Yamaha Unofficial Known Issue with FJ and FZ Engines

[micah2074]

Yamaha corporate inspected the damaged parts and said it isn't warranty-worthy because the engine failure is "normal wear" at 38,000 miles. I had the document faxed to me. I'll have to scan it on here or something, at some point. Moving on to a Vstrom or Kawi Versys.

 
I would like to see the letter from Yamaha. Cell phone pic’s like you took of the different heads will do. No need to scan.

[micah2074]

The driving force behind my posts has been to try and establish, mostly for my own benefit, the scope and extent of the problem.

um, this forum has less than 5500 users and it's membership is heavily concentrated to North America. Furthermore the OP is a class of two (?) with more than 35000 miles on his engine. So by that reckoning 50% of high mileage engines have failed or tend toward failure. You can't possibly be serious that one can draw any conclusions from forum posts in the general case let alone this one.

 
I’m well past the 35,000 mark. I’m keeeping my fingers crossed.

[captainscarlet]

The driving force behind my posts has been to try and establish, mostly for my own benefit, the scope and extent of the problem.

um, this forum has less than 5500 users and it's membership is heavily concentrated to North America. Furthermore the OP is a class of two (?) with more than 35000 miles on his engine. So by that reckoning 50% of high mileage engines have failed or tend toward failure. You can't possibly be serious that one can draw any conclusions from forum posts in the general case let alone this one.

You’re completely missing the point.  I’m just trying to gain my own feel.  Quoting any kind of numbers is irrelevant because we don’t have all the riders with high mileage reporting the state of their engines.  Also I’m not basing my feelings solely on forum posts, but since you brought it up.  This is one person that I have found after trawling the internet that has this problem.  When you look at the various forums this is not a recurring subject.  Evidence from reading the motoring press also indicates that the engine is reliable.  Therefore I chose to conclude that this is an “isolated” incident.  Not in any way scientific, but that’s not the point. 
CS

[wrench]

I think I'm missing something here. I sympathize with the OP and his travails with Yammaha. I'm sure we have all, at one time or another run into a situation that's similar - a mechanical item breaks down shortly after the warranty expires and before we would normally expect said problems.
 
There has been a LOT of talk (especially early on) about 'did you check your valve clearances'. It has always been my understanding that insufficient clearance in the exhaust valve train can lead to burned valves because they do not stay in contact with the head long enough for heat to be conducted away. Too much clearance does not lead to excessive pounding of the valve against the head, it simply does not open the valve enough for proper breathing and power suffers. (Again, this has been my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.) Checking and adjusting the valve train would not have prevented wear in the valve guides, nor would it have affected the valve seats. From where I stand, I think this cylinder head had improperly heat treated valve seats and poorly machined valve guides (maybe a stack up of tolerances?). In other words, I don't think there was much the OP could have done during his ownership of the bike to prevent this - any more than I could have done something to prevent the failure of my steering box on my Econoline van (Service Manager, "We never see these things fail...they are bulletproof") shortly after the warranty expired.

[duhs10]

I'm wondering if @vinnie is advphotocycle on instagram... he posted something similar...

[micah2074]

I’m waiting on th pics of the letters from Yamaha and the explanation on the differences in the combustion chambers between the heads in the posted pics.

[skipperT]

I think I'm missing something here. I sympathize with the OP and his travails with Yammaha. I'm sure we have all, at one time or another run into a situation that's similar - a mechanical item breaks down shortly after the warranty expires and before we would normally expect said problems. 
There has been a LOT of talk (especially early on) about 'did you check your valve clearances'. It has always been my understanding that insufficient clearance in the exhaust valve train can lead to burned valves because they do not stay in contact with the head long enough for heat to be conducted away. Too much clearance does not lead to excessive pounding of the valve against the head, it simply does not open the valve enough for proper breathing and power suffers. (Again, this has been my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.) Checking and adjusting the valve train would not have prevented wear in the valve guides, nor would it have affected the valve seats. From where I stand, I think this cylinder head had improperly heat treated valve seats and poorly machined valve guides (maybe a stack up of tolerances?). In other words, I don't think there was much the OP could have done during his ownership of the bike to prevent this - any more than I could have done something to prevent the failure of my steering box on my Econoline van (Service Manager, "We never see these things fail...they are bulletproof") shortly after the warranty expired.

 
To elaborate further - we also don’t know if the valves were adjusted properly the first go-round. Did the tech get them “close” and ship them? For example were the exhaust valves set to the tight side of the spec instead of the middle or loose side?
 
Too many unknowns, plus speculation on what Yamaha does/doesn’t know, back ordered and superseded parts due to early failures (?) (it could simply be a supplier change or related to oil flow to the tensioner), etc. plus the complication of he said/she said through the service writer, manager, rep, Yamaha Corp run around, etc... I could go on, but you get the idea.
 
I too, am bummed for the OP, and I’m NOT trying to start a war here... I hope he’s got a running machine again (kawi, suz, or yami) and is riding it happily.
 
The take-away of this entire thread (IMHO) is: check your valve clearances, somewhere around the 20k mile mark. If you’re paranoid about the way the work was performed, check them again 5-10k miles later to be sure the clearances haven’t tightened up further. Also ask the shop to have the tech write down the measured BEFORE and measured AFTER (if adjusted) clearances so you have a record of where they were, and what they were adjusted to, so you can track it. Then we could compile some data about how this engine is wearing.
 
Tight valves get tighter, to answer your other question. If the exhaust valve clearances are supposed to be 8-12 thousandths and these are around 6-7, they will usually wear out faster from that point and get tighter more quickly due to the reduced amount of time and space the valve stems, seats, and cyl head area have to cool as the cam rotates and the valves are opened/closed during combustion. (My understanding, subject to correction)
 
And as I mentioned before, take it all with a grain of salt. We have NO idea of knowing how this particular engine stacks up against ALL the CP3 motors that Yamaha produces (data wise). 1 prematurely worn head out of (made up number) 20,000 might be completely acceptable to Yamaha engineers.
 
Waiting for backordered parts sucks. I hope Vinnie has gotten back on 2 wheels and hopefully received the price break on the repairs he was promised.
 
As a data point, I’m pushing almost 28k miles on my 2015 FJ, checked and adjusted my valves early (@ around 23-24k) and 4 out of 6 of my exhaust valve clearances were tight. I have the measurements written down somewhere with my maint records and receipts. Rechecking them again for curiosity sake/engine health is on my to-do list.
 
-Skip

[iceman63]

New member here, and watching these threads. I do not have an FJ/Tracer as of now. But I'm looking hard at the new Tracer 900 GT. I know this particular case with the OP my not be as common, but I have seen quite a lot of "valves tight early" threads. I'm wondering if Yamaha has taken care of this by now with the newer 18'/19' Tracers. But I have not found that answer yet. This may change my mind about purchasing a Tracer.
I currently have an 02' FZ1 that I bought new, and have put over 100 thou on her without any issues and valves still in spec. There's other first gen FZ1's out there with over 200 thou on them. One on our forum has over 250 thou on hers. So I know Yamaha can build a good bike. I'm having doubts about the Tracer though, unfortunately.

[koth442]

I don't think anyone has high enough mileage on their GT to know yet.

[piotrek]

... I'm wondering if Yamaha has taken care of this by now with the newer 18'/19' Tracers. But I have not found that answer yet. This may change my mind about purchasing a Tracer. ....I'm having doubts about the Tracer though, unfortunately.

Too early to tell as @koth442 noted.... but just keep in mind that folks with issues will make disproportionately more noise on the forums than those who don't experience problems. You could research whether relevant part numbers have changed between the model years... could suggest that 'improvements' were made in the design. 
You could also just choose to check your valves earlier... I shoulda done it.
 

[jamesfj09]

So if you had an extended warranty yamaha will fix it?

[duhs10]

So if you had an extended warranty yamaha will fix it?

Hard to say.. I would like to think so. But Yamaha, along with most corporations, will do everything they can to not pay a warranty claim.
 
I wouldn't worry too much about it. The valves do tend to be tight at the recommended interval, but this is the only failure of this magnitude that I've seen documented.

[dundee]

Yamaha also changed the design of the block as well.  That is why there are 2 cam chain tensioner versions.  They also changed the design of the oil cooler on the bottom end.  Have not seen your photos yet as I am only on Page 4, but production changes of the engine head and block in Year 3 do seem pretty unusual on a relatively new design.

[captainscarlet]

7 hours ago, dundee said:

Yamaha also changed the design of the block as well.  That is why there are 2 cam chain tensioner versions.  They also changed the design of the oil cooler on the bottom end.  Have not seen your photos yet as I am only on Page 4, but production changes of the engine head and block in Year 3 do seem pretty unusual on a relatively new design.

Edited some while later to account for my own lack of facts 😱

I'm not aware that they have changed the block.

There are two, or even more, different versions of the cam chain tensioner because (like many other manufacturers) Yamaha have had trouble with some of their tensioners.  The different versions of the tensioner are completely interchangeable between all the model years for the CP3 engine.  The only change associated with one of the tensioner upgrades was to change one of the bolts holding the valve cover in place, to increase oil flow.  All other engine compenents remained the same!

The CP3 engine does not have an oil cooler!  At the bottom end as you put it, the oil pan has been changed to move the drain bolt to the front of the oil pan.  The original oil pan had the bolt on the bottom with a protective flange in front of it.  Some people had problems with ground clearance, catching the original drain plug and breaking the pan.  Many others (including myself) have had no ground clearance issues with the original oil pan.  Nothing else on the block was changed to accommodate the new pan, which is fully interchangeable between model years for the CP3 engine.

I've now learned that the CP3 engine does have an oil cooler and that it was changed from a round one to a square one for model year 2017 onwards.  I haven't spent the time studying the parts fiche to see if there are any other changes in the block.  It's still not clear though if these changes are in any way related to valve related wear issues connected to the OP's original problem.

I'm afraid your post doesn't seem to contain any factually correct elements.  Further as regards changing components/part nos. manufacturers are doing so ALL the time for any number of reasons.  Also the CP3 engine has been in production since 2014 so it's now getting on for five years old, a lifetime in the motor industry.

CS

[jdavis]

3 hours ago, captainscarlet said:

The CP3 engine does not have an oil cooler! 

Yes it does.