New motor using pressed together crank?

[Shooter1]

Is the new motor using a pressed together crank like the TC's or did they revert back to the Evo and before style?

Thanks,
Harvey

[glens]

It sure looks pressed-together - would have to be without caps on the con-rod big ends anyway.

[rigidthumper]

Pressed together with a press fit counterbalancer gear.

[Reddog74usa]

 

[rigidthumper]

Makes sense for a production bike- should service well and most dealers have not had excessive crank failures in the past few years.

[Rockout Rocker Products]

HD must have some faith in it.... up to 117 inches worth. Granted those are stock, EPA inches but still...

[glens]

One of the slides in the tech ref stated the crank pin was larger diameter than before.  All else being the same otherwise, that would give the assembly some amount of added twist-proof-ness.  It appears as though the pressed on counterbalance drive gear is motion-limited by a stout pin.  I really gotta question the number of requests they got for a shake-free idle.  It must have been a tremendous amount to warrant the expense of the counterbalance stuff.  Maybe it was more for commonality across the model line - no A/B engines, just a different counterweight (if that).  Either way, I'm not a fan and not really interested.

[Roadraceking]

Remove the balancer and different balance factor on the crank?

[bobscogin]

It sure looks pressed-together - would have to be without caps on the con-rod big ends anyway.

The Evo and older cranks weren't press fit and had rods without caps. Tapered crankpin, tapered flywheel bores, and held in place with a nut one each end of the crankpin. A true one piece crank, like Victory or Indian uses, would, of course, need rods with caps.

Bob

[yobtaf103]

Be interesting what runout spec the Moco quote for the M8.

Anyone think it would be worth someone doing cam gear drive?

[bobscogin]

Anyone think it would be worth someone doing cam gear drive?

You can be sure that will happen, and will require a camshaft ground for reverse rotation. Someone will also come out with rocker arms that provide a means of valve adjustment.

Bob

[Outerlimits]

One of the slides in the tech ref stated the crank pin was larger diameter than before.  All else being the same otherwise, that would give the assembly some amount of added twist-proof-ness.  It appears as though the pressed on counterbalance drive gear is motion-limited by a stout pin.  I really gotta question the number of requests they got for a shake-free idle.  It must have been a tremendous amount to warrant the expense of the counterbalance stuff.  Maybe it was more for commonality across the model line - no A/B engines, just a different counterweight (if that).  Either way, I'm not a fan and not really interested.

Most of Harley model changes seems are not driven by the old customers that buy new bikes once in a while. They are slanted toward attracting new customers.....it seems like they are going after the younger riders. Sport bikes, and metrics are what they grew up riding, so Harley models change to attract them.  Just my opinion.....yours may vary.

[klammer76]

One of the slides in the tech ref stated the crank pin was larger diameter than before.  All else being the same otherwise, that would give the assembly some amount of added twist-proof-ness.  It appears as though the pressed on counterbalance drive gear is motion-limited by a stout pin.  I really gotta question the number of requests they got for a shake-free idle.  It must have been a tremendous amount to warrant the expense of the counterbalance stuff.  Maybe it was more for commonality across the model line - no A/B engines, just a different counterweight (if that).  Either way, I'm not a fan and not really interested.

I am wondering if the counter balanced motor works out after a few years of pounding in the field (as stated no more A&B motors) if a new rigid mount frame is in the future for touring and dyna platforms eliminating the rubber mounts and some of the handling issues that go with it?

[rbabos]

One of the slides in the tech ref stated the crank pin was larger diameter than before.  All else being the same otherwise, that would give the assembly some amount of added twist-proof-ness.  It appears as though the pressed on counterbalance drive gear is motion-limited by a stout pin.  I really gotta question the number of requests they got for a shake-free idle.  It must have been a tremendous amount to warrant the expense of the counterbalance stuff.  Maybe it was more for commonality across the model line - no A/B engines, just a different counterweight (if that).  Either way, I'm not a fan and not really interested.

I am wondering if the counter balanced motor works out after a few years of pounding in the field (as stated no more A&B motors) if a new rigid mount frame is in the future for touring and dyna platforms eliminating the rubber mounts and some of the handling issues that go with it?

CB's will not take all vibrations out. I think the rubber mount will and should remain. Even with both in play some vibes will still remain since neither the cb or rubber mounts cover all frequencies or amplitudes throughout the whole rpm ranges. Just the nature of engines as a whole.
Ron

[wfolarry]

With the balancer motors the new frames won't have the engine/trans floating in the frame. They'll be rubber mounted just different than the current setup. JMO

[ultraswede]

Rode a Indian 111 last year, a dealer demo.

After 10-15 km @ 120 km/h I had vibration "numness" in my heels from resting on the floor boards.
At lower rpm, it was very smooth.

The above was a deal breaker for me when shopping for a new bike, the HD touring bikes have less vibration at high rpm/speed.

So, Im a bit skeptical on rigid mounted two cylinder balance shaft engines.

[Bigbluff]

While the TCB motors have very smooth idles I have never liked the vibrations at cruising speed. Much prefer my Ultra's TCA rubber mounted engine with the vibration at idle...in fact I love the shaking at idle. If it did that at cruising speed, then I'd hate it, but at just above idle on up through the redline, it's very smooth.

[PoorUB]

I agree. The first time I rode a SofTail I thought it felt a lot like an Japanese import. Smooth, but  a bit buzzy at certain RPM's. The rubber mount baggers are very smooth running at any RPM above idle.

[04 SE Deuce]

With the balancer motors the new frames won't have the engine/trans floating in the frame. They'll be rubber mounted just different than the current setup. JMO

What I've been thinking also.  Swingarm mounted direct to frame eliminating the hinge in the chassis and mounts with limited movement to be compatible with the belt drive.

[klammer76]

With the balancer motors the new frames won't have the engine/trans floating in the frame. They'll be rubber mounted just different than the current setup. JMO

What I've been thinking also.  Swingarm mounted direct to frame eliminating the hinge in the chassis and mounts with limited movement to be compatible with the belt drive.

[motolocopat]

With the balancer motors the new frames won't have the engine/trans floating in the frame. They'll be rubber mounted just different than the current setup. JMO

What I've been thinking also.  Swingarm mounted direct to frame eliminating the hinge in the chassis and mounts with limited movement to be compatible with the belt drive.

Seems Logical

How long will we have to wait to see new chassis to go along with the M8 engine?

[rigidthumper]

Based on rumours, 356 days. ( 2017 dealer meeting, for the 2018 models)