2002 M750ie, 16,000miles in 21 months - all ok. Now sold
2004 M1000ie 6000 miles, all ok
1998 900ssie engine in the tricolour: 6000 miles since going in this bike, all ok.
All above regularly serviced, oil & filters changed at 3000 miles

BUT:
2001 M600: 18,800 miles, no service history - 2 rockers just been replaced:o

so it can go racing:D

Intresting stuff really is starting to look like good start up is the key.

and from new!

obsolete information

[Edited on 10-9-2005 by Ericsson]

'99 748Bp

10 000 miles just had 2 opening rockers replaced.

Shell Advance or Rock Oil synthasis 15W50 used max every 3 000 miles, always careful with startup since I bought it 2 years ago at 6 000 miles.

Baines reckon there is a lot of varience in rocker quality depending on the supplier.

Has anyone tried extralube ZX1 or a simular 'friction reducer' addative?

Sorry, should be 6000km (~3700miles). Still bad though.

Thought it was that mate, but yes 3700 is about the worst yet. Bad luck.

The 996 had 2 rockers replaced at 18,500 miles, one was only slightly marked. 4D

I guess we've had enough replies now to get a reasonable picture.

Hard to draw any cast-iron conclusions but a couple of things spring to my mind.


1. I didn't see much evidence for the "748's are more prone cos they're revvier" argument.

2. It would seem that extra-frequent oil changes, and, indeed, the use of 15/50 synthetic, whilst in themselves no doubt "good things", do *not*guarantee to prevent rocker failure.

3. Likewise with extra-careful warming-up procedures.


Maybe how you ride, even with a hot engine, has got something to do with it. Spend a lot of time around "the red zone"? :lol:

I reckon variable batch quality in the rockers looks like the biggest single factor.

What do youse guys think?

Here's a picture of a flakey rocker............

It's one of the cutaway engines on display in the Bologna museum:o