V-Twin Oil Leak Issue or expected behaviour?

[groundeffect]

Please allow me to try and get this straight…. I could be incorrect so please feel free to correct, educate and explain to clear the air.

I've read this article that seems to apply to many or all V-Twin type engines (including the Spyders???)
http://jpcycles.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/82/~/tech-articles---oil-leak


Does the Spyder Rotax V-Twin engine fall in to that category regarding how it breaths, as described above?



As I understand it now, the "oil leaks" the 2008 and 2009 Spyders have experienced are actually just a side effect of the type of engines the Spyders have, the Rotax 990, V-Twin technology, CORRECT OR NOT? Are they real problems, or is this expected and assumed behavior of the engine technology or has BRP or Rotax done something wrong???


It sounds to me like the "Catch Can Mod" on the Spyders does NOT FIX the issue of the oil leaking from the engine. However, perhaps it is not a problem and just a function of the engine and the technology, a side effect of the V-Twin engine?






The Spyder ( as per the specs. ) takes 1.19 US gal. / 4.5 liters of oil. So what is the ratio or amount of oil typically leaks/breathes from the engine? Half a gallon, 1000miles? less? more?




PS Does anyone have the link to the Catch Can Oil Leak Fix they can share here?

Thanks you in advance for any explanations, knowledge and useful feedback on this topic.
Cheers.

 

[boborgera]

Please allow me to try and get this straight…. I could be incorrect so please feel free to correct, educate and explain to clear the air.

I've read this article that seems to apply to many or all V-Twin type engines (including the Spyders???)
http://jpcycles.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/82/~/tech-articles---oil-leak


Does the Spyder Rotax V-Twin engine fall in to that category regarding how it breaths, as described above


As I understand it now, the "oil leaks" the 2008 and 2009 Spyders have experienced are actually just a side effect of the type of engines the Spyders have, the Rotax 990, V-Twin technology, CORRECT OR NOT? Are they real problems, or is this expected and assumed behavior of the engine technology or has BRP or Rotax done something wrong???


It sounds to me like the "Catch Can Mod" on the Spyders does NOT FIX the issue of the oil leaking from the engine. However, perhaps it is not a problem and just a function of the engine and the technology, a side effect of the V-Twin engine?






The Spyder ( as per the specs. ) takes 1.19 US gal. / 4.5 liters of oil. So what is the ratio or amount of oil typically leaks/breathes from the engine? Half a gallon, 1000miles? less? more?




PS Does anyone have the link to the Catch Can Oil Leak Fix they can share here?

Thanks you in advance for any explanations, knowledge and useful feedback on this topic.
Cheers.

At least in my Spyder it's NOT a leak, it's blow bye into the airbox.
Very easy fix** catch can= or sponge in the tube that go's to the airbox.
I use the sponge. It work's for me, Might not work for every one.

 

[ameobe]

Here is the one Lamont posted the first time.
http://www.spyderlovers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11842

It is working fine for me.:thumbup:

 

[groundeffect]

Thanks for the relies guys!

However, anyone else care to comment on the questions from the post:


1) The Spyder ( as per the specs. ) takes 1.19 US gal. / 4.5 liters of oil. So what is the ratio or amount of oil typically leaks/breathes from the engine? Half a gallon, 1000miles? less? more?



2) As I understand it now, the "oil leaks" the 2008 and 2009 Spyders have experienced are actually just a side effect of the type of engines the Spyders have, the Rotax 990, V-Twin technology, CORRECT OR NOT? Are they real problems, or is this expected and assumed behavior of the engine technology or has BRP or Rotax done something wrong???



Thanks.
Cheers.

 

[Firefly]

Thanks for the relies guys!

However, anyone else care to comment on the questions from the post:


1) The Spyder ( as per the specs. ) takes 1.19 US gal. / 4.5 liters of oil. So what is the ratio or amount of oil typically leaks/breathes from the engine? Half a gallon, 1000miles? less? more?



2) As I understand it now, the "oil leaks" the 2008 and 2009 Spyders have experienced are actually just a side effect of the type of engines the Spyders have, the Rotax 990, V-Twin technology, CORRECT OR NOT? Are they real problems, or is this expected and assumed behavior of the engine technology or has BRP or Rotax done something wrong???



Thanks.
Cheers.

This isn't an 'oil leak' at all--- it is done by design-- hence the breather tube.

Good article posted above that explains it all quite well.

A 'leak' would be oil coming from somewhere it shouldn't be. In this case, the oil is going where they (poorly) designed it to go - back into the intake to be burnt up. Problem is it also goes all over the 'airbox' and THEN can become an oil 'leak' (from the air box) if left un-attended.

There are various 'fixes' to this annoyance posted out here. Foam in the breather tube and/or catch cans are the most popular.

How much oil is going to be entirely dependent on riding style - the more you thrash - the more oil you'll have.

Just check your oil every 500 miles or so and you should be fine.

 

[NancysToy]

This isn't an 'oil leak' at all--- it is done by design-- hence the breather tube.

Good article posted above that explains it all quite well.

A 'leak' would be oil coming from somewhere it shouldn't be. In this case, the oil is going where they (poorly) designed it to go - back into the intake to be burnt up. Problem is it also goes all over the 'airbox' and THEN can become an oil 'leak' (from the air box) if left un-attended.

There are various 'fixes' to this annoyance posted out here. Foam in the breather tube and/or catch cans are the most popular.

How much oil is going to be entirely dependent on riding style - the more you thrash - the more oil you'll have.

Just check your oil every 500 miles or so and you should be fine.

:agree: And by the way, if you put 4.5 liters of oil in a Spyder, it will blow by like crazy. Four quarts should do it, and should show up on the stick after the Spyder is brought to full operating temperature, not just idled until the gauge comes up, as the procedure says. 4.5 quarts, not liters, should be considered an absolute maximum, and will probably show above the max mark on the stick. The Spyder blows less by if the level is kept toward the low side.

I'm not sure why the Spyder dipstick is so short, or the accepatable level is such a small range. In a normal dry sump system the level isn't all that critical, as long as it isn't overly full, and the acceptable range is around an inch. On another note, to my way of thinking, any appreciable oil usage between changes in a modern engine is excessive. While a 1937 Panther may use a quart every 300 miles, and be in spec, a modern engine is tight enough not to even use the "less than a quart in a thousand" that was standard for cars the fifties. I'd say usage of anything over a half quart between oil changes (3,000 miles) would be cause for alarm, even for a V-twin with a lousy breather system, but that's just my slant on things.

 

[ameobe]

2 QTS. for every 1,000 miles seems really extreme to me, unless there is a leak. :yikes::yikes:
We have had the 600 & 3000 mile service done & have never needed to add any oil. My riding style is probably a bit more layed back than most, 1,000 miles with maybe a tablespoon caught in the catch can. jmo

 

[boborgera]

:agree: And by the way, if you put 4.5 liters of oil in a Spyder, it will blow by like crazy. Four quarts should do it,

:agree:Specs. call max 4.12 quarts. I use 4 quarts only, i hate too open a full quart for only .12. :thumbup:

 

[woodz428]

2 QTS. for every 1,000 miles seems really extreme to me, unless there is a leak. :yikes::yikes:

I'd have to agree.,..waaaay too much oil loss, especially in a 1000 miles. I can't speak for the Spyder's V twin but I can speak with some knowledge of a Harley ( I owned an Indian, real one not a Harley clone) since I've worked on many. The leaking issues on them vary by model, many early ones suffered from teh same thing that British bikes did, porous casting in the aluminum. It would literally weep through the case. Many would "wet sump", that's when the check valve in the oil tank would not hold the oil in the tank and it would fill the crankcase and when the bike was cranked, it would blow the oil out...usually quite messy. The first series EVO engines had an issue with crankcase pressures and a redesign of the venting to the airbox is supposed to have eliminated that. Even with those issues...2 qts in 1000 miles is extreme......2 strokes don't use that much and they injest it.
With the improvement in castings, especially now that most are die cast, I doubt that a Spyder would leak that much. Suzi VS 700 and 1400 never had leaks either. Wash it off and check for a wet spot, oil leaks are always the most wet at the source. As it get dispersed it attracts dust/dirt and gets a sludge/film, but it will still be most wet at the leak.

 

[BajaRon]

I guess if you use very loose criteria for "Leak" as any oil that escapes the engine then our Spyder vent tube issue could be considered a leak.

But then oil getting by the rings or valve stems into the exhaust could then be considered a leak by this standard.

Usually, it is only considered a leak when oil gets by a seal or gasket and drips. This is not the case with our air cleaner/vent tube issue.

With big pistons and high RPM there is a lot of push and shove going on inside the crankcase. Air has to be allowed to come and go or you get some really bad issues (like blown seals and real oil leaks).

This is where the vent tube comes in. But because there is a lot of oil splashing around, some of the oil tries to exit through the vent tube with the expelled air.

The vent tube is suppsed to allow free travel of air in and out of the crankcase without letting the oil out. It doesn't work well on the Spyder as configured from the factory. So, some oil (very tiny amounts, just a few ounces over time) excape and begin to collect in the air cleaner over time.

Oil is like blood, a little looks like a lot.

There have been several effective, inexpensive and simple fixes for this. I finally went with a clear, inline fitting with a piece of oil/foam filter inserted. It is still vented to the air cleaner.

It works great. I get plenty of vent action and I don't get any oil past the filter element. Because it is clear I can tell what is going on without pulling the top off my air box. And I don't have to empty a catch can.

 

[krb1945]

I use the same type...

clear vent tube that BajaRon is suggesting in the previous post. My only addition is the fine mesh fuel screen on each side of the foam media as a safety measure until we can determine if the open cell foam has loose particles.

There are threads that show the types of foam and tube being used to stop the oil migration to the air box.

I have been using it for several weeks and like Ron says I see no oil migrating through the filter media.

I have been testing the foam in used oil for several weeks now and see no foam particles in the used oil. Now having said this I am not looking at the oil with a microscope. I am using natural sun light and my bifocals.

These vent tubes breath very easy so there is no restriction in either direction.
/ Ken

 

[groundeffect]

Great replies and information here, guys, thanks for helping me understand some of the details. I found the article in my original post very helpful also.


bajaron:

There have been several effective, inexpensive and simple fixes for this. I finally went with a clear, inline fitting with a piece of oil/foam filter inserted. It is still vented to the air cleaner.

Do you have any information ( pictures, links, notes ) on your clear inline filter fix you used on this? If so, are you able to share?

thank you.

Cheers.

 

[BajaRon]

Great replies and information here, guys, thanks for helping me understand some of the details. I found the article in my original post very helpful also.


bajaron:


Do you have any information ( pictures, links, notes ) on your clear inline filter fix you used on this? If so, are you able to share?

thank you.

Cheers.

Here is the glass fuel filter I'm using.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Moeller-Universal-Inline-Glass-Filter/dp/B000MT94OM"]Moeller Universal Inline Glass View[/ame]

Here is the Foam material I am using. This foam comes in fine, medium and course. Get the course.

Uni Filter Replacement Red Mesh Course Foam Air Filter Sheet ...

You can probably find both of these items for less. These are just links to examples, not necessarily recommending the source.

I took the white filtration element that comes with the fuel filter out (too fine) and put a piece of Oil/Foam air filter material in its place. I cut the foam about 1/2"-3/4" shorter than the filter housing and slid it to the bottom. That gave me some free air above the foam and I can easily see if any oil is getting above/past the foam. So far it is clean as a whistle.

I did not use any of the hose barb fittings that came with the fuel filter because 1-they are too small, 2-The assembly is too long to fit between the breather port and the air box with the fittings installed and 3-You don't need them.

I just slid the hose ends over the hex ends of the filter and used a small clamp on the bottom hose. The assembly can't really go anywhere if the hoses are cut to the correct length and it isn't under any pressure.

I like it because I can see exactly what is going on (similar to the clear catch can) it vents into the air cleaner (which keeps mechanic warranty rants to a minimum - These are bogus anyway but it's one less issue), I don't have to drain it and the oil stays where it's supposed to, in the crank case.

I also like the idea of the negative pressure effect by going into the air cleaner. Probably no more than a "Good Feeling" but it should assist in releaving positive pressure in the crankcase.

Hope this helps. It's a pretty easy, straightforward, cheap install that can easily be reversed if you don't like it. Just be sure not to cut the hoses too short. But if you do more hose is easy to find and not expensive.

 

[GA-SPYDER]

Question for you, Scotty

":agree: And by the way, if you put 4.5 liters of oil in a Spyder, it will blow by like crazy. Four quarts should do it, and should show up on the stick after the Spyder is brought to full operating temperature, not just idled until the gauge comes up, as the procedure says. 4.5 quarts, not liters, should be considered an absolute maximum, and will probably show above the max mark on the stick. The Spyder blows less by if the level is kept toward the low side.
I'm not sure why the Spyder dipstick is so short, or the accepatable level is such a small range. In a normal dry sump system the level isn't all that critical, as long as it isn't overly full, and the acceptable range is around an inch. "

I was thinking about this very subject today. How is it determined how much oil is held in reserve in a dry sump system? It seems like a small amount of level diference, in the :spyder2:anyway, makes a big difference in blow-by issues. Does it have to do with the oil's ability to release heat before it is ran back through the engine? Being a dry sump, wouldn't there be approx. the same amount of oil in the engine, regardless of the amount outside of the engine? I know that RPM will effect it, but, oil level?

 

[NancysToy]

I was thinking about this very subject today. How is it determined how much oil is held in reserve in a dry sump system? It seems like a small amount of level diference, in the :spyder2:anyway, makes a big difference in blow-by issues. Does it have to do with the oil's ability to release heat before it is ran back through the engine? Being a dry sump, wouldn't there be approx. the same amount of oil in the engine, regardless of the amount outside of the engine? I know that RPM will effect it, but, oil level?

Good questions. I wish I really knew the answers. For most dry sump systems the reserve is a result of the engineers' determination of what is needed to:
A. Provide a steady supply of oil under all forseable operating conditions, and
B. Provide enough oil for adequate cooling to prevent oil breakdown or excessive thinning.
A lot enters into the latter, the need for additional cooling, rpm range, oil pumping rate, oil return rate, etc. It is beyond me to know how the Spyder engineers arrived at their numbers, but if, for instance, there is a quart running through the engine at a given time, and a pint in the filter, and a pint in the oil cooler, that leaves 2 quarts or more reserved in the tank. Half that should be more than sufficient to keep the oil pump intake covered without cavitation, so why are they so anal about keeping within a half inch on the dipstick, which can't be much more than a fourth of a quart? IMO, conservative engineers playing it very safe. Not having the intake screen on the bottom of the tank does create a dead space, in BRP's defense. It might take 1.5 quarts in the tank to provide a quart of cover.

As to the additional blow-by when overly full, it probably has to do with the vent system design (already known as poor) and the oil return system plumbing. Get the oil level too close to the return line level, or point the return the wrong way, and oil tends to back up, restricting the flow. This results in more oil in the sump, which the V-twin tries to surge out the vent due to the nature of V-twin crankcase breathing. The Spyder vent readily allows this, unfortunately. All this is purely conjecture, of course. If I really knew anything I'd be rich.

 

[BajaRon]

If I really knew anything I'd be rich.

You are rich Scotty! That is why all of us keep coming back to the mine to load up on more of your GOLD!

It is odd that the holding tank level seems to be so critical (if you go by the dip stick as a guide). In reality, it probably isn't all that big a deal.

There is one pump savaging oil out of the crankcase which has to have a higher volume than the pump that delivers pressurized oil to the engine. That's not too hard to do since the return pump doesn't need to produce any pressure, just volume.

So the level in the crankcase should always be the same. Now that level is critical, as you mention. If there is just a bit too much oil in the crankcase you’re going to get a lot of high impact between moving parts and the pool of oil and this is not good. But I would hope that is not the source of our blow-by problem. I can't imagine an engineer making a fluid transfer mistake like that.

From an engineering and performance standpoint, the dry sump is a great way to go so I’m all for the concept. Just a bit better execution on the vent system would go a long way towards resolving this relatively simple issue.

 

[NancysToy]

You are rich Scotty! That is why all of us keep coming back to the mine to load up on more of your GOLD!

It is odd that the holding tank level seems to be so critical (if you go by the dip stick as a guide). In reality, it probably isn't all that big a deal.

There is one pump savaging oil out of the crankcase which has to have a higher volume than the pump that delivers pressurized oil to the engine. That's not too hard to do since the return pump doesn't need to produce any pressure, just volume.

So the level in the crankcase should always be the same. Now that level is critical, as you mention. If there is just a bit too much oil in the crankcase you’re going to get a lot of high impact between moving parts and the pool of oil and this is not good. But I would hope that is not the source of our blow-by problem. I can't imagine an engineer making a fluid transfer mistake like that.

From an engineering and performance standpoint, the dry sump is a great way to go so I’m all for the concept. Just a bit better execution on the vent system would go a long way towards resolving this relatively simple issue.

My Mom always used to say "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" Can't go against Mom. :lecturef_smilie:

You are certainly right about the scavenging pump needing more capacity than the feed pump. It also has to be able to run partially dry periodically. I don't think the engineers made any mistakes, but even a tiny bit of submergence of the pump outlet would change the low head pressure of the pump, causing the capacity to drop slightly. This could momentarily surge the oil in the sump higher by a fraction of an inch, and with a V-twin with a goofy breather system, it could easily cause blow-by. Oil movement during starts, stops, and turns could also be a factor. Until they start making crankcases out of transparent plastic, I doubt we'll know with certainty. The solution is to alter the breather system, as you and others have found.

I also agree that the level of the dry sump tank should not be so critical. In reality, I don't think it actually is, as long as it is not too high. I think I will buy an extra dipstick and extend it, then experiment a bit. Not sure how this will affect the RT. There appear to be some alterations to the breather system, perhaps some sort of valve at the crankcase. The oil tank is a different shape, so the level may change differently. Looking forward to seeing if they figured it out.

 

[GA-SPYDER]

Same issues with the Aprilia V990?

Was wondering if it was the same dry sump design. Can't imagine that the Italians would have the same problems.:dontknow:

 

[BajaRon]

Was wondering if it was the same dry sump design. Can't imagine that the Italians would have the same problems.:dontknow:

The Aprilia uses essentially the same motor. The differences are performace based, not basic design.

 

[BajaRon]

My Mom always used to say "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" Can't go against Mom. :lecturef_smilie:.

Not to go against mom, but there have been plenty of smart people that never got rich.

I also agree that the level of the dry sump tank should not be so critical. In reality, I don't think it actually is, as long as it is not too high.

:agree: Being a little too high is probably bad in our application but being somewhat low shouldn't make any real difference.

You would think "Sloshing" has been factored into the equation by the engineers but that could also be a factor.

What surprises me about this is that it isn't rocket science. It's a basic design formula that has been understood by the automotive industry for a long time. So why the issues?

On the other hand, it's so simple to fix it's little more than a temporary annoyance.