Print

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

[bigdave110]

To say there aren't "that many" bad ones is admitting there were a few.  We know there were several from the first hand accounts in just the community here.  Granted, they were far more common early in the engines' history and got better.  But Harley raised the run out tolerance for a reason.  And there's no logic in a reasoning suggesting that more run out is better.

Having said all that not "that many" does allow some.  For bottom end failures on motorcycles "some" is too many. 

Everyone recognizes that any part might fail at any time.  It's a risk we accept every time we throw a leg over and ride on.  This failure was more than that very rare one-off failure though.  Scored oil pumps or worse were happening in statistically significant numbers; especially early in the production lives of these motors.  One or two percent doesn't sound like much.  And perhaps it isn't.  At least it isn't until you park among 100 other bikes on a dealer lot some Saturday and wonder if yours will be one or two that might seize up on the ride home.

Agree, with the price we pay.(FOR ANY BIKE NOT JUST CVO"S)
Even a few failing is no good, and raising the spec tells me they know and don't care.
I may have problems later, hope not, not going to have spec taken at recall(PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT).
If it lets go it lets go.  Hopefully warranty will cover, if not I will do total rebuild.
Dave

[skreminegul07]

Agree, with the price we pay.(FOR ANY BIKE NOT JUST CVO"S)
Even a few failing is no good, and raising the spec tells me they know and don't care.
I may have problems later, hope not, not going to have spec taken at recall(PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT).
If it lets go it lets go.  Hopefully warranty will cover, if not I will do total rebuild.
Dave

I hope you get it in Neutral really quick.

[Talon]

If the run out it really bad, you may also run into issues with your oil pump, and then on the other side, the compensator etc... So just ignoring it and sticking with the chain may be a gamble too.

[miker]

Gaaaa! .003 to .013! Yikes...That is getting the "shaft"

[Hoist!]

Gaaaa! .003 to .013! Yikes...That is getting the "shaft"

That's endplay the way I read it Mike, not crank runout. Runout was changed last year to 0.012", which is terrible enough.

Hoist!

[bigdave110]

I hope you get it in Neutral really quick.

Don't think I'm that fast.
Friend of mine locked his up a year or so ago, hell of a good rider.
He went down hard.
But at the same time, If i worry about it all the time, I will ride scared, why bother riding at that point.
Just Sayin!!
Bigdave

[meanbean]

That's endplay the way I read it Mike, not crank runout. Runout was changed last year to 0.012", which is terrible enough.

Hoist!

.012...are you serious?  Is that a typo, did you mean.0012?  If the MoCo is allowing that much is allowing that much run out in the crank they should be ashamed of themselves.

I wonder how much there is further in on the shaft. I would think that much run out on the end would be enough in the middle to prematurely destroy the main bearings. Maybe that's why they switched from Timkins and went  "sloppier" .

The crank run out on my soft tail was .0013 and my oil pump had very minor scoring, this was at about 15K miles. I installed S&S gear drives and 615/585 cams.  The gears were a little noisy but not bad enough to bitch about. I will measure the runout on my '04 SEEG this winter, If it's less than .002 I might go with gears.