Print

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

[Chief]

Does that include the crank assy itself.  I can't see that lighter rods and pistons should have any affect on crank runout.

I agree Jerry. I can't comment for sure if they lightened the crank. It seems likely that they would have, but I can't back that up with anything other than a guess.

[Kpasa]

KPASA, What did you dealer tell you about the warranty on the new motor? Is it another 2 years from the install date or are we getting screwed with the remainder of the standard warranty that started at the delivery date?

CO,  sorry, I should have added that tidbit of info to my post.  I don't like it, but the warranty began when I made my purchase (my case August 06), even with new motor - that Aug 06 date is THE date.   That warranty is not just for the motor, therefore, I don't feel I am being "screwed". I am just really happy that it's over and my SEUC is back home. 

[copout221]

CO,  sorry, I should have added that tidbit of info to my post.  I don't like it, but the warranty began when I made my purchase (my case August 06), even with new motor - that Aug 06 date is THE date.   That warranty is not just for the motor, therefore, I don't feel I am being "screwed". I am just really happy that it's over and my SEUC is back home. 

Thanks, I was told the same thing today by my dealer. Oh well, cannot hurt to ask.

However, MOCO should pay for the oil change at 500 or 1000 miles since we already did so on the last motor !!! BUT THEY WON'T

[Kpasa]

However, MOCO should pay for the oil change at 500 or 1000 miles since we already did so on the last motor !!! BUT THEY WON'T

I dunno, maybe for you.  I was a little over a 1,000 miles away from having all that done anyway.   Sure I am a little PIST, but not as PIST as I will be if this happens again. Rife safe~

[djkak]

It is my understanding that the weight reduction in the flywheel assembly was taken from the reciprocating mass (upper connecting rod and piston). This was done in an effort to counter the affect that the longer stroke has on the vibration characteristics of the engine. Visually, the upper connecting rods and wrist pin area of the pistons have changed substantially.

The flywheel assembly for the 110” is the same part number as the 96” machines; the 110’s have a unique part number for the left main bearing though.

It is my sense that the issue with flywheel shift, evidenced by excessive sprocket-shaft and pinion-shaft runout is related to a production tolerance issue. The dimensions for the crankpin and/or the machined crankpin hole/s in the flywheel/s are “stacking-up” or simply being produced out of specification. The result is an inadequate interference or “press” fit of the crankpin into the flywheels. An issue like this is easily remedied once the problem has been identified.

Checking the runout of the flywheel assembly requires removal of the cam plate assembly on the right side and the motor sprocket on the left.

The practice of welding the crankpin in an assembled and trued flywheel assembly is something that high performance engine builders have been doing for some time. This may be something to consider if your engine is coming down for performance work.

djkak 

[Midnight Rider]

It is my understanding that the weight reduction in the flywheel assembly was taken from the reciprocating mass (upper connecting rod and piston). This was done in an effort to counter the affect that the longer stroke has on the vibration characteristics of the engine. Visually, the upper connecting rods and wrist pin area of the pistons have changed substantially.

The flywheel assembly for the 110” is the same part number as the 96” machines; the 110’s have a unique part number for the left main bearing though.

It is my sense that the issue with flywheel shift, evidenced by excessive sprocket-shaft and pinion-shaft runout is related to a production tolerance issue. The dimensions for the crankpin and/or the machined crankpin hole/s in the flywheel/s are “stacking-up” or simply being produced out of specification. The result is an inadequate interference or “press” fit of the crankpin into the flywheels. An issue like this is easily remedied once the problem has been identified.

Checking the runout of the flywheel assembly requires removal of the cam plate assembly on the right side and the motor sprocket on the left.

The practice of welding the crankpin in an assembled and trued flywheel assembly is something that high performance engine builders have been doing for some time. This may be something to consider if your engine is coming down for performance work.

djkak 

d...one other question.  Did they change the way the crank is made/put together from the 103" crank when they did the 110".  I had read about the connecting rods being a lot different in appearance (heard Jim's used to make the ones in the 103's?), and lighter.  I guess if the piston is significantly lighter, the wrist pins and upper part of the rod could also be lighter/thinner, so let's hope they got that right...

[djkak]

d...one other question.  Did they change the way the crank is made/put together from the 103" crank when they did the 110".  I had read about the connecting rods being a lot different in appearance (heard Jim's used to make the ones in the 103's?), and lighter.  I guess if the piston is significantly lighter, the wrist pins and upper part of the rod could also be lighter/thinner, so let's hope they got that right...

The three piece “press together” construction is the same as the ’06 and earlier. Visually, the flywheels look the same except for the connecting rods in the ’07’s. The sprocket shaft of the ’07 is made differently in order to accommodate the new compensating sprocket assembly.   

Jim’s makes the Screamin’ Eagle 4 3/8” Flywheel assembly for H-D; they do not make the OEM assembly. For what it’s worth, the CVO machines have always run H-D built flywheels, not Jim’s.

The Screamin’ Eagle Catalog on page 48, A and B picture the Jim’s and H-D flywheel assemblies together; A is Jim’s and B is H-D. The flywheels pictured in B are for 2006 and earlier applications; the ‘07’s run different connecting rods. There may be an issue with the application for part number 23729-07. The application says that it will fit ’06 Dyna’s, but these machines do not run the ’07 connecting rods and pistons. I believe that in ’06 Jim’s were the only 4 3/8” flywheels available through H-D for the Dyna’s. 23729-07 is the OEM number for all 2007 and later Big-Twins, including the 110” CVO’s.

The OEM connecting rods for ’07 and later Big Twins are visually quite different than the earlier OE pieces. The most significant difference is the upper I-Beam section has a smaller profile and the wrist-pin end is wedge shaped; the earlier rods are squared off on top. The wedge shaped wrist-pin end fits into a special piston with a wedge cut into the bottom.

The piston skirts are shorter due in part to the longer stroke. It is my sense that the most significant reciprocating weight savings came from the I-Beam and small end of the connecting rods; the new I-Beam is really quite diminutive.

You don’t see or hear of connecting rods breaking very often. The only broken con-rod that I ever saw was from a 1971 1200. The rod became severed at the base, near the crankpin. Additional material was added to the base of the connecting rods in the 1983 model year, in anticipation of the EVO in 1984. Beefing-up the big end and lightening the top of the I-Beam would be consistent with my limited experience in dealing with failures of this type. 

djkak

[Tros]

Is the connecting rod wedge idea for less weight or is their an additional purpose? 

I'd be curious to see what a 103 flywheel weighs as compaired to the current ones. 
 

[djkak]

Is the connecting rod wedge idea for less weight or is their an additional purpose? 

I'd be curious to see what a 103 flywheel weighs as compaired to the current ones. 
 

IMHO the purpose of the new connecting rod design is to reduce reciprocating weight. The purpose of this is to reduce vibration from the longer stroke, larger bore engines. 

A weight savings like the one illustrated in the photo above is measured in grams rather than pounds, so it might be more impressive to look at it as a percentage of the previous connecting rod’s reciprocating weight, rather than straight-up. The other thing to consider is that we are only talking about the reciprocating weight of the connecting rods, not the rotating mass. Reducing reciprocating weight will have a substantial impact on the vibration characteristics of an engine.

djkak

[Tros]

IMHO the purpose of the new connecting rod design is to reduce reciprocating weight. The purpose of this is to reduce vibration from the longer stroke, larger bore engines. 

A weight savings like the one illustrated in the photo above is measured in grams rather than pounds, so it might be more impressive to look at it as a percentage of the previous connecting rod’s reciprocating weight, rather than straight-up. The other thing to consider is that we are only talking about the reciprocating weight of the connecting rods, not the rotating mass. Reducing reciprocating weight will have a substantial impact on the vibration characteristics of an engine.

djkak

I agree. I'm just curious if the new flywheels are lighter too.

[djkak]

I agree. I'm just curious if the new flywheels are lighter too.

I don’t know if that changed, Tros; they don’t look like they have changed, but I haven’t seen the early and late flywheels together.

Back in the 1970’s, the 4 ½” S&S flywheels were popular in the Shovels. These wheels were somewhere near 8 pounds lighter than the OE wheels; that all by itself made a hell of a difference.

djkak