Suzuki GSX-R Motorcycle Forums Gixxer.com banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I disabled the SET by unplugging the 2 connectors in the tail section and by unplugging the #30 black/brown wire under the seat.

Works fine but because of the lack of engine braking power, I decided to connect everything back after riding a few blocks...

The problem I have is the SET valve does not work anymore. It doesn't turn clockwise,counter clockwise when I turn the engine and kill switch on...

Can you help? I just want everything back to how it was before...Could my service motor be fried?

Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
First of all, I can not imagine why you would want to hook it back up, I didnt notice insufficient engine braking with mine removed, I DID however notice a much smoother throttle response both on the throttle and as the engine matches rpms and the bike slows.... I think it made a huge improvement on the bike, but to each his own, and if you want it hooked up, then more power to you.

I would double check all the connections and be sure the #30 wire is hooked back up completely. If you tampered with the positioning of the servo motor or cables controlling the actual valve be sure they are in place, you could manually turn the piece on the servo motor that pulls the cables and have a buddy make sure the valve is being controlled by the servo.... just some suggestions.

Goodluck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I simply followed the set removal guide here in the forums. The simpler one where you simply unplug the 2 connectors and the #30 wire. I didn't tamper with the cable or anything like that, didn't even open the right tail fairing.

Anyway, yeah, I decided to just take it back out, meaning remove the 2 plugs and #30 wire so I'll ride with it for a while...Thanks for the input...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
I thought torque was inversely related to engine braking (most engine braking at your torque peak)? Yes, there are more factors involved in engine braking that were mentioned, but holding everything else constant (flywheel and compression ratio) since I didn't mess with that....

The purpose of the SET is to increase torque at lower RPMs. Torque at low RPMs is typically reduced on high revving engines because of valvetrain design. If it works great at high RPMs then there's typically not enough backpressure at low RPMs. Valve train design is a trade off and one can't typically have optimal torque at both ends of the RPM spectrum.....so designers look for ways to increase backpressure at low RPMs when they've designed a high revving engine. The backpressure helps keep "air stuffed in the cylinder" (pardon me for the oversimplification) which increases Volumetric Efficiency (VE). Higher VE means more air is in the combustion area, thus more compression (note, I'm not saying the compression "ratio" has changed, rather there's more air in the cylinder which has the same result/effect).

Without backpressure, the cylinders don't "fill up as much" (lower VE) which is why we lose torque without it.

So it stands to reason, to me, that less backpressure = less VE = less engine braking.

Yes? No?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
Well, whatever or however it actually occurs- I definately think that my bike accelerates and decelerates MUCH smoother without the SET, for whatever reason. I dont think it decelerates as harshly with it removed/disabled, and therefore, I am very very happy, its gone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
That's cool Sean I wasn't trying to say it's a dumb idea. It does seem smoother without it, I agree. Different people have different requirements for their bikes and different riding styles to meet those requirements. I just thought I'd point out a possible effect that no one had mentioned yet. Nice car by the way, got a white one myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
Yeah, I know. I didnt say that removing the SET made the engine braking better or worse. I just said that it seems smoother as it comes down through the RPMs, which as you said, you agree. I do not have the technical know how to understand if that is related to engine braking or not, thats why I didnt say that the engine braking was helped/harmed by removing it. My bike is smoother accelerating and decelerating without the stupid SET Valve, so I am glad its gone! :) And I was not being a smartass about your technical post at all-

on a sidenote- I love my G35! This is my second one, I am thinking about trading it for the new M... I test drove one and absolutely loved it!!! Trying to buy a new house though, so it might have to wait. :cheers

Catatafish said:
That's cool Sean I wasn't trying to say it's a dumb idea. It does seem smoother without it, I agree. Different people have different requirements for their bikes and different riding styles to meet those requirements. I just thought I'd point out a possible effect that no one had mentioned yet. Nice car by the way, got a white one myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Thanks for all the help guys. I just left it disabled and seems to be OK...Definitely noticed the lesser jerkiness...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,621 Posts
I like it better without the SET valve. It's noticeably louder/deeper at idle and low RPM's and a little louder at high RPM's. Seemes like it has a little(tiny) less punch at and below 5K RPM's, but who rides with the needle down there anyways? I don't even notice it anymore, but what I do notice much more is the power band at around 8K. Throttle on/off response is much smoother. Not as much engine braking power, but I've gotten used to it. Overall I'd say disable the damn thing and when the pipes are cold but while it's running close the valve with your fingers, hit the throttle and when you hear the difference and take it for a spin you won't want it back.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top