Check run out or not?
Road Captain
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 539
Likes: 284
From: Coldstream B.C. CA.
Maybe a dumb question but.....
10 ultra with 60k doing chain drive cams myself (Andrews 48) bike runs flawlessly. If no intention to consider gear drive is it necessary to check the run out? I dont have access to appropriate gauge. Unless I ask an Indy to do a house call...
10 ultra with 60k doing chain drive cams myself (Andrews 48) bike runs flawlessly. If no intention to consider gear drive is it necessary to check the run out? I dont have access to appropriate gauge. Unless I ask an Indy to do a house call...
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 21,091
Likes: 7,611
From: Poolville
Not trying to cloud your head, only replying to your posts... And I've been thinking about it and 60k is a fair amount of miles.. Yes I would check the runout... It is piece of mind.. Also if you are planning going bigger in cuin, say to 103" imho the Woods 222 would be a better choice. I have to disagree with djl (sorry man I don't usually), you will not need a bigger t-body "IF" your not doing any mods to the heads.. Your stock setup will work very well. If you have the coin do the 103", you will be very surprised. And as djl said you will need compression releases but definitely do the .030" head gasket, the 222 can handle 9.8:1 very easily... There are plenty of take off's on the web to do the upgrade... You will also need a good tuner.. The Power vision works very well... Another nice subtle upgrade is a 68 tooth pulley.. Works great with a six speed...
I would like to add that if you have future plans of upgrading be patient and do it all at once.. Baby steps can cost more in the long run.. I've been there..
I would like to add that if you have future plans of upgrading be patient and do it all at once.. Baby steps can cost more in the long run.. I've been there..
Last edited by 98hotrodfatboy; Feb 24, 2021 at 05:26 PM.
HDF Community Team
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,774
Likes: 2,606
From: san antonio
HDF Community Team
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,774
Likes: 2,606
From: san antonio
I can't disagree with Skills or 98hrfb (no disrespect but he needs a shorter handle
); of course getting a baseline is a good idea. However with 60K miles with no indication of a run out issue and considering the OP is planning a cam only upgrade with chain driven cams, not measuring run out is not a show stopper IMHO. The OP can take a look at the oil pump, cam plate face, pump gerotors and if all is within service limits, a run out issue is not likely. Replace the tensioners, the inner cam bearings, install the new cams, get her tuned and ride.
So he OP measures and run out is .005" are you guys suggesting he should split the cases for the cam upgrade? Or just get the baseline for future reference and proceed with the cam upgrade? I ran a set of TW44G cams my last 95" motor (104TQ/96HP built years ago. Run out was .0025" when I installed them and .0045" 35K miles later when I tore the motor down to build a 98" "hotter" motor. Not sure how many miles I had run at .0045" but there was no indication that the run out was a problem; motor was quiet with typical gear drive bit of a whine.
I can't disagree with 98hrfb on cam selection either as I know nothing about the Woods 222 but have seen a few dyno sheets and have installed a few 48s in 96" motors when Andrews first released them. The 48s work well as a cam only upgrade and almost everyone I know that did that cam only upgrade to a 96" was impressed enough with the increase in performance that they went the BB route within 6 months or sooner if funds were available. Since the OP has that cam in his sights, I see no reason to point him in a different direction.
Now when the time comes for the 107 upgrade, more compression, head work, more TQ/HP, definitely check run out and then consider whether or not the crank should be addressed.
I don't disagree with being patient and going bigger/badder at once but believe the cost of the bigger/badder plan may be prohibitive for the OP at the moment. Not trying to start a debate on the value of checking run out; just providing another point of view specific to the OPs situation.
); of course getting a baseline is a good idea. However with 60K miles with no indication of a run out issue and considering the OP is planning a cam only upgrade with chain driven cams, not measuring run out is not a show stopper IMHO. The OP can take a look at the oil pump, cam plate face, pump gerotors and if all is within service limits, a run out issue is not likely. Replace the tensioners, the inner cam bearings, install the new cams, get her tuned and ride.So he OP measures and run out is .005" are you guys suggesting he should split the cases for the cam upgrade? Or just get the baseline for future reference and proceed with the cam upgrade? I ran a set of TW44G cams my last 95" motor (104TQ/96HP built years ago. Run out was .0025" when I installed them and .0045" 35K miles later when I tore the motor down to build a 98" "hotter" motor. Not sure how many miles I had run at .0045" but there was no indication that the run out was a problem; motor was quiet with typical gear drive bit of a whine.
I can't disagree with 98hrfb on cam selection either as I know nothing about the Woods 222 but have seen a few dyno sheets and have installed a few 48s in 96" motors when Andrews first released them. The 48s work well as a cam only upgrade and almost everyone I know that did that cam only upgrade to a 96" was impressed enough with the increase in performance that they went the BB route within 6 months or sooner if funds were available. Since the OP has that cam in his sights, I see no reason to point him in a different direction.
Now when the time comes for the 107 upgrade, more compression, head work, more TQ/HP, definitely check run out and then consider whether or not the crank should be addressed.
I don't disagree with being patient and going bigger/badder at once but believe the cost of the bigger/badder plan may be prohibitive for the OP at the moment. Not trying to start a debate on the value of checking run out; just providing another point of view specific to the OPs situation.
Last edited by djl; Feb 24, 2021 at 06:26 PM.
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 12,686
Likes: 8,291
From: Ottawa, Ontario
Just trying to understand this train of thought. If .012 is the max for chain drive and .05 is the max for gear drive. I'm thinking he's probably ok since the bike was delivered within spec with chain drive cams. But if we're saying his crank could have developed more runout after 60,000 miles, more than than .012 spec, then that means that everyone who installed gear drive cams at less than .05 could also have developed more runout as they put on miles as well. Does it not? So we're all riding potential hand grenades, lol.
Thread Starter
|
Stellar HDF Member
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,947
Likes: 996
From: Winnipeg
As it turns out been checking dial indicators and it’s not a big deal to purchase a gauge and mock up a testing apparatus. So I’ll go ahead and see where the run outs at. But at 60k miles her start up pressure is 30+ And warm idles around 12ish. I’m not overly concerned.
thanks again for all the feedback you all and this forum are priceless!
thanks again for all the feedback you all and this forum are priceless!
HDF Community Team
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,774
Likes: 2,606
From: san antonio
Just trying to understand this train of thought. If .012 is the max for chain drive and .05 is the max for gear drive. I'm thinking he's probably ok since the bike was delivered within spec with chain drive cams. But if we're saying his crank could have developed more runout after 60,000 miles, more than than .012 spec, then that means that everyone who installed gear drive cams at less than .05 could also have developed more runout as they put on miles as well. Does it not? So we're all riding potential hand grenades, lol.
I, for one, have not suggested that the OPs crank run out has increased over the 60K miles he has rolled up; we will never know. I don't believe the run out, whatever it is, will increase with another 60K miles even with the cam upgrade provided that none the three circumstances referenced above come into play; there are others of course. It will be interesting to see what Weeboy finds and how he plans to move forward. I have attached a photo of one way to set up the dial indicator for the measurement since I don't believe Weeboy has been down this road before.
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Verdad Gallardo
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Harley-Davidson Needs to Fix in 2026
Verdad Gallardo
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 21,091
Likes: 7,611
From: Poolville
I can't disagree with Skills or 98hrfb (no disrespect but he needs a shorter handle);Thank You.... I will consider....
of course getting a baseline is a good idea. However with 60K miles with no indication of a run out issue and considering the OP is planning a cam only upgrade with chain driven cams, not measuring run out is not a shoth now increasing the dynamic compression could be an issue..w stopper IMHO. True i totally agree...
The OP can take a look at the oil pump, cam plate face, pump gerotors and if all is within service limits, a run out issue is not likely. Replace the tensioners, the inner cam bearings, install the new cams, get her tuned and ride. My only concern with 60k on the clock is that putting in a cam with a lower IVC will create more compression.. He never had a tuner so the motor has been running a little on the hot side and with the increase in compression, well it might show itself a little sooner..
So he OP measures and run out is .005" are you guys suggesting he should split the cases for the cam upgrade? Or just get the baseline for future reference and proceed with the cam upgrade? Just get a baseline, like i said earlier with chains it's not going to be a game changer...
I ran a set of TW44G cams my last 95" motor (104TQ/96HP built years ago. Run out was .0025" when I installed them and .0045" 35K miles later when I tore the motor down to build a 98" "hotter" motor. Not sure how many miles I had run at .0045" but there was no indication that the run out was a problem; motor was quiet with typical gear drive bit of a whine.
I can't disagree with 98hrfb on cam selection either as I know nothing about the Woods 222 but have seen a few dyno sheets and have installed a few 48s in 96" motors when Andrews first released them. The 48s work well as a cam only upgrade and almost everyone I know that did that cam only upgrade to a 96" was impressed enough with the increase in performance that they went the BB route within 6 months or sooner if funds were available. Since the OP has that cam in his sights, I see no reason to point him in a different direction. I only pointed him in that direction because he was looking at a cam that might be able be used in a bigger inch motor.. The 222 not only works well under 2600 rpm but will carry out further than the 48... An if setup in a 103" motor with stock heads will out do any setup of a 48.. It will also adapt to more compression.. You and I know that a low to medium rpm cam will perform even better with a little more comp. The 48 will never handle 9.8-9.9:1.. All I'm saying is that he might not need to got to a 107"..
Now when the time comes for the 107 upgrade, more compression, head work, more TQ/HP, definitely check run out and then consider whether or not the crank should be addressed. Yes now your into a different animal..
I don't disagree with being patient and going bigger/badder at once but believe the cost of the bigger/badder plan may be prohibitive for the OP at the moment. Not trying to start a debate on the value of checking run out; just providing another point of view specific to the OPs situation. I As well, Pistons, boring and cams still run $600 ish. a very good value to HP..
);Thank You.... I will consider....of course getting a baseline is a good idea. However with 60K miles with no indication of a run out issue and considering the OP is planning a cam only upgrade with chain driven cams, not measuring run out is not a shoth now increasing the dynamic compression could be an issue..w stopper IMHO. True i totally agree...
The OP can take a look at the oil pump, cam plate face, pump gerotors and if all is within service limits, a run out issue is not likely. Replace the tensioners, the inner cam bearings, install the new cams, get her tuned and ride. My only concern with 60k on the clock is that putting in a cam with a lower IVC will create more compression.. He never had a tuner so the motor has been running a little on the hot side and with the increase in compression, well it might show itself a little sooner..
So he OP measures and run out is .005" are you guys suggesting he should split the cases for the cam upgrade? Or just get the baseline for future reference and proceed with the cam upgrade? Just get a baseline, like i said earlier with chains it's not going to be a game changer...
I ran a set of TW44G cams my last 95" motor (104TQ/96HP built years ago. Run out was .0025" when I installed them and .0045" 35K miles later when I tore the motor down to build a 98" "hotter" motor. Not sure how many miles I had run at .0045" but there was no indication that the run out was a problem; motor was quiet with typical gear drive bit of a whine.
I can't disagree with 98hrfb on cam selection either as I know nothing about the Woods 222 but have seen a few dyno sheets and have installed a few 48s in 96" motors when Andrews first released them. The 48s work well as a cam only upgrade and almost everyone I know that did that cam only upgrade to a 96" was impressed enough with the increase in performance that they went the BB route within 6 months or sooner if funds were available. Since the OP has that cam in his sights, I see no reason to point him in a different direction. I only pointed him in that direction because he was looking at a cam that might be able be used in a bigger inch motor.. The 222 not only works well under 2600 rpm but will carry out further than the 48... An if setup in a 103" motor with stock heads will out do any setup of a 48.. It will also adapt to more compression.. You and I know that a low to medium rpm cam will perform even better with a little more comp. The 48 will never handle 9.8-9.9:1.. All I'm saying is that he might not need to got to a 107"..
Now when the time comes for the 107 upgrade, more compression, head work, more TQ/HP, definitely check run out and then consider whether or not the crank should be addressed. Yes now your into a different animal..
I don't disagree with being patient and going bigger/badder at once but believe the cost of the bigger/badder plan may be prohibitive for the OP at the moment. Not trying to start a debate on the value of checking run out; just providing another point of view specific to the OPs situation.
I As well, Pistons, boring and cams still run $600 ish. a very good value to HP..
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 19,893
Likes: 8,002
From: poway
I only pointed him in that direction because he was looking at a cam that might be able be used in a bigger inch motor.. The 222 not only works well under 2600 rpm but will carry out further than the 48... An if setup in a 103" motor with stock heads will out do any setup of a 48.. It will also adapt to more compression.. You and I know that a low to medium rpm cam will perform even better with a little more comp. The 48 will never handle 9.8-9.9:1.. All I'm saying is that he might not need to got to a 107".