Print

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

[dlg]

I have been on this forum a lot and do lots of searching.   I have received great information and some very good ideas from my fellow "lister".  But I also see lots of trends and one of them is the 110 CVO stock engine.   This is my opinion only, we will have a problem with the engine and it will be for the most part with the lifters, and it will happen to most if not all of them, again my opinion

We all know the dealer is not your friend.  We know our bikes we ride them every day, we will hear a noise out of the ordinary and we will take it to the dealer, only to be told that is normal.  Again my opinion, the dealer will make more money on a rebuild then on a simple lifter change.  A simple lifter is a half day job for me and a couple of hours for the dealer and they have the parts.  A rebuild is 4 weeks without your bike.  That is the unacceptable part of the problem.  I agree with twolandrider it is not acceptable for this to be like changing your oil, a maintenance item.  But we have all decided to purchase and ride Harley's, and this may be just what it is. maintenance.  I have been without my bike for a total of 6 weeks, it was down for 4 weeks, I road it for two weeks and now is is down again for two weeks.  I like riding Harley's and I guess this is what I have to put up with to do so.

Again my $.02
David

[Twolanerider]

I have been on this forum a lot and do lots of searching.   I have received great information and some very good ideas from my fellow "lister".  But I also see lots of trends and one of them is the 110 CVO stock engine.   This is my opinion only, we will have a problem with the engine and it will be for the most part with the lifters, and it will happen to most if not all of them, again my opinion

We all know the dealer is not your friend.  We know our bikes we ride them every day, we will hear a noise out of the ordinary and we will take it to the dealer, only to be told that is normal.  Again my opinion, the dealer will make more money on a rebuild then on a simple lifter change.  A simple lifter is a half day job for me and a couple of hours for the dealer and they have the parts.  A rebuild is 4 weeks without your bike.  That is the unacceptable part of the problem.  I agree with twolandrider it is not acceptable for this to be like changing your oil, a maintenance item.  But we have all decided to purchase and ride Harley's, and this may be just what it is. maintenance.  I have been without my bike for a total of 6 weeks, it was down for 4 weeks, I road it for two weeks and now is is down again for two weeks.  I like riding Harley's and I guess this is what I have to put up with to do so.

Again my $.02
David

Not all.  My last new bike was the 05.  That drive line was still sound.  Mother Harley's engineering department has failed miserably since then and done so repeatedly.  Not a chance MoCo sees more of my money for a new bike.  Others here who have long serving (or suffering) devotees have said the same thing. 

It is unacceptable (or it should be) that so much of what bike owners have come to accept as "necessary" is in fact even considered as irregularly acceptable.  We're fools for putting up with it.

[North Georgia Hawg]

Wow! This is a great discussion.

The Twin Cam was under development for 2-3 years, and got delayed by the oiling issues. TC engines were blowing oil in the dev labs in 1997-1999, from what I've read.

I have also read a great deal about how the TC engine was developed not for better performance, better emission control, etc. - but essentially to enable the MoCo to have patents to cut out all the third party manufacturers that had quite literally saved the MoCo's ass back in the Evolution days.

Since there have been so many "Evo-style" single-cam third-party engines produced over the years that do not have the TC issues, it seems to me that the TC design is a very complex solution to a fairly simple problem... Getting more power and greater efficiency. If you compare the very complex TC engine design - the cam chest with two cams, two cam chains, cam support plate, cam chain tensioners, etc. - with the very simple Evolution design with a single long cam driving both cylinders with a single pinion gear straight from the crankshaft - it seems to me that the TC design is needlessly complex without much of a good cause.

My Evo-powered '95 FLHTP was super-reliable., and I ran the crap out of it constantly. It never failed. The Evo engine was pretty much bulletproof by 1995... all of the issues having been dealt with. There are still a good many Evo engines running around happily today. The MoCo should have just given it more displacement.

Yes, there are some good things about having a cam for each cylinder - better valvetrain geometry - but Sportys have a cam for each VALVE, gear-driven, and those engines have NONE of the issues of the overly-complex TC design. And that engine was designed back in the fifties! It also uses the SAME lifters as TC engines do - but you don't read much about Sporty lifters failing.

I just know I'm gonna blow up the Honey Badger's engine eventually...

Ken

[HD Street Performance]

Scott
Well thought out, credible, and you may be on to something.
I see one irony, the original twin cam was held up as mentioned by another poster because of TOO MUCH oil. We continue this trend with more oil delivery capacity yet the bleeds are virtually the same, or only a minor change of tensioners and bleeds to oil the chain, and as you mentioned the lifters being restricted to the top. All that extra oil goes over bypass back to suction. As far as I'm concerned the best oil pump for the FL and Dyna A motors was the 1999 version of the pump before the wavy washer with bigger scavenge gears. I have set a few of those up with minimal clearance between the cover very successfully.
As far as the tensioners I will let others beta those before I jump in. IMHO a Polymide-Stanyl material would have been a better choice similar to the OEM with the added benefits of the piston fit they have. I have already seen pad wear accelerated with the Zippers units. The Axtell bypass seems benign, no cons only benefits. Will this stop lifter failure though? Have you seen the matte texture on the failed roller elements? It is hard to define, it is not fretting or galling. So does the surface go first and take out the bearing or visa versa?
Further why are only the CVO 110 and motors with the same base head affected? IE 120r

[INDEPENDENT_1]

It seems that since the "C" lifters were introduced that some guys are changing lifters almost as if they were oil. The "C" lifters have their problems, no doubt about it and it almost makes you wonder if the Moco put them in to help persuade you to buy a set of cams that make a little better power and tune the bike so it doesnt run so hot. From the factory's perspective, maybe the C lifters are a good thing considering those things and the extra money they rake in from their failures and from preventative measure guys are making. The C's are sloppy even brand new or at least almost new from what I see here in the shop. S&S makes great lifters, I haven't seen many Feuling failures either but the Gaterman 1023's are pretty popular. They are very reasonably priced and have been used in applications with valve spring pressures exceeding 900 lbs without failure. Pretty hard to deny they are good lifters with as many sets that are out there now and you never hear of any failures with them, or at least I havent. An S&S rep told me the Feulings have flooded top ends but I havent seen that either but just about any way you slice it, the stockers suck and you wont find many if any who would say they are good.

[dlg]

So, why do we buy these things?

Sometimes I read where someone has purchased a brand new machine and completely mods it.  Pays $37k then adds another $10k to $12k, probably more and then throws away the factory warranty.  I don't get it.  I purchased my CVO because my wife wanted one.  So am I going to keep riding me reliable Vrod and she rides the CVO, no way I had to get my own.  Now I can't stay off of it.  I look forward to the commute on this thing.  I just want something reliable.  I don't know anyone that has purchased a new car and mod'ed the engine like we do.

I think MOCO counts on us chroming them up, washing them and never riding them.  They won't have to pay for anything.  Then there's the other side where they are ridden all of the time and highly moded, "OOPS" they don't have to pay for anything again, funny how that works.  The factory counts on this and the ESP guys count on this.  It is a win-win for them, I am not sure what it is for us.

David

[HD Street Performance]

We tread on borderline too much spring pressure for long range street use unless the cam profile is adjusted accordingly. These are limits well defined in the automotive world and this motor is not different in that respect. The 900lb Gaterman may use is just a test number nothing more, a lab action, not running motors at that pressure nor would we ever need that kind of pressure.
We keep using a microscope seeking bad components and better yet  "one component" but reality is there are many good lifters up to the task. This is a systemic problem.

[sadunbar]

Scott
Well thought out, credible, and you may be on to something.
I see one irony, the original twin cam was held up as mentioned by another poster because of TOO MUCH oil. We continue this trend with more oil delivery capacity yet the bleeds are virtually the same, or only a minor change of tensioners and bleeds to oil the chain, and as you mentioned the lifters being restricted to the top. All that extra oil goes over bypass back to suction. As far as I'm concerned the best oil pump for the FL and Dyna A motors was the 1999 version of the pump before the wavy washer with bigger scavenge gears. I have set a few of those up with minimal clearance between the cover very successfully.
As far as the tensioners I will let others beta those before I jump in. IMHO a Polymide-Stanyl material would have been a better choice similar to the OEM with the added benefits of the piston fit they have. I have already seen pad wear accelerated with the Zippers units. The Axtell bypass seems benign, no cons only benefits. Will this stop lifter failure though? Have you seen the matte texture on the failed roller elements? It is hard to define, it is not fretting or galling. So does the surface go first and take out the bearing or visa versa?
Further why are only the CVO 110 and motors with the same base head affected? IE 120r

Excessive tensioner pad wear on the Zippers offering is a whole 'nother topic...  Hopefully that won't be the case, but it sure could be... 

[sadunbar]

So, why do we buy these things?

Sometimes I read where someone has purchased a brand new machine and completely mods it.  Pays $37k then adds another $10k to $12k, probably more and then throws away the factory warranty.  I don't get it.  I purchased my CVO because my wife wanted one.  So am I going to keep riding me reliable Vrod and she rides the CVO, no way I had to get my own.  Now I can't stay off of it.  I look forward to the commute on this thing.  I just want something reliable.  I don't know anyone that has purchased a new car and mod'ed the engine like we do.

I think MOCO counts on us chroming them up, washing them and never riding them.  They won't have to pay for anything.  Then there's the other side where they are ridden all of the time and highly moded, "OOPS" they don't have to pay for anything again, funny how that works.  The factory counts on this and the ESP guys count on this.  It is a win-win for them, I am not sure what it is for us.

David

And there are plenty of riders who've changed nothing and still suffer lifter failures, like the OP...

[djkak]

When considering the range of possible causes and solutions, it might help to consider that the tappet roller is the lifter component that initially fails, resulting in the mechanical damage to the rest of the engine.

Consider that the tappet rollers on the original equipment lifters are not lubricated with pressurized oil, but by the air/oil mist that is present in the camchest. This method of "splash lubrication" is the same for the ’07 and later engines as it is for all other Twin Cam's back to 1999. You can also include XL’s, EVO’s, Shovel’s, Pan’s, Knuck’s and Flathead machines that use this method for tappet roller lubrication.

Regarding aeration and oil pressure, consider that the early Shovelhead oiling system directed pressure relief oil into the return oil circuit. Beginning in 1981, pressure relief oil was redirected to the low pressure side of the feed gears. It makes sense now, as it did in 1981, to remove pressure relief oil from the scavenge loop in order to improve the oil scavenging efficiency.

FWIW, the oil pressure was so low in the Shovel’s and EVO’s from this era that the oil supply to the connecting rods was shut off at idle in order to maintain adequate pressure to the lifters. Hot oil pressure at speed wasn’t much over 12 psi, which is the point where the lower end began receiving pressurized lubrication.

as always, JMHO

[HD Street Performance]

All good points
FWIW the Gaterman GP1023 lifter is the only lifter I am aware of that has axle oiling. This is done by means of an edge orifice.

[wachuko]

I hate these threads....

[SBB]

I hate these threads....

We had an original poster who stated a problem with lifters.
We have qualified people respond with what they think the problem is.
We have people express the same concerns about their bike as the original poster.
Then we have a few people state what their experience are with the lifters they are using or have used.
All that on topic, on subject.
The part I hate is all the other BS that isn't relevant to lifters or why we are having lifter issues.
This is a very important topic to us that have 110's.
I have owned 3 110's and have changed lifters 7 times. I believe there is more to this lifter issue than just bad lifters.
My 01 and 03 have a combined 90,000 miles and still have stock lifters in them.
I believe the root of the real 110 problem is oiling issues due to poor engineering.
I ride my 11.5 SEUC and 12 SERGC hoping someone will figure out what to do, , , soon!

SBB

[timo482]

lifter info is useful - but as with all on line boards - things can go awry - that said..

the real question in my mind is: is the lifter failure rate tied to the cam profile or generic? are the lifters failing on the stock cam bikes at the same rate as on the 110's with the 255's? i know the early buells had problems with lifters while the stock sportsters were fine - the only difference was the bigger cam.

its a important topic but very muddy as usual since some of the lifter failures are design issues, and some are modified engines, but there are two basic stock cam profiles  and one important question is if the lifter failures are mostly occurring with the high lift cams but not with the stock cam. [to be clear the 255 is a high lift cam]

to

[twinotter]

 I'm beginning to believe that the whole issue start at the motors very heart, the crankshaft assly.
NO self respecting engineer would ever allow tolerances to be so wildly out. NO self respecting engineer would allow a pressed crank to be assembled so loosely that it could shift by acceleration or stopping.
BUT, the beancounters WILL!! The only consideration to them is the profit margin, and keeping the shareholders making money!!!
So what happens, after an initial problem with cam bearings in 99-00 bikes, they became IMO about as bulletproof as a Harley gets! Why, one, a forged steel crank, running with tolerances accepted by all at .001-.0015. It was considered wore out at .003!!!
Now, we get to pay huge dollars for a pisspoor cast crank, running an average of .005-.006 brand new. I call BS!! It already headed for a bin!!! Instead of the right crank running in a precision bushing to make sure it feeds adequate oil to the crank and rods, we now have parent metal, that gouges out to the new .005 within minutes of running, the crank being "crooked", will simply beat the bush area open. Now 1/2 the oil gets out back into the camchest.
What did HD do to fix this, install a different pump with more volume and scavenge to try to provide the lost oil!!
Harley Davidson will go the way of the DODO bird if they don't let the engineers fix this with quality components.  jm2c twinotter