Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

Morning guys, after dealing with the leaks on the head gaskets, along with doing some head work in the process we can up with a fix. We started looking at the shape of the chamber along with the areas that that gasket is leaking in.  First off the hemi head is a hot running chamber as it was desgined to run hot for EPA reasons, that with the shape of the chamber and and a sonic pulse wave that is being forced into a area that has less clamping area, is what is causing the leaks.

We have taken the chamber and welded it, this will provide more clamping area, as it is also now a bathtub style chamber, which fix's the lack of squish in the chamber. With the porting and welding we have lowered head temps greatly, and now having the correct squish band the issue of leaking gasket , is no longer a problem. 

We have tested this on several bikes thus far and the milage that we have clocked is over 30,000 , no issues at this point.

I hope that I have explained this in a way that it will makes sense. I feel that a replacement head gasket is nothing more than a band aid with the problem being design not a poor head gasket per say. The amount of heat and force being induced upon the gasket would seem rather high even for a MLS style gasket which we have also seen some seepage.

We have replaced the cylinder studs with high tensile units and have tried increased tq specs still found that we had small amount leakage when cold, once it heated up it would re-seal due to it being a MLS gasket.

If anyone has questions on this feel free to call. We are currently doing 3 sets of these now for the same issue that many of you are having as well.

On the upside we are seeing a very nice increase in power as well.

[Twolanerider]

If proved to be true in extended service that is in some ways unfortunate.  Becuase it's a fix that the MoCo will never do nor allow the dealers to do regardless of how repetitive their warranty failures might be.

[sadunbar]

Morning guys, after dealing with the leaks on the head gaskets, along with doing some head work in the process we can up with a fix. We started looking at the shape of the chamber along with the areas that that gasket is leaking in.  First off the hemi head is a hot running chamber as it was desgined to run hot for EPA reasons, that with the shape of the chamber and and a sonic pulse wave that is being forced into a area that has less clamping area, is what is causing the leaks.

We have taken the chamber and welded it, this will provide more clamping area, as it is also now a bathtub style chamber, which fix's the lack of squish in the chamber. With the porting and welding we have lowered head temps greatly, and now having the correct squish band the issue of leaking gasket , is no longer a problem. 

We have tested this on several bikes thus far and the milage that we have clocked is over 30,000 , no issues at this point.

I hope that I have explained this in a way that it will makes sense. I feel that a replacement head gasket is nothing more than a band aid with the problem being design not a poor head gasket per say. The amount of heat and force being induced upon the gasket would seem rather high even for a MLS style gasket which we have also seen some seepage.

We have replaced the cylinder studs with high tensile units and have tried increased tq specs still found that we had small amount leakage when cold, once it heated up it would re-seal due to it being a MLS gasket.

If anyone has questions on this feel free to call. We are currently doing 3 sets of these now for the same issue that many of you are having as well.

On the upside we are seeing a very nice increase in power as well.

I absolutely agree 100% with what you have stated..  I am very glad to see you have accomplished testing that at least initially seems to validate these points.  Not a head gasket design problem at all - rather a combination of heat, cylinder head design, cam design causing head gasket failure.  What you state you have learned thru your process matches the logical (at least to me) theory of this problem.

Makes the solution Hoist has implemeted and the solution I am in the process of implementing seem like the correct route to eliminating the problem vs. applying a band aid.

It is unfortunate that MOCO has not openly admitted the same thing, as I am sure they have come to some similiar variation of these same conclusions.  Apparently spending several thousand dollars is the only route for those of us who want to resolve this independently.  My goal is to see the MOCO sees none of these dollars from me.

Scott

[TN]

thanks for the info.... ....allot of ppl would not want to share this.

i wish you were in my area....

HD should take notice




TN

[Midnight Rider]

The sad thing here is that those who are unable or unwilling to do what is really necessary to fix the motor are pretty much screwed.  I'm guessing here, but I would assume that the MOCO cannot provide a real fix and still meet the EPA standards for the 110" motor.  This is not the EPA's fault either, but rather the MOCO for not designing a motor that can both meet the required emmisions standards and stay together at the same time.   

At least some progress is being made by people like GMR and some others to solve the problem for those willing/able to spend the money on the motor.

I think everyone knows the answer to the question as to whether the MOCO will come out with a replacement head design and do a recall...

[sadunbar]

The sad thing here is that those who are unable or unwilling to do what is really necessary to fix the motor are pretty much screwed.  I'm guessing here, but I would assume that the MOCO cannot provide a real fix and still meet the EPA standards for the 110" motor.  This is not the EPA's fault either, but rather the MOCO for not designing a motor that can both meet the required emmisions standards and stay together at the same time.   

At least some progress is being made by people like GMR and some others to solve the problem for those willing/able to spend the money on the motor.

I think everyone knows the answer to the question as to whether the MOCO will come out with a replacement head design and do a recall...

Bingo...spot on Terry

[rednectum]

steve, i was talking on phone to a gentleman on this forum yesterday about the same problems. told him i did not know absolute cure , but would find out. knowing MOCO added a third dowel meant they realized a problem area and had already tried their typical band-aid fix.

now today, you pop up and have found the cure. thats why you get the big bucks!!!!! thanks for letting us all know that a cure is there.

hoping you read this Jeff, GMR has your answer!!!!

[Steve_G]

I am glad the real problems have been identified, but as has been stated, I doubt seriously that the MoCo will step up to the plate on a permanent solution.  I can forsee a change in the '09s because they're definitely headed for a class action suit over this crap.  Of course if they are having such a hard time meeting EPA, and you have to run illegal changes to keep your bike from burning up, I would guess we're awfully close to the end of our beloved air-cooled big twin motors.  That's my window on the world.

[sadunbar]

steve, i was talking on phone to a gentleman on this forum yesterday about the same problems. told him i did not know absolute cure , but would find out. knowing MOCO added a third dowel meant they realized a problem area and had already tried their typical band-aid fix.

now today, you pop up and have found the cure. thats why you get the big bucks!!!!! thanks for letting us all know that a cure is there.

hoping you read this Jeff, GMR has your answer!!!!

A third dowel has been added?

I am sure a letter is on the way to each of us explaining they are working towards a solution and soon we will need to bring our bikes in for fitment of our new motors...

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

Well let me know if we can be of help . If you can pull the heads and ship them we can do the work and ship them back with new gaskets as well.

[ultrafxr]

That is good to know and may have to resort to the fix but right now second repair is holding reasonably well - only very, very slight leakage visable.  Why the rear failure vs front - just a matter of running hotter I presume?

What about cylinder / sleeve seperation?  If we pull down can that be repaired or must cylinder be replaced?

[Midnight Rider]

I am glad the real problems have been identified, but as has been stated, I doubt seriously that the MoCo will step up to the plate on a permanent solution.  I can forsee a change in the '09s because they're definitely headed for a class action suit over this crap.  Of course if they are having such a hard time meeting EPA, and you have to run illegal changes to keep your bike from burning up, I would guess we're awfully close to the end of our beloved air-cooled big twin motors.  That's my window on the world.

The odd thing is that other aftermarket A/C'd engine manufacturers seem to be able to build a motor that meets EPA standards...

Look at R&R engines, in LARGE displacements, which have recently been EPA certified.

Even a partially water cooled Twin Cam would solve many of the problems...a smallish radiator, designed in much the same way the Vrod is, would not look at all bad between the downtubes on the FLH platform.  A nice nosepiece, etc.  I would not have a problem with that at all.

In my view, HD has sat on their collective asses, knowing that these EPA emmisions standards were clearly on the horizon, and relied on their 50 year old technology in an unsucessful attempt to meet those standards.  Just bore it out, slap some heads on it that will keep emmisions down by making the motor run so damn hot it starts warping chit and causing the liners to separate from the jugs, sell it to the loyal masses, and keep their collective fingers crossed while rotating on their collective thumbs.  Then when it doesn't work, keep throwing bandaides at it until the two year warranty is up, then it's somebody elses problem, and the MOCO has moved on to something else.  But they've kept the stock prices up...they are building a house of cards though, unless they have something dramatic cooking.

The 103 heads create too much heat as well, but are not mated to a weaker component like a perhaps overly bored cylinder, which is probably the only reason the 103's are staying together without problems....well, that's IF you pay out of your own pocket to replace the POS cam tensioners before they grenade the motor.

So, to get either the 103 OR the 110 to really run like they should, and violate the EPA standards in the process, we are all stuck in the same boat...change the heads/get the stock heads welded up to perform like they should, keeping the temps down on the engine, replace the cams, chains, tensioners, etc, etc  In the end, knocking the hell out of 4K...or more.

 

[grc]

As Terry pointed out, this hot running issue is nothing new.  The 103's also run very hot, and have extremely high octane requirements for an engine with only 8.9:1 compression.  At least part of this is due to the choice of a simple hemi head versus a modern high turbulence design.  I didn't understand the thought process behind that choice back when the 103 came out, and I still don't understand it.  You can't blame it on emissions regulations, since high turbulence helps in that area (high turbulence equals better mixing of fuel and air, a more uniform mixture results in more complete and more rapid combustion, and that in turn results in fewer unburned hydrocarbons and a lower octane requirement).  When the Twin Cam was introduced in 1999, the bathtub head design was a big improvement over the preceding hemi and "D" designs.  A big part of the reason for the change was the need to meet tightening emissions regulations in the future.  So why go backward with the 103/110?

I'm sure we'll never get an answer from Milwaukee, since it's just too confusing when you have to stop counting your money all the time to answer questions from those irritating customers.  All I can say is, 25-30 years ago the auto industry went through the really tough times with the initial emissions regulations, fuel shortages, and then fuel mileage regulations, and somehow we survived and prospered.  It was real tough back then because the technology didn't exist and we had to invent this stuff on the fly.  Mistakes were made, and cars ran like chit for a few years until we worked the bugs out, but eventually we arrived at the point where a modern automobile engine produces more power while using less fuel, produces extremely low levels of pollution, and is vastly more dependable than anything that went before.  On the other hand, all H-D has to do is utilize the knowledge and technology that's already available to them, and then meet emissions regulations (no fuel economy regs) that are much easier than those applied to the auto industry.  I think we can all see how well that little exercise is going so far.

Any questions about my decision to keep my $$$ in my pocket and out of the MoCo's coffers?

Jerry

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

That is good to know and may have to resort to the fix but right now second repair is holding reasonably well - only very, very slight leakage visable.  Why the rear failure vs front - just a matter of running hotter I presume?

What about cylinder / sleeve seperation?  If we pull down can that be repaired or must cylinder be replaced?

 I have seen any case of liner to cylinder issues at all.  All you would need to do is remove heads, now with the new chamber we are going to have a tad more compression so if you want to install cams this is the time to do so. The HQ cam is extemely nice and has work very with in 103 and 107's I have not as of yet to install the new HQ cam in a 110. I have mocked it up in the program and with real numbers from 103 and 107 and 113 that we have used it in,. it shows that it will work very good.

[Steve_G]

What about the cylinder base gaskets leaking?