The 2016 and newer chain has pins about 1/2 the size of the older chains.  There are a lot of other differences too.  The link plates are about the same thickness, but the side plates are a lot thinner.  The side plates also have a much different pattern/footprint.

I wasn't sure if they sold me the correct chain so I started reviewing all the parts fiche starting way back.  The change came in 2016.  Up until 2016, the part number for the chain was 12760-24B00.  In 2016 it changed to 12760-24B10.

The price changed dramatically too.  The old chains are $134.  The new chains are $88.

I have just under 10K miles an my bike.  It has the same chain that was delivered from the factory.  I reviewed my old photos and sure enough, I have the chain with the funny side plates and smaller pins.

Now here's an interesting tidbit.  That chain tensioner has not drifted out much at all.  I'm in there all the time fiddling around with stuff and it never seems to change.  That's even after running it for about 3000 miles with my special jack bolt and the super-short cylinder.

I beat that sucker up.  I have a love affair with 7000 rpm.  This chain with the teeny-weeny pins seems to hack it.

I weighed the two chains.  The 2016 chain weighs 255 grams.  The older chain weighs 289 grams.

Armen, how did you miss that?  

I wonder why the factory switched to the lighter chain?  I guess the logical conclusion is that it's cheaper.  I'm not so sure.  The lighter chain seems to be holding up a lot better than the norm.  Granted, it lived for about 3000 miles with a tensioner assembly that had no pawl, but that tensioner was set up with a hard stop that limited travel to around 1mm.  All the other miles were logged with a stock tensioner.  And a whole bunch of those miles are with heavy duty valve springs and a high lift cam.  I just don't see much, if any, change in the tensioner extension.

Do you think they're tryin to reduce the stress on the tensioner/guide?  That heavier chain certainly imparts a lot of force when it turns the corner at the sprockets.  The centrifugal force must be off the hook at high rpm, and the guide has to hold the chain back.  Since the drive side is under extreme tension, I'm gonna make the bold assumption that the stress imparted by the chain is confined to the rear guide.

I'll probably be in that clutch cover pretty soon.  I'll make sure to check it and report the results.

BTW, all the other parts have remained unchanged since the beginning of time.  The guides and sprockets have the same part numbers they started out with back in the eightys.

I didn't measure chain stretch.  The 2016 is brand new, never used, so I suspect it won't have any wear.  But I think I will do some measurements just out of curiosity.  

I have six early style chains.  No idea about the history on those six chains.  I think it might be interesting to measure them all and compare.  I will post results.

So Lancer, have you ever seen one of these newer style chains?

How do the two oem versions compare with the nitrided cam chain available from Lancer?

Self deprecating disclaimer: I'm not an engineer and have a less than basic level of knowledge about internal combustion engines. I do however appreciate the information shared here and the ability to inform my purchases. I suspect the general consensus is that the differences are minor and I should just check the wear on whatever chain I install.

Tensioner mods come in different flavors.

Making it so it cant spit its guts out and kill the engine, making it longer, to use the chain longer,, both very good improvements,, Available at your LOcal Versy Store,,

Then along comes a radical who decides
That ratchet pawl is the main culprit,,and he does away with it,
The voices decryiing such foolishness were everywhere,
but he did it anyway
Hes still riding it, I think the same chain is on it, everything works fine,,
My memory isnt so perfect as Id like, but I think a coupld others have followed,

So,, about that Nitrided chain,,

After seeing really big differences in OEM cam chain life, we all started looking at
Average ride length,, as a beginning clue.
Every time the engine warms up to full operating temps, the cylinder grows Taller,, and the tensioner is always working to click that pawl into a tooth and keep that chain nice and tight,,

Well,, how much differently will a nitrided chain wear when its being tortured by mechanical forces that nothing is gonna stop?

I doubt the nitrided chain lasts noticeably longer in that environment,,
But, Slap that dude into a spot where the tensioner doesnt have a pawl,, and  would it need to be nitrided to last 50,000 miles? WE havent seen that test, but IM goin with
Problee Not,,


The chains in the side by side picture , tho,, I think seeing which lasts longer is a no brainer,.

What we Call Chain Stretch is really the accumulation of wear at the pins.
The thinner plates means a decreased "Bushed" area where the pin passes thru the plate, and the smaller diameter pin does the same thing,,

And that crappy , wimpy chain might just run and run and run in Batmans setup..

Not sure what all the did inside there,, not sure where to go look,, but when I start gettin my bike back o the road, IM doin the Batman conversion on my existing Verslavy..

Or,, MAYBE, Ill do the little modification I came up with that accomplished kinda the same thing without removing the pawl,,
I have the spring all picked out and taped on the side of the toolbox,,

If the engine kicked backwards I am sure a valve might get bent, that is why the plunger is there in the first place.

Thats where the pawl would come into play,, makes sense,, Id never thot about the Kickback moment,,
Gurus? What say ye all?

I wish Batman would show up and give us another quick rundown on his mod,,
Id shine the light in the sky, but IM afraid everyone of Chinese ancestry would see it and conclude supper is ready,,
I couldnt feed them,, and I dont have any bat soup,, zero,,