Suzuki Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Another Valve Adjustment Thread

17K views 19 replies 10 participants last post by  Chris_d 
#1 ·
Guys,

I know there have been few discussions on the issue. Just want to share with you my latest experience. My car is going out of warranty tomorrow. So I went to a dealer and requested the valve adjustment and few other minor things. They listened to the engine and said: "Your car doesn't need it Sir!".
 
#3 ·
The valve adjustment wasn't covered under warranty anway, so far as I know. I also recall someone on this forum saying that the valves can be out of adjustment in a manner that does not result in noise. Having reached 45,000km and 48 months, ours has have the valve inspection/adjustment done this month.
 
#7 ·
geevee, Valves can be misadjusted in two ways: "Loose" or "Tight".

"Loose" is when the clearances are too great between the valve head and its actuator and results in the "clicking" noise. If the clearance gets too large it can cause excessive wear and incorrect valve timing.

"Tight" is when there is little or no clearance between the valve head and it actuator and is completely silent. This can result in the valve being held open during the compression and ignition phases. This will "burn" or damage the valve and possible the valve seat. This is not good. Results in a severe loss of performance and the expenditure of lots of money.

I'm assuming that when Suzuki built the engine they correctly adjusted the valve clearance. As the engine wears over 50K kms the valve clearances will get larger (loose), not smaller (tight). So, if you can't hear any clicking at 50K kms things are probably okay. As the valve train and cams wear, the valves should get looser, not tighter.
 
#13 · (Edited)
Thanks for the concise explanation.

I can now report on the first valve clearance inspection event for our GV. Our independent mechanic is a top automotive instructor at the largest college offering auto tech courses in western Canada.

While mulling whether to launch into the inspection, he consulted with the nearby Suzuki dealership, where the senior mechanic is one of his former students.

Our GV has just about 50,000km on it.

First, they agreed there was no ticking noise. Second, to check for the overly tight condition, they found a way to check the timing and/or engine codes and/or exhaust composition. This seems consistent with what annfan said above, where a tight condition should reveal itself with symptoms. Since ours didn't show any such symptoms, they decided to sign off on it, and not charge me anything. I'm to bring it back for the inspection at 105,000km.

I don't know enough about these things to fully understand how they checked for the tight condition, but I completely trust our mechanic. It seems to me that the 2.7's that have been inspected, have required either no shims at all, or only 1-2thou. He said that Suzuki's engines aren't known to have this sort of problem, but a couple of others, including some Honda engines, do.

Earlier I reported our mechanic said he had been advised by that dealership to skip the valve inspection teardown but charge me the full flat rate for it. He says that since then, the management at that dealership has been substantially, um, altered.
 
#8 ·
As the engine wears over 50K kms the valve clearances will get larger (loose), not smaller (tight).
Not necessarily. Valves can work their way into their seats (from the constant pounding) and also wear on their faces, causing the lash to decrease (tightening lash specs) thus ultimately preventing full closure and "burn". All of that is accomplished in a noiseless scenario as well. ;)
 
#9 ·
I know the old overhead valve and tappit heads certainly made noise when the valve clearances were loose but these overhead valve engines use a shim and bucket design driven by the cam. Do they actually get noisy enough to hear?
Max - In the days of leaded gasoline the valve seats used to be relativley soft and the phenomena that you described was more common. Is this still an issue with the current hardened valve seats?
 
#10 ·
In the days of leaded gasoline the valve seats used to be relatively soft and the phenomena that you described was more common. Is this still an issue with the current hardened valve seats?
Good question! This new Suzuki engine / design has been used for only a short period of time on the engine in question, thus there is no long term affect reporting that I've read about as of yet, other than those that have HAD the service (early thus far) report both adjustment needs and some w/no needs.

I've got several thoughts on the subject though.

1. If Suzuki recommends the service, then it's probably for good reason.

2. Concerns that if not conducted, could follow on engine problems potentially NOT be covered under warranty?

I'd throw in one more thought to ponder as well. As an owner, will I trade it in in several years anyway? Or if a long term keeper, should I verify that all is well with regard to lash, as I'm in it for the long run.
 
#12 ·
The odds are good that you will not tear up the engine omitting this maintenance but if you do, you will wish you had followed the recommendations. The real problem is not so much that the valves are mechanical and need checked but, instead, the problem is that checking them is so time consuming. Shims on valve spring caps are typical but are more time consuming than a rocker with locking scew arrangement but the worst part is having all the air intake plumbing on top of the valve covers. Making this as challenging as it is drives up the cost and encourages people to "skip it". That is not as risky as not replacing a timing belt (which our GVs do not have) but is not the greatest idea in the world either. Mine got one check around 25K miles (don't remember exactly when at the moment) and will get another up around 50-75K miles. My son replaced two shims and the clearance was only about .001 too loose in both cases.

Jim
 
#15 ·
I asked my local dealer what the cost would be for the 30K valve check. The Service Writer first reaction was that it's not require because the valves are hydraulic. I countered by stating that it's posted in the Owner's Manual to be checked every 30K miles. He went and looked into it further (I guess talking to the mechanics) and is still under the impression that this engine doesn't require a valve check. :confused:

My question is: We are positive that the 2007 Suzuki GV requires a valve check on their 6 cylinder engines? He mention something about this service may be required for the 4 cylinder engines only. Anyway, if it is needed then I'm really concern that my dealer has no clue in regards to this. :eek: Above all I really don't want them to do the valve check, since they obviously have never done one before. And what really is scary is that they don't even know the vehicle's maintenance schedule. :huh:
 
#16 ·
Indeed this is pathetic that they don't know more about it. It is well known that the V6 2.7L from 2006 to 2008 didn't have hydraulic lifters. I'm with you I wouldn't trust these guys. How come can this happen ? I know that the mechanics at my dealer received training on the new GV back in 2006.
 
#18 ·
I hadn't thought of it but it makes sense to look for codes or check the exhaust to see if a valve is too tight. A compression check should show a too tight valve too, the affected cylinder should show less, possibly no, compression.

The issues with all this include:

1) Suzuki made the 2.7 and used it in the early XL7 and it had hydraulic lifters. They had to redesign it to get it to the slightly cheaper to make mechanical lifter design for the GV. This fooled me into not looking at the design when I bought the GV, I figured it was the same as a friends XL7 (and my Sidekicks 4 cylinder).

2) When Suzuki cheapened the engine they left the intake plumbing in the way blocking any easy check of the clearance.

3) Net result is it takes a long time and thus costs a lot to check the clearance and anybody who has done this before knows the odds are nothing is badly off.

Mechanical lifters do not have to be a "big deal" but Suzuki was not very kind in the 2.7 for the GV. They also stuck the oil filter in a nasty place to get to and put the oil drain plug in a horizontal position. While the vehicle is basically a nice SUV it may be my last Suzuki just because of the somewhat obnoxious design decisions.

Easiest mechanical lifters I've owned or worked on has to be my old Ford Festiva - really made by Kia. It had an O-ring on the valve cover so you didn't need a new gasket. It also had rockers with a lock-nut, screw adjuster. I could adjust it's 8 valves in under 2 hours with no parts cost.

It's a whole different price range but my BMW has the opposite sort of design decisions, at least the ones I've found so far. The oil drain plug comes down and there is a trap door in the under body panel so no screws to get to it. The oil filter is on the top of the engine and is a paper cartridge in an aluminum and plastic enclosure. Valves are a very different arrangement (variable timing and lift with enough range there is no conventional throttle, the valve lift does that function). No adjust ever needed. Only obnoxious thing (other than the price) is a speedometer that reads 3-4 mpg fast and "can't" be adjusted.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top