Head gasket gone on my 961 3600 miles

Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
10
Country flag
Hi, It appears my head gasket may be gone on my 2016 Commando 961, i have only done 3600 miles.
I emailed Norton who can send me a new gasket.
Can anyone recommend someone who may be able to do this for me?
I am in Sompting
I have just seen a post of re-torquing at 1000 miles, this was never done.
Any help anyone, thanks in advance
Andy
 
Have you lost compression or an oil leak ? Norton say they do service in house . Are you close to an former Norton Dealer ? Krazy Horse ?
 
Might be an opportunity to check for seized rocker bushes or ask Santa for a rocker/shaft upgrade by Thiel.
 
Hi, It appears my head gasket may be gone on my 2016 Commando 961, i have only done 3600 miles.
I emailed Norton who can send me a new gasket.
Can anyone recommend someone who may be able to do this for me?
I am in Sompting
I have just seen a post of re-torquing at 1000 miles, this was never done.
Any help anyone, thanks in advance
Andy
The Head Gasket replacement should be doable by most any home mechanic . No camshafts/chains /coolant , oil cooler can stay on etc.. Maybe you can do this after all ? As I've told others " I wish I was your neighbor " .
 
Have you lost compression or an oil leak ? Norton say they do service in house . Are you close to an former Norton Dealer ? Krazy Horse ?
Hi Tony,
No it is just a slight leak, i did just tighten the bolts a fraction but no change, my nearest Norton dealer has closed down
 
Hi Tony,
No it is just a slight leak, i did just tighten the bolts a fraction but no change, my nearest Norton dealer has closed down
Did you torque wrench them ? Also , make sure the head mating surface is flat . Follow torque sequence


Head gasket gone on my 961 3600 miles
 
Last edited:
It's not uncommon for the rocker bushes to seize onto the shafts and rotate in the rockers. Theil motorsports do a fix/upgrade for around £400. If a local shop does the work get them to check for this.
ah right ok thank you, i will look into it
 
I cant remember what year we (Im ex-Norton engine build and service workshop) switched from liners to plated barrels, it must have been around that time though. So if upon removal of the cylinder head, it becomes apparent that you have steel liners...check they haven't sunk (straight edge across the barrel face). If it has, the best long term solution would be a revised Nikasil plated barrel. To be fair, straight edge the barrel regardless for distortion.
The head retorque, imo, is to compensate for a failing in the design....thermal expansion differences between the centre two 12.9 (if I remember correctly) and the outer stainless steel studs I really cant see as being matched. With expansion being compensated for by the cylinder head material...this for me is confirmed by how the outer fixings appear to be sinking into the head material. Generally the outer nuts would move approximately 60° during the retorque at 500 miles, but with the centres not moving at all. I dont know if breakaway torque was calculated into that procedure, but I do remember the TSB stating that it was not necessary to back off prior to retorque....so it must have been considered to some degree. But then again, I'm just a grease monkey....I'd welcome further explanation eitherway.
 
Last edited:
I cant remember what year we (Im ex-Norton engine build and service workshop) switched from liners to plated barrels, it must have been around that time though.
My 2013 had a leaking head gasket at just over 1000 miles. The liners had dropped in the barrels. They were replaced with Nikasil barrels in February 2015.
 
I cant remember what year we (Im ex-Norton engine build and service workshop) switched from liners to plated barrels, it must have been around that time though. So if upon removal of the cylinder head, it becomes apparent that you have steel liners...check they haven't sunk (straight edge across the barrel face). If it has, the best long term solution would be a revised Nikasil plated barrel. To be fair, straight edge the barrel regardless for distortion.
The head retorque, imo, is to compensate for a failing in the design....thermal expansion differences between the centre two 12.9 (if I remember correctly) and the outer stainless steel studs I really cant see as being matched. With expansion being compensated for by the cylinder head material...this for me is confirmed by how the outer fixings appear to be sinking into the head material. Generally the outer nuts would move approximately 60° during the retorque at 500 miles, but with the centres not moving at all. I dont know if breakaway torque was calculated into that procedure, but I do remember the TSB stating that it was not necessary to back off prior to retorque....so it must have been considered to some degree. But then again, I'm just a grease monkey....I'd welcome further explanation eitherway.
Not backing off is fine when measuring torque on a bolt that has just been fitted. This is common practice in the automotive industry when checking torque on the production line for example.

But in an engine that’s done 500 miles or more, and many heat cycles, I cannot understand why it’s deemed to be ok. The break away torque in that circumstance can easily exceed the torque required for clamping forces, thus allowing the checker to believe a fastener is torqued correctly when it is not.
 
Well this was my argument exactly, especially as the retorque from memory was only 60nm.
 
Back
Top