Print

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

[ultrafxr]

Having trashed 110" motors in both my '07 and now my '12 within the last six months due to lifter failure I am taking Queen's hit 'Another One Bites The Dust' for my theme song, lol.

Seriously, I am curious as to the root cause.  I hear a lot of 'chatter' about failure of the Harley OEM lifters but does anyone really know what is going on?

It is a cheap, poor quality, underengineered lifter itself.

Or too much spring pressure hammering the valve train.

Are the lifters in the 110" motors unique or are they used in the the 103" and/or 96" motors?

And like the cam chain tensioner problems of the early TCs there seems to be no discernable pattern as to longevity.  My '07 lasted well over 60k before failure while my '12 failed at a little over 20k.  So how to tell if in early stages of problem to prevent total destruction?

[grc]

Until recently the lifters were not displacement specific, all the engines got the same parts.  For 2013 the CVO110's got a new SE lifter with heavier duty bearings for the roller while the rest of the engines continued with the older lifter.  Does that mean Harley knows that the bearings are the causal factor, or does that mean they are just guessing like everyone else?  I have no idea.  All I do know is that needle bearings do not take well to being pounded, and once they or the race they roll in gets pounded out of shape they stop rolling and start sliding.  That will destroy the bearing, roller, and even the lifter body in relatively short order. 

You might ask, as I have to myself, if Harley thinks the root cause is the lifter roller bearing then why aren't they changing them out in all Twin Cams, not just the 110?  This is what makes me believe it is a lot more than just a cheap standard lifter causing the problem.  The 110 has had a very high percentage of complaints about valve train noise since day one, much more so than the TC96.  So what's the difference other than fourteen cubic inches?  Cam profile, valve size and weight, and spring pressure comes to mind.

Just guessing of course.  Harley may or may not really know for sure, but I don't think they will be telling us the truth anytime soon.

Jerry

[ultrafxr]

Interesting info Jerry, thanks.  If you hapened to see Robin's post about the lifter on my '12 that is exactly what he diagnosed - while the lifter bearings did not come out the lifter did stop rolling and became egg shaped form contact with the cam.  On my '07, hell, everything came apart, two lifters (one did not even have the roller any longer) and the cam bearing. 

Wonder when they made the change for the SE lifter in the 110 motors?  I would have to assume before the '13s came out last September.  So hopefully (fingers crossed) the new motor installed in my '07 last December and the motor they are just installing in my '12 have the new SE lifters.  Sure hope this will help.  Time will tell.   

[DCFIREMANN]

OK I will chime in with my 2 cents on this one. Yes I think the lifters are PART of the problem. Harley knew there was a problem and changed the lifters and the OIL PUMP in the SE engines. I still think that oil flow and the lifters are the problem. I don't think it is one or the other but BOTH!!!! I am getting ready to tear down the motor in Saphire and do a ground up rebuild on it just to take care of the problems Harley has left us with. I am going to weld and true the crank along with the Timken conversion. Along with that I am changing to fueling lifters and pump with hopes that this will take care of the lower end problems.

Sorry you are having problems again!!!!

Be Safe

THE DAWG

[Boatman]

Since I have one of these fine 110 motors (now with 31K miles), I have been reading a lot about lifters and what I should replace them with.  From memory I believe:

NorthGeorgiaHawg likes BlackOps.

DCfiremann is putting in feuling lifters and pump.

Chip-SBB likes S&S with limiters if I recall.

What is the best choice for a lifter and do you use adjustable pushrods or the stock pushrods (assuming you are using stock heads and cams)?

But  thinking seriously of changing the oil pump, inner cam bearings, and lifters this winter.

I'm just about liftered out, compensatored out (the 2nd one is now going out), and front wheel bearing out.

 

[SBB]

Chip-SBB likes S&S with limiters if I recall.

Excellent memory there Mr. Bob!

 

SBB

[2k]

My son went with the SE High Capacity Lifters at 24K when the stock 110 started 'talking'. 7K thus far. I went with Feuling about 8K ago when I changed everything. Time will tell!

[HD Street Performance]

Consider the valve train as an assembly, together, integrated. Now consider that every time the motor runs it is like destructive testing. The lifters and the whole valve train are pushed. What is going to go 1st, the weak link.
Lifters

As a comparison consider a 2005 CVO 103. Ever heard of those lunching the lifters? I haven't, at least not in a stock bike. Why?
They have relatively heavy valves, same weight exhaust valve and a little lighter intake, same or close to the same spring pressure.

So how about hedging future damage and making the whole assembly better matched for long range use without failure?
It takes more than changing lifters (any brand) to have that confidence. Pushrods are not much of a contributer to the issue either.

Jerry said..
So what's the difference other than fourteen cubic inches?  Cam profile, valve size and weight, and spring pressure comes to mind.

Look at all of those plus the lifters and tightening up the valve to guide clearance plus better valve seals and you would be surprised how reliable these motors become, assuming reasonable compression and a good tune.
 

[North Georgia Hawg]

NorthGeorgiaHawg likes BlackOps.

DCfiremann is putting in feuling lifters and pump.

I do like the Black Ops lifters! They are very quiet.

I also run the Feuling 8015 billet cam support plate, the Feuling  7060 oil pump, the Feuling adjustable pushrods, and the H-D forged rocker support plates.

The pushrods are not a necessity tho... In fact I think it's frankly just as easy to take off the fuel tank and the rocker box covers, and loosen the rocker support plates, to get the pushrods out - rather than having to mess around with adjusting the pushrods. Taking off the fuel tank and rocker box covers is MUCH easier than it used to be, before the quick-disconnect fuel tank fitting. And it is a lot easier if the tank doesn't have much fuel in it!

And definitively get rid of the POS stock INA caged cam bearings in a '12 or older engine... even if you're not changing the cams. If those crappy bearings go, they will take the entire bottom end with them. For $20, a few more bucks for replacement oil pump O-rings and a cam chest cover gasket, the right cam bearing removal and installation tools, and 2-3 hours of your time - you can pretty-much forget about future cam bearing failures by installing Torrington full-complement cam bearings. Very much worth the effort in my opinion!

Ken

[dlg]

I have two 2011 SESG, one of them the engine went out at 9800 and the other went out at 29k.  On the 29k one I complained about the lifters bleeding down at 9k since I could compare engines side by side.  My wife reminds me that when I complained about the lifter and the dealer did not do an thing I should have replace them on my dime, in my opinion it is just a maintenance item and as NorthGeorgiaHawg it is very easy to replace.

Right now my bike is getting its third engine rebuild (don't ask) and I should get it back on Sunday.  In the middle of the month I and my wife will be on our way to the 110 from California.  I have three tow services, and ESP and I am prepared to buy a bike (used) along the way if necessary.

David

[Twolanerider]

I have two 2011 SESG, one of them the engine went out at 9800 and the other went out at 29k.  On the 29k one I complained about the lifters bleeding down at 9k since I could compare engines side by side.  My wife reminds me that when I complained about the lifter and the dealer did not do an thing I should have replace them on my dime, in my opinion it is just a maintenance item and as NorthGeorgiaHawg it is very easy to replace.

Right now my bike is getting its third engine rebuild (don't ask) and I should get it back on Sunday.  In the middle of the month I and my wife will be on our way to the 110 from California.  I have three tow services, and ESP and I am prepared to buy a bike (used) along the way if necessary.

David

David I'm not sure if I admire or am astonished by your perseverance.  No matter which it is the very notion that an engine internal as significant as a lifter should be considered a regular maintenance item is something owners should never be asked to accept. 

[sadunbar]

Here's my longwinded take on Jerry's question:

  Among many other bikes, I’ve owned a 2001 SERG, two 2004 SEEGs and now a 2007 SEUC.  Prior to my 2007 SEUC, I never changed a lifter in a twin cam motor.  Since acquiring my 2007 SEUC, I’ve replaced lifters no less than six times - each time during what’s become a routine, regularly scheduled cam chest inspection, with no more than 7,000 miles accumulated on any set of lifters. I've run OEM lifters, SE lifters, Woods, Feuling and S&S lifters.  Some lifters I’ve removed were marginally failing.  Some were on the brink of catastrophic failure.  It’s only luck and good timing that I’ve not suffered the failures others have experienced.   Six or so years ago, I was ridiculed by some on this site for my frequent cam chest inspections, suggesting it was unnecessary and foolish, to the point that I almost quit the site.  I think time has now proven the point I was trying to make back then…

I don't think the lifter manufacturing world forgot how to make lifters. I'm quite confident the new SE lifter with the heavy duty roller bearing design is an attempt by the MOCO to prolong lifter life by improving a previously effective component that has now been compromised by a deeper root cause failure mode.  I also think if the root cause was limited to cam profile, valve size and weight and/or valve spring pressure, (or any mechanical component), those components would have been altered a long time ago.  Actually, I don’t think these factors are all that different, if any different, than they are in pre-2007 Twin Cam motors (that don’t suffer frequent catastrophic lifter failures). I suspect the root cause of lifter failures in the current Twin Cam motor lies with the oiling provided to the lifters, perhaps in combination with some of the listed potential mechanical factors.

Lifter failures by in large began with the current design Twin Cam motor Introduced in the 2007 model bikes.  Hydraulic cam chain tensioners, piston oilers, camplate and oil pump design and other engineered changes of the Twin Cam oiling system were introduced with this motor.  Oil volume flow thru the lifters to the top end was also reduced by design, in an effort to better control oil and cylinder head temperature. I suspect lifter life has been compromised by the effect of these and other changes on the oiling system that now introduces oil into the lifters – oil volume, pressure, flow - not to mention greatly increased oil aeration.

So the question becomes – what can be done about it?

(continued)

[sadunbar]

(continued from previous post)

I believe Zippers came out with their design cam chain tensioner, not simply in an attempt to improve cam chain tension performance, but also in an effort to improve the oiling system within the cam chest.  In addition to other design features, the Zippers cam chain tensioner design has dual pistons machined to precise engineered tolerances; reducing leakage past the pistons once the tensioner is pressurized, which has the effect of increasing the oil flow available to the lifters.  This design feature, I believe, has the resulting effect of a more constant oil supply to the lifters.

And, I believe the Axtell Oil by-pass system is an aftermarket design improvement that significantly reduces aeration within the oil and provides for improved oil flow to the lifters.  The Axtell oil-bypass – when open - directs bypassed oil into the cam chest to be returned to the oil tank, eliminating the OEM loop of by-passed oil from the high side of the oil feed to the low side of the oil feed.  I think this is a substantial design correction of the current OEM cam chest oil routing.  And the Axtell oil-bypass also has a greatly improved “seat”, eliminating oil leakage past the needle when the by-pass is closed.  I think the Axtell oil by-pass is a tremendous design improvement available to these motors.

And to better scavenge the by-passed oil from the cam chest and to provide improved vacuum control, the Thayer 3 stage oil pump is a further aftermarket design improvement over the OEM oil pump.

I’ve implement all of these aftermarket design changes into my current 120r motor.  Although I’m a firm believer that S&S manufactures the best available lifter, I’m running these aftermarket components in combination with the latest improved needle bearing design SE lifter.  I’ve not accumulated enough miles yet to draw any real conclusions on their effect of lifter life, but I can say the motor is the quietest it has ever been.  Far quieter than either of the two 110 motors I had in this chassis, and quieter than my current 120 motor was when first installed.  It will likely be winter before I do another cam chest inspection and have an opportunity to see the result of these components on the new design SE lifters.

I think the current twin cam motor design is an engineering failure.  I think the crank failures, early head gasket failures, valve guide failures, cam bearing failures and lifter failures are all a result of engineering design flaws.  Many of these design flaws are component related and could be (or have been) corrected by individual component redesign. Not so with lifter failures.  As I've said, I don't think the root cause of lifter failures is the lifter.  I think the root cause of lifter failures is the basic oiling system of this version of Twin Cam motor.  In fact, I think the entire current driveline is an engineering failure.  First the “engine torque smoothing” calibration, then IDS (isolated drive system), then the introduction of the SE compensator – all necessary because of flawed engineering calculations that underestimated the effect the new “cruise drive” had on the crankshaft and driveline.  I think if there was a possible mechanical component design fix to eliminate current lifter failures, it would have been implemented some years ago. I don’t think simply changing lifter brands or oil pump brands or cam plate brands will have any effect on lifter failures and cam chest/lifter noise.  Some aftermarket lifters may be better engineered or manufactured to a higher level of quality then other aftermarket or OEM lifters and last longer than lesser quality lifters, but I strongly believe no one manufactures a lifter that in itself is a solution to lifter failures.  Again, (IMO) there is no mechanical component fix to this issue, because the root problem is not a component flaw, but rather a design flaw of the basic oiling system in these motors.

And for that reason, I will never buy a new bike with the current motor/driveline….   

[Fired00d]

Here's my longwinded take on Jerry's question:

  Among many other bikes, I’ve owned a 2001 SERG, two 2004 SEEGs and now a 2007 SEUC.  Prior to my 2007 SEUC, I never changed a lifter in a twin cam motor....

Lifter failures by in large began with the current design Twin Cam motor Introduced in the 2007 model bikes...

...

And for that reason, I will never buy a new bike with the current motor/driveline….   

Not being a gearhead a lot of Scott's post was above my head but some very important points I got out of it are quoted above. Makes me love my more and more each day.

 
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 

[ultrafxr]

Scott, what you have to say makes sense in that if the problem were easily correctable it would have been.  With all the 'other' problems with the early 110s in '07 and '08 I have to think the moco spent a bunch of bucks on repairs / replacements and the 'product enhancement/improvement' that was the final fix for the problems we recognized early on.  If they could fix this one I would think they would do it.

No matter who in the aftermarket might offer an improvement it is darn near impossible to take advantage of it as it would most certainly void my factory warranty and ESP.  And considering lifter replacement as an ordinary maintance item is asking a bit much but I would be willing to consider it but at what interval?  It is a crap shoot seems to me.