting rods but they don't appear to be damaged. The inside isn't stripped. We may have weakened the bolts. Hopefully we can find new bolts w/o ordering new rods. Thanks for all your help and finding the new specs!!!
Well something there is a misprint...not sure what....I guess the one for the 6mm rod bolts is correct and the one for the 7mm is wrong. 21Nm = ~185inlbs

I would stick to whatever they have it as in Nm and use a convertor to get inlbs or ftlbs since apparently whoever does their books cant do it right.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
kawasaki fh680v

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2012, LawnSite.com - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:48 AM.

Page generated in 0.11387 seconds with 9 queries