Print

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

[Deacon]

I had my Dyna FXD upgraded from 96 CI to 110CI with the HD screaming eagle kit. Since the crankshaft is the same on both motors, I was wondering if the folks with the stock 96 CI motors were having crankshaft run out issues also.
If not why?

BTW: I am going to Island Dragway tonight to race my 110, I hope it don't lock up @98 MPH!!!

Anyone hear back from the guys who went to Hot Springs to drag? What kind of times did they turn?

[Midnight Rider]

Nobody in Hot Springs, in our group anyway, did any drag racing.

Did they check the runout on your crank when they had the bike apart to bore the cases for the 110" kit?  Did you mod the crank, have Timken's installed, etc?

[Chief]

I had my Dyna FXD upgraded from 96 CI to 110CI with the HD screaming eagle kit. Since the crankshaft is the same on both motors, I was wondering if the folks with the stock 96 CI motors were having crankshaft run out issues also.
If not why?

BTW: I am going to Island Dragway tonight to race my 110, I hope it don't lock up @98 MPH!!!

Anyone hear back from the guys who went to Hot Springs to drag? What kind of times did they turn?

I know for a fact that one of the service writers, long-time, die-hard Harley owner, at my local dealer had his motor in his 96" Ultra swapped out due to excessive runout. His complaint was excessive vibration. I don't know much about how the symptom exposed itself, whether it was there all along, or slowly got worse over time.

[FR8TRN]

When I was at Zippers and talking about this issue with them, they said it starts becoming and issue when the motor gets up to certain power numbers, now the 110" wasn't out then but they did say a built 103" would do it.  A timken bearing installation would of been simple when your motor was already apart for the 110" kit and runout would have been a non-issue then.

I haven't heard of any issues on the 96" motors except one guy that claims he "twisted" the crank, wouldn't back it up with anything and wouldn't explain what "twisted" meant, but he also claims to put on 100,000 miles a year and own/work in a full time motorcycle shop......so basically he's full of $hit and can't be believed.

[Deacon]

I did not have anything done to my crank or have the run-out checked when the kit was installed. The information was not really out there yet. I sure wish I had.
I don't do any touring with my bike, just 60 mile runs at most. I do jump on it all the time and bring it up to redline in the first three gears. I have been doing this since I had 300 miles on the bike back when it was a 96 incher. So I guess we'll find out if beating on it agravates the issue.

[Deacon]

I am just hitting 3800 miles now. I had my head gaskets replaced around the 1000 mi mark.

[Deacon]

Is Harley offering an air bag kit yet for us 110 owners? 
It sure would come in handy at the 100MPH mark when the crank locks up.

Give my widow the name of a good attorney.

[ultrafxr]

Thought I read somewhere that the 110 had beefier bearing in the lower end than the 96 and for that reason should not take 96 beyond 103 without doing something to the crank bearings.  Anyone else recall seeing this?

[Midnight Rider]

I do think that doing things like dumping the clutch coming off the line while drag racing would make the problem more likely to show itself...sudden jolts to the drivetrain would tend to play havoc with a pressed fit crank, I would think.  

Hope you got a warranty with the engine kit...

[Deacon]

When Dealer did the kit I had him order the 110 crank bearing. Different PN# and it was a blue or black color vs the stock shinny 96 bearing.
I won't be revving and dumping clutch. Just rolling out a 1500 or so RPM's and nailing it. I'm 56 now and those days are over for me. I figure I can tell by the 60 foot time just what the bike would run with a hot rod driver. Remember every .1 you shave off the 60ft will take 1.5 off your et. I figure the way I will be coming out of the hole I will be lucky to get a 2.0 60 ft.
A good bike racer should easily be able to hit a 1.6 60 ft.

BTW Dealer bundled my 110 KIT in my 7 year warranty because the kit was installed in less than 60 days after original purchase. This allows them to warranty it as if it came stock on the bike.

[Midnight Rider]

When Dealer did the kit I had him order the 110 crank bearing. Different PN# and it was a blue or black color vs the stock shinny 96 bearing.
I won't be revving and dumping clutch. Just rolling out a 1500 or so RPM's and nailing it. I'm 56 now and those days are over for me. I figure I can tell by the 60 foot time just what the bike would run with a hot rod driver. Remember every .1 you shave off the 60ft will take .2 off your et. I figure the way I will be coming out of the hole I will be lucky to get a 2.0 60 ft.
A good bike racer should easily be able to hit a 1.6 60 ft.

BTW Dealer bundled my 110 KIT in my 7 year warranty because the kit was installed in less than 60 days after original purchase. This allows them to warranty it as if it came stock on the bike.

You're good to go then...

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

Yes there are issue's with the 96 inch crank on stockers.  I do not feel that you can say at 120 tq or hp if will fail more so what do you ahve to start with?? Many have bad cranks from day one so a failure there is going to happen no matter if you leave it stock or mod the bike. We have a hundreds of builds out there from 95-107 engines with no timken. I have not had one of ours fail yet. With customers making 123+ hp out of a 98 inch bike and they do drag race there baggers. I am not talking about on the street but the real deal at the strip with high rpm launchs.

Best thing to do is check every crank and if it is over 2 thou run out fix it before you have a problem. And the New spec from hd on the run out is 100% BS!!!!!!!! i guess if you cannot build it correctly , then just raise the spec to cover your mistakes.

[grc]

Yes there are issue's with the 96 inch crank on stockers.  I do not feel that you can say at 120 tq or hp if will fail more so what do you ahve to start with?? Many have bad cranks from day one so a failure there is going to happen no matter if you leave it stock or mod the bike. We have a hundreds of builds out there from 95-107 engines with no timken. I have not had one of ours fail yet. With customers making 123+ hp out of a 98 inch bike and they do drag race there baggers. I am not talking about on the street but the real deal at the strip with high rpm launchs.

Best thing to do is check every crank and if it is over 2 thou run out fix it before you have a problem. And the New spec from hd on the run out is 100% BS!!!!!!!! i guess if you cannot build it correctly , then just raise the spec to cover your mistakes.

Many others, including Donny Petersen in American Iron, have reported crank runout issues with the TC96.  Unfortunately, we haven't seen any analysis of the cranks with excessive runout, so we really don't know the root cause.  I don't think anyone other than H-D really knows if the parts just came to them already screwed up or if they are shifting in use, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's a case of "all of the above".

I have to agree with the comment on the "new" runout spec.  The original .003 spec always referred to the runout as measured in a checking/truing stand, so I can agree with a slight difference when you measure one in the engine.  But not 4 times as much runout.  As Steve said, that is more of a "change the spec rather than fix the problem" type of answer. 

The MoCo still owes the dealers and customers a straight answer as to the cause of the problem and the date where the certified and verified corrective action was taken to eliminate the problem.  For everyone who purchased a TC96 or TC110, I sincerely hope the powers that be at the MoCo step up and do the right thing. 

Jerry

[djkak]

Many others, including Donny Petersen in American Iron, have reported crank runout issues with the TC96.  Unfortunately, we haven't seen any analysis of the cranks with excessive runout, so we really don't know the root cause....

I have to agree with the comment on the "new" runout spec.  The original .003 spec always referred to the runout as measured in a checking/truing stand, so I can agree with a slight difference when you measure one in the engine.  But not 4 times as much runout.  As Steve said, that is more of a "change the spec rather than fix the problem" type of answer.....
Jerry

When measuring runout in a truing stand, you are measuring the amount of shift of the left and right shafts (sprocket shaft & gearshaft) from their centerline. When measuring runout in an assembled engine, you are measuring the affect that the centerline shift has on the end of the gearshaft (apples and oranges). In the case of the assembled engine, think of the gearshaft as a lever and the main bearing as the fulcrum. Since the main bearing is located much closer to the flywheel than the right end of the gearshaft, movement at the right end of the gearshaft will be considerably more than the movement at the flywheel.

Based on my understanding of H-D’s flywheel spec bulletin, it looks like the number H-D is interested in is the amount of centerline shift; 0.004” max. H-D offers the 0.012” gearshaft specification in order to provide a method to gauge centerline shift without removing the flywheels from the crankcase. It is my sense that flywheels returned to H-D with less than 0.004” of shift will not be paid for.

Again, gearshaft runout is used to gauge flywheel shift, not to measure it. In order to measure flywheel shift accurately, you must remove the crank assembly from the engine and spin it in a truing stand.

djkak

[sadunbar]

When measuring runout in a truing stand, you are measuring the amount of shift of the left and right shafts (sprocket shaft & gearshaft) from their centerline. When measuring runout in an assembled engine, you are measuring the affect that the centerline shift has on the end of the gearshaft (apples and oranges). In the case of the assembled engine, think of the gearshaft as a lever and the main bearing as the fulcrum. Since the main bearing is located much closer to the flywheel than the right end of the gearshaft, movement at the right end of the gearshaft will me considerably more than the movement at the flywheel.

Based on my understanding of H-D’s flywheel spec bulletin, it looks like the number H-D is interested in is the amount of centerline shift; 0.004” max. H-D offers the 0.012” gearshaft specification in order to provide a method to gauge centerline shift without removing the flywheels from the crankcase. It is my sense that flywheels returned to H-D with less than 0.004” of shift will not be paid for.

Again, gearshaft runout is used to gauge flywheel shift, not to measure it. In order to measure flywheel shift accurately, you must remove the crank assembly from the engine and spin it in a truing stand.

djkak

Exactly right, djkak.

Let me try and give an example that may make this easier to understand.  Think of the head studs in the motor case.  There is a tolerance for centerline of the head stud tapped mounting hole in the motor case - For example, let's say the tolerance for the centerline of the diameter of the head stud tapped hole at full depth as compared to the centerline of the head stud tapped hole at the face of the case is .002.  Now, insert the head stud.  If you could measure the centerline of the furthest end of the stud in relation to the centerline of the tapped hole at full depth, it may be .012.  The result of .012 would be fine.  It is simply the projection of the .002 error at the exit of the head stud tapped hole projected 6 inches further away, at the far end of the threaded stud.  The hole at full depth compared to the hole at the head face is .002.  Project this .002 error out to the end of the threaded stud and the error is .012.

The MOCO spec. of .003-.004 for crank runout in vee blocks or a truing stand projects to a larger number when measured with the crank installed in the motor cases, when measuring at the gearshaft.

I am not commenting on whether any of these numbers are acceptable nor am I trying to defend the MOCO in any way.  I am only trying to explain that the .003 spec as measured in a truing stand does not compare to the .012 spec when measuring in the motor case.  As Djak said - apples and oranges.

(Reading what I just wrote does not convince me I made this easier to understand  )

Scott