Print

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

[wachuko]

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

I should have elaborated a bit more  ...  I hate these threads because they make me worry about the longevity of my bike... a bike that I really like a lot.  So I start thinking of what I can do proactively to try to avoid the problems listed here.

I agree, I lot of very useful information that is teaching me a lot in areas that I am clueless...

But I hate to have to worry about these things 

[SBB]

I knew what you meant buddy.
You love your bike as much as I do.
We both worry.

SBB

[djkak]

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

I believe that you would be challenged to find a stronger cause and effect relationship than you do with an aggressive valve train and reduced tappet roller life in any Twin Cam. Along with the cams in the 110, they run a different valve spring package.

I believe that H-D is running the OE beehive package in some of their stage kits, and I thought I heard that this was also true of some 2013 110’s. if this is true, that would be a significant difference, IMHO.

[timo482]

hd lists the stock 96" springs as ok for a 255 cam - are the springs in a 110 stiffer than on a 96? if so why?

hmm

to

[HD Street Performance]

Yes
All CVO 110 motors have a dual spring with a flat damper. ~175 lbs seat pressure VS ~130 lbs for a 96/103. A stronger spring is needed to control the weight of the valves which have 5/16" stems and are 2.08/1.623 VS 7mm stems 1.805/1.575

[timo482]

so in summery do you think the lifter failure is related to the difference in the cams stock vs 255 or difference in the spring pack & valve wt?

it sounds like its the spring pack related to the larger heavier valves...... - but... sounds and is are different things.

would it be possible with the larger valves to use a lower rpm limit and the lighter springs?  when i was a kid, guys that wanted to run higher rpm would install heavier springs to prevent valve float - is that what is going on here? higher rev limit combined with heavier valves resulting in lifter failure?

as soon as my bike is out of esp i plan on replacing the cam bearings and lifters - but if its the spring set that causes the problems...... thats a horse of a completely different color. i have hit 4500 rpm twice in 7 years, both times because i was a doing something wrong - never hit the rev limit, never lug if i can help it [someday ill change the gearing when ever i need to get at the belt.]

to

[dlg]

You guys should be part of  MOCO engineering team,  I am learning a lot on what the issues are, but unfortunately I am not a mechanic, maybe a "shade tree" one.  So my question is still, do we change out the lifters once a year to keep riding, or do we just wait for the engine to implode and give the dealer some extra Christmas cash (warranty work).  If we don't do anything proactive then we are just like the dealer and we say to ourselves "they all sound like that".

David  

[sadunbar]

If the cure to lifter failures was lighter valves and lighter valve spring rates, don't you think the MOCO (or the aftermarket) might have made this happen three or four or five or six years ago?   

[ultrafxr]

If the cure to lifter failures was lighter valves and lighter valve spring rates, don't you think the MOCO (or the aftermarket) might have made this happen three or four or five or six years ago?   

Good question.  But perhaps the 'fix' is to pricey $$$ and the moco bean counters who are pretty much running things now concluded it is cheaper to fix those that fail since many are low mileage riders and theirs don't fail within the warranty period.  Dunno.  All I know is that the 110s have had way more than their share of problems.  I thought that after I suffered through over two years of beta testing on my '07 that they finally had it all figured out.  Apparantly not.

[sadunbar]

Good question.  But perhaps the 'fix' is to pricey $$$ and the moco bean counters who are pretty much running things now concluded it is cheaper to fix those that fail since many are low mileage riders and theirs don't fail within the warranty period.  Dunno.  All I know is that the 110s have had way more than their share of problems.  I thought that after I suffered through over two years of beta testing on my '07 that they finally had it all figured out.  Apparantly not.

The MOCO has never been afraid to sell a fix to an engineering problem (i.e. the SE Compensator) vs. providing a fix via a recall or "product enhancement"...  And the aftermarket could certainly profit from providing this "fix" of alternate cylinder head components to all of us.

I still believe the root cause is a more basic oiling design flaw, not easily corrected by redesigning a part or two...

If the root cause is aggressive cam and valve train components, how would that explain all the pre-2007 twin cam motors running T Man 590, Mackie 590 and 598, Zippers 575 cams (and so on) without a hint of lifter problems, while these same basic cam designs installed in post-2007 twin cams spew lifters out left and right?

Lifters not staying fully pumped up due to the current Twin Cam oiling design (aeration and fluctuating pressure within the lifters) will hammer the lifter roller bearings.  My unproven/unsubstantiated theory isn't a lubrication (of the needle bearings) related theory, it's a hydraulic theory...  That being said....it's just a theory!  

[ultrafxr]

I hear you Scott and I'm trying to get my head around this since I am not as technically proficient as you and many others.  

Reflecting on what has been discussed so far my understanding is that:

The lifters are the same in the 96/103/110 motors - until '13MY when the 110s went to the SE lifters.
The oiling system would be the same for all three motors, correct?
The valves / valve springs on the 110 is heavier than on the 96/103.

So it is possible that the oiling system (inadequate as it may be) is just marginally adequate enough to handle the valves / valve springs in the 96/103 motors but those in the 110 push it over the edge?

[sadunbar]

I hear you Scott and I'm trying to get my head around this since I am not as technically proficient as you and many others.  

Reflecting on what has been discussed so far my understanding is that:

The lifters are the same in the 96/103/110 motors - until '13MY when the 110s went to the SE lifters.
The oiling system would be the same for all three motors, correct?
The valves / valve springs on the 110 is heavier than on the 96/103.

So it is possible that the oiling system (inadequate as it may be) is just marginally adequate enough to handle the valves / valve springs in the 96/103 motors but those in the 110 push it over the edge?

Since '07, lifters in the 110 went from the "B" lifters, to the "C" lifters, to the current SE "larger needle bearing axle" lifter.
I don't believe (but am not sure) that the 96/103 motors have piston oilers.
I don't know what valves/valve springs are in the 103 motors.

[grc]

ALL Twin Cam engines, 1999 through present, have piston cooling jets.  The oiling system for the CVO110 is not unique at all; they have the same cam plates, same oil pumps, etc. as the same model year standard engines. 

The "C" lifters made their debut somewhere after the launch of the 2011 model year, with the 2012's showing the "C" lifter and the 2011 catalogs showing the "B" lifters.  So many of the lifter failures being discussed aren't the "C" (for Cheap, not Chinese as some have claimed) lifters, but in fact were the previously recommended "B" lifters.  This is just one more reason why I believe the problem isn't just the quality of the lifters.

Jerry

[hogasm]

:

The lifters are the same in the 96/103/110 motors - until '13MY when the 110s went to the SE lifters.
The oiling system would be the same for all three motors, correct?
The valves / valve springs on the 110 is heavier than on the 96/103.

So it is possible that the oiling system (inadequate as it may be) is just marginally adequate enough to handle the valves / valve springs in the 96/103 motors but those in the 110 push it over the edge?

But 96/103's do not have oil coolers

[grc]

But 96/103's do not have oil coolers

103's in Touring models do, ever since the PowerPak 103 option came out several years ago.  2010 in the Limited, 2011 on the PowerPak 103's if I remember correctly.

Jerry