Print

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

[naitram]

That is what the tech told me also, .003".   That is a long way form .038" that mine read.  Is this only with the 110s?  What, if anything, if different about them from the 96s other than the motor can produce more torque.  Tech told me he'd seen 113s built with same bottom end with no problem.  So just can't understand if this is an inherent design flaw/deficiency, a mfg problem with parts not being to spec, or some type of assembly problem.  Only reason is as has been asked before - can it happen again or has problem been rectified.

could be a stacking tolerance issue. if you took the crank out of the bottom of the motor and chechked rounot on a bench it might be in spec. but add in some other factors like  bearing location on each side of the case. they may be within spec individually but put it all together and you are now out of spec. i'm gueesing thats why its a full motor replacement

[ultrafxr]

could be a stacking tolerance issue. if you took the crank out of the bottom of the motor and chechked rounot on a bench it might be in spec. but add in some other factors like  bearing location on each side of the case. they may be within spec individually but put it all together and you are now out of spec. i'm gueesing thats why its a full motor replacement

Understand completely Neil.  That is my concern since tech said normal procedure was for him to get with moco and get a new crank assy on order.  But if it is a stacking issue would that be taken care of during re-assembly?  I just don't know enough about that to make an informed opinion. 

[Hoist!]

Understand completely Neil.  That is my concern since tech said normal procedure was for him to get with moco and get a new crank assy on order.  But if it is a stacking issue would that be taken care of during re-assembly?  I just don't know enough about that to make an informed opinion. 

I wouldn't let them do that unless your doing the Timkin conversion and welded flywheels. If I had a choice, I'd do that. But if they won't do that, I'd demand a new engine with a fresh w.....ty!!! Hoist!

[ultrafxr]

I wouldn't let them do that unless your doing the Timkin conversion and welded flywheels. If I had a choice, I'd do that. But if they won't do that, I'd demand a new engine with a fresh w.....ty!!! Hoist!

Not really worried about the warranty since as we have discovered a new motor (or anything for that matter) does not extend the mfgr's warranty.  And I plan to add the extended warranty before the mfgr's warranty expires.  So if it failed again it would still be on their nickel.  But I want it fixed so it won't fail again.  So what assurance do any of us have that a new motor will not have same problem?  Would feel more confident if we had heard of a problem/issue that had been addressed and resolved.  Maybe replacing the crank and going through everything carefully would be better ? ? ?  Haven't asked about Timken bearing and welding the crank.  I'll cut out a little early and go by and see if I can ask the tech his opinion.

[Chief]

Not really worried about the warranty since as we have discovered a new motor (or anything for that matter) does not extend the mfgr's warranty.  And I plan to add the extended warranty before the mfgr's warranty expires.  So if it failed again it would still be on their nickel.  But I want it fixed so it won't fail again.  So what assurance do any of us have that a new motor will not have same problem?  Would feel more confident if we had heard of a problem/issue that had been addressed and resolved.  Maybe replacing the crank and going through everything carefully would be better ? ? ?  Haven't asked about Timken bearing and welding the crank.  I'll cut out a little early and go by and see if I can ask the tech his opinion.

I found this thread: Blown 110" (pinion) - Can it happen again?

Same questin as you Jerry, but I don't recall what the final vedict was, and haven't re-read it in case I missed it the first time.

[Fired00d]

Gary, all the bad cranks that I have seen have gotten new motors, and not rebuild the origional one.

That's a shame you could end up in the same boat again. I'd much rather get rid of a known problem rather then taking my chances I'll get lucky and not have it on the next motor.

 
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 

[grc]

Jerry, you're 100% correct. Per the '07 SERK SM Supplement, Table 3-12 Crankshaft Runout is 0.0"-0.003"; Table 3-22 Replace if Crank Runout is more than 0.003". Interesting that we're only hearing of replacements at 0.008" and above! Hoist!

Howie,

It may depend on where the measurement is being taken.  Normally you check crank runout in a truing stand, not in the engine.  I suppose if you made the check all the way out at the end of the pinion shaft you could argue for a slightly larger tolerance?  I'm thinking that is what H-D did when they realized they had a ton of cranks out in the field that measured over 0.003"; have the engineering group issue a quick bulletin to the dealers calling out a larger tolerance before authorizing repairs.  I've seen it done in the auto business, so it wouldn't surprise me to see H-D do it as well.  They probably figure a little extra runout won't hurt, since they no longer have gear drive cams.  My answer to that is, how about the extra wear on the oil pump and cam plate that this runout will create?

The part that ticks me off is that H-D is keeping this quiet, with no communications directly to the consumer.  Based on a quick search on the 'net, this issue is not just on CVO's (same crank on TC96 and TC110).  If this problem has a known cause that was corrected as of a certain build date, that information should be made available to the dealers and consumers.  That is the approach the MoCo took back in 2000 on the original TC88 cam bearing issue.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen the current management group do the same thing on any of the major issues that have surfaced since that time.  Current philosophy seems to be "Problem? - What Problem?".

Jerry

[Hoist!]

Sounds like we need to be there when it's measured with the SM Supplement Tables in hand and see how they respond to it. A new engine offers no guaranty that it'll be any better. It's the design. Only the Timkin conversion, welded flyewhells and cam plate with bearing support can insure proper runout. I never heard of racing motors with rollers! We want our Timkin Bearings back!!! Hoist!

[ultrafxr]

Howie,

It may depend on where the measurement is being taken.  Normally you check crank runout in a truing stand, not in the engine.  I suppose if you made the check all the way out at the end of the pinion shaft you could argue for a slightly larger tolerance?  I'm thinking that is what H-D did when they realized they had a ton of cranks out in the field that measured over 0.003"; have the engineering group issue a quick bulletin to the dealers calling out a larger tolerance before authorizing repairs.  I've seen it done in the auto business, so it wouldn't surprise me to see H-D do it as well.  They probably figure a little extra runout won't hurt, since they no longer have gear drive cams.  My answer to that is, how about the extra wear on the oil pump and cam plate that this runout will create?

The part that ticks me off is that H-D is keeping this quiet, with no communications directly to the consumer.  Based on a quick search on the 'net, this issue is not just on CVO's (same crank on TC96 and TC110).  If this problem has a known cause that was corrected as of a certain build date, that information should be made available to the dealers and consumers.  That is the approach the MoCo took back in 2000 on the original TC88 cam bearing issue.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen the current management group do the same thing on any of the major issues that have surfaced since that time.  Current philosophy seems to be "Problem? - What Problem?".

Jerry

Jerry, I had asked about that before.  Could not understand why the 96s were immune to this problem, from what you say I guess they aren't.  Agree, this smells an awful lot like the cam bearing problem in first year TC.

[StreetDog]

Can anyone tell me if I am safe to run gear drive cams with crank runout at 2 1/2 thousandths ? I had mine checked and that was what I was told it had, I belive that converts to .00025.

[Serkcus]

Can anyone descibe in more detail what is required to check it, my dealer really has to be lead by the hand.

[grc]

Can anyone tell me if I am safe to run gear drive cams with crank runout at 2 1/2 thousandths ? I had mine checked and that was what I was told it had, I belive that converts to .00025.  .0025

KingDog,

I read somewhere that S&S recommended no more than .002" runout of the pinion shaft.

The following is copied from the S&S instruction sheet, relative to drive gear backlash:

"To check backlash in the outer drive gear set, rotate the 62 teeth cam drive gear back and forth while keeping the pinion gear locked in one place with the engine. The minimal required backlash for the gear sets should be between .0005” and .001”and no more than .002” for cold gears. The both gear sets should roll freely with no radial or axial binding. If when checking backlash the gear mesh shows less than .0005” of backlash then a smaller crankshaft gear size 33-4160X for the outer gears or 33-4272RX for the inner gears should be used. Gear sets with less than .005” of backlash may whine when run and can cause tooth wear excessive heat generation and gear failure resulting in engine damage. Gear backlash greater than .002” can cause excessive gear noise or clicking caused by the reversing of the forces applied by the lifter springs onto the gears, use the oversized crankshaft gear 33-4160Z for the outer gears and 33-4272RZ for the inner gears to
correct this condition."

While they don't specifically mention measuring the pinion shaft runout, they are looking for a backlash between .0005" and .002", and they measure it with the pinion shaft gear locked in one position.  If the pinion shaft has excessive runout, you can see where it would be impossible to get a consistent backlash adjustment as you turn the crankshaft.

This is a link to the entire instruction sheet for those interested:  http://www.sscycle.com/modules/instruction/uploads/51-1047.pdf

Jerry

[Chief]

Last night I was curious enough to tear into the cam chest to check the crank. I did not want to pull the top down, so I decided to check the runout without removing the cam support plate. I anchored my dial indicator to the front footboard mount and got it to run on the shoulder of the crank, just outboard of the support plate.

0.003" measured.

Question: How much runout would the support plate be hiding?

[ultrafxr]

Update - this gets curiouser and curiouser.  Got a call at 5:15 pm last evening from supervisor at H-D customer service.  H-D tech services had been in contact with local tech several times about the crank runout he reported to me.  After reviewing procedures it was determined that 1) bike was not sufficiently secured for the reported reading to have been accurate, and 2) reported out of tolerence reading was on sprocket side and, of course, most concern is on opposite side due to oil pump. 

So after a thorough recheck following H-D's recommended procedure both the tech and H-D tech services determined that there is in fact not a problem with my crank.  But H-D does want the rear cylinder replaced.  Just saw this post:  http://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=14847.0 which indicates that root of head gasket problem may be in the rear cylinder itself.

I had no sooner hung up from the H-D call when the gm of the dealer phoned to relay same info.  So everyone is on the same page and we are (hopefully) going to get a new cylinder in over the weekend or Monday morning and I may get the bike back Wed or Thur which will put me just a couple days behind on my trip.

Don't know what to say guys other than I hope this latest info is totally correct.  I can only report what I am told so I just don't know how concerned you and I should be about this.  Time will tell I imagine.

[skreminegul07]

Update - this gets curiouser and curiouser.  Got a call at 5:15 pm last evening from supervisor at H-D customer service.  H-D tech services had been in contact with local tech several times about the crank runout he reported to me.  After reviewing procedures it was determined that 1) bike was not sufficiently secured for the reported reading to have been accurate, and 2) reported out of tolerence reading was on sprocket side and, of course, most concern is on opposite side due to oil pump. 

So after a thorough recheck following H-D's recommended procedure both the tech and H-D tech services determined that there is in fact not a problem with my crank.  But H-D does want the rear cylinder replaced.  Just saw this post:  http://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=14847.0 which indicates that root of head gasket problem may be in the rear cylinder itself.

I had no sooner hung up from the H-D call when the gm of the dealer phoned to relay same info.  So everyone is on the same page and we are (hopefully) going to get a new cylinder in over the weekend or Monday morning and I may get the bike back Wed or Thur which will put me just a couple days behind on my trip.

Don't know what to say guys other than I hope this latest info is totally correct.  I can only report what I am told so I just don't know how concerned you and I should be about this.  Time will tell I imagine.

I'm glad my post helped.
It was one of those "we thinks something is going on, but do not even tell our dealers"  These guys in Milwaukee are like politicians under oath, yes or no answers, no volunteering of info.