Print

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

[skreminegul07]

Good point, Skremin!  -I would also like to know if the run-out problem comes that way from the factory, or does it happen from just normal riding?  I don't think most of us are hammering these things very much.

I was tempted to have the runout checked on the new motor.  I am going to have it checked at the end of each riding season at my expense if necessary. 

I think we are in the process of thread jacking!

 

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

The bonus is that HD gives you the crankwith issues when you get it. LOL

[skreminegul07]

What about the cylinder base gaskets leaking? 

I believe that if you fix the head gasket leak, the oil will not be in the stud holes where it doesn't belong. 

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

I agree once the head gasket is repaired we have not seen any issue. We do check and lap the base to ensure that they are flat and true

[skreminegul07]

I agree once the head gasket is repaired we have not seen any issue. We do check and lap the base to ensure that they are flat and true

Another member informed me that he was told the the cylinder liners are too short and are being redesigned.  Aren't the cylinders flush with the liners where it meets the heads? 

Your thoughts?   We are desparate for a real fix.  Which is not a replacement motor that will leak too

[Chief]

Another member informed me that he was told the the cylinder liners are too short and are being redesigned.  Aren't the cylinders flush with the liners where it meets the heads? 

Your thoughts?   We are desparate for a real fix.  Which is not a replacement motor that will leak too

I got a chance to look at the cylinders on my bike when it was in for the first fix. As far as I could tell, the liners were perfectly flush with the top of the casting. I felt around them for any mis-alignment and could not feel any.

I was told by HD that there is a machining difference in the jugs coming out now. If that were true, I'd expect them to have a revised part number. I don't know if the new jugs have a revised number. It's anyone's guess what's up.

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

I have not seen any issues with the cylinders other than the myth from the dealers.

[9 1/2 Beers]

I was told that the 88-92 evo's had sleeves shifting problems, i was told 07's have the same problem and they can't get the head gasket to smash and i don't know why it's just the rear as opposed to both cylinders.  i believe there will be a new jug and new head gasket. although i heard they may not change the gasket part #.  just what i heard from what i think is a reliable source

i can only hope that this will fix this damn problem

i maybe the first to have a third motor in my bike !!!!

take it for what it's worth, i can not confirm this but i don't think anyone else can either 

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

lack of clamping load due to the poor head design.  But then again i only build engines fro aliving , and do not have the huge title hanging over my head that says HD ??

[djkak]

lack of clamping load due to the poor head design.  But then again i only build engines fro aliving , and do not have the huge title hanging over my head that says HD ??

How do the changes that you folks make to the combustion chamber increase the clamp load of the head gasket? A photo or two might help illustrate how this is accomplished; TIA.

djkak

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

We weld the chamber back into a bathtub design like a stock t/c head. I  do not have a picture that I can post at this time, sorry we have been very busy trying to get them done and out to the customers. But really it is not a big deal, the lack of head surface due to the shape of the combustion chamber does not lend itself to offering as much clamp load as a standard shape chamber. As well the shape of the chamber forces the pressure at the gasket into the wedge area of head and cylinder.

This really is nothing new , we have seen this before with other heads. So it was not a suprise to see it happen again on the 110.

[djkak]

We weld the chamber back into a bathtub design like a stock t/c head. I  do not have a picture that I can post at this time, sorry we have been very busy trying to get them done and out to the customers. But really it is not a big deal, the lack of head surface due to the shape of the combustion chamber does not lend itself to offering as much clamp load as a standard shape chamber. As well the shape of the chamber forces the pressure at the gasket into the wedge area of head and cylinder.

This really is nothing new , we have seen this before with other heads. So it was not a suprise to see it happen again on the 110.

I am interested in specifically how your cylinder head modifications increase the clamp load of the head gasket. The attached photos of Unbalanced (Harry’s) head and cylinder illustrate total OEM cylinder head coverage of the head gasket, most important the fire ring which contacts the cylinder liner.

djkak

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

The head has more material in that area, with that you get added strength and it is a different shape which if you look at the OEM CVO head you can see there is a less area of head where the gasket sits. We do this on almost every 103 + style head that we weld up.  The OEM deal does not work look at the shape of the chamber, and look where the gasket sits, now look at a bathtub chamber you will see more area around the stud holes.  As well if you look at the amount or lack of ( cvo) head where the chamber comes up to the gasket edge and the shape of it. The shape of the cvo head is forcing the pressure into the sealing surface, that is not what a bathtub design does.  I hope that clears it up for you???

[djkak]

The head has more material in that area, with that you get added strength and it is a different shape which if you look at the OEM CVO head you can see there is a less area of head where the gasket sits. We do this on almost every 103 + style head that we weld up.  The OEM deal does not work look at the shape of the chamber, and look where the gasket sits, now look at a bathtub chamber you will see more area around the stud holes.   As well if you look at the amount or lack of ( cvo) head where the chamber comes up to the gasket edge and the shape of it. The shape of the cvo head is forcing the pressure into the sealing surface, that is not what a bathtub design does.  I hope that clears it up for you???

It’s still a little fuzzy; the bore and head gasket fire ring of the 110 is a full ¼” larger in diameter than the goodies pictured your attached photo; but that has no bearing on clamp load of a 110 head gasket. The additional surface area resulting from your cylinder head modifications will not affect the head gasket clamp load if the additional material does not come in contact with the head gasket. The shape of the combustion chamber is subjective; the clamp load is what it is. My curiosity is only in regard to how your modifications increase the clamp load of the 110’s head gasket.

djkak

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

  Well you are not understanding it then .  I can not make it more simple. I am sorry you do not understand.  You are trying to compare bore size??  The shape of the cvo chamber is one issue the lask of thickness/ shape of the cvo chamber is the cause.  If we could leave the chamber alone and only port the head we would it is alot more work. So we are not doing that for fun, it is a needed upgrade. The two items working together  solve the problem.

If you dont think it is so , then explain to me why I anyone can build a 110/ 113 with a se  cylinder kit and ported stock heads  with a bathtub chamber and they never blow head gaskets??