torque specifications on countershaft sprocket

[pf317]

Could someone tell me what the torque is on a 76 flh for the countershaft sprocket locknut and also for the compensating sprocket bolt. Thank you.

[newultraclassic]

Countershaft nut (early 1983 and earlier) is 105-120 ft-lbs torque. Late '83 and later is 80-90 ft-lbs. Left-hand thread....heh heh.

Compensating sprocket nut is 80-100 ft-lbs., all years.

By the way, if you have original flywheels, I would avoid the use of an air impact device on the compensating sprocket. Much better to lock the primary chain with a piece of wood and use your torque wrench.

Enjoy!

[pf317]

Thank you for the info. I like the idea about the piece of wood. I don't have that good a feel with a impact gun for torqueing. Might mess something up. But it was some kinda nice using the gun to take them off.
thanks

[L.Linkert]

Thats odd my 1982 factory specs book says 250 to 350 flbs for the compsprocket nut.

[LittleBear]

Both my "93 and my "99 manuals calls for 150-165 ft-lbs for the Compensating sprocket nut.
Clutch hub nut in both is listed at 70-80 ft-lbs.

[newultraclassic]

Originally Posted by L.Linkert

Thats odd my 1982 factory specs book says 250 to 350 flbs for the compsprocket nut.

My 1978-1/2 to 1984 FL/FX Service book (P/N 99482-84) calls out the following:

Page 6-1 Drive Section: Torques.

Compensating Sprocket Nut 80-100 ft lbs.
Transmission sprocket locknut (countershaft): early 1983 and earlier.....105-120 ft-lbs.
late 1983 and later.........80-90 ft-lbs.

Page 3-2 In the Engine Section:Torques.

The book calls out: Sprocket Shaft Nut
(1980 and early 1981)....300-440 ft-lbs.
(late 1981 and later)......290-320 ft-lbs.

Perhaps you are referring to the sproocket shaft, in the left flywheel.

[L.Linkert]

Strange but true, a 70s manual I have calls for 400lbs on the compensating sprocket nut.
I have an early panhead manual that has no torqe values at all. On the sprocket shaft nut"inner left flywheel" the old manual says, "this nut needs to be very,very tight, but of course it can be over done"
Here is a problem I encounter often, BDL belt drive says to torqe the engine pulley to 135lbs for all models, however S&S and TP engines say in the 300lb range. These are big engines and BDLs 135lbs doesnt work.
Now here is what happens if the nut comes loose, the outer Timken bearing will walk out causing extreme radial play, this can cause major stress on the right case straight roller bearing along with rod upper and lower wallowing and more.
This is all quite good for me, being an S&S dealer and engine builder.
Here is what I do, I get those nuts very, very tight but not over done.

[newultraclassic]

Originally Posted by L.Linkert

Strange but true, a 70s manual I have calls for 400lbs on the compensating sprocket nut.
I have an early panhead manual that has no torqe values at all. On the sprocket shaft nut"inner left flywheel" the old manual says, "this nut needs to be very,very tight, but of course it can be over done"
Here is a problem I encounter often, BDL belt drive says to torqe the engine pulley to 135lbs for all models, however S&S and TP engines say in the 300lb range. These are big engines and BDLs 135lbs doesnt work.
Now here is what happens if the nut comes loose, the outer Timken bearing will walk out causing extreme radial play, this can cause major stress on the right case straight roller bearing along with rod upper and lower wallowing and more.
This is all quite good for me, being an S&S dealer and engine builder.
Here is what I do, I get those nuts very, very tight but not over done.

300 ft-lbs sounds like a lot of torqe on that nut. Modern Harleys don't use that much. I'd just go with the book. I don't like primary belt drives anyway.

[L.Linkert]

If by the book, the torque would be 400lbs, if going by a 1976 book.
The company has lowered this torque value over a period of time.
On the later style crankshafts with integral shafts to the flywheels, the old 400lbs value can snap the threaded end off.
This is just me, I would torque that sprocket nut on a 1976 engine to a minimum of 250ft lbs.

[newultraclassic]

Originally Posted by L.Linkert

If by the book, the torque would be 400lbs, if going by a 1976 book.
The company has lowered this torque value over a period of time.
On the later style crankshafts with integral shafts to the flywheels, the old 400lbs value can snap the threaded end off.
This is just me, I would torque that sprocket nut on a 1976 engine to a minimum of 250ft lbs.

That's just too much torque. There's no nut on any HD other than on the crank that would even approach that. I've never ever heard of that much.

I don't know what book you're using, but let's just agree to disagree on this one. 250 ft-lbs on the compensating sprocket is way, way, way, too much.


Keep smiling.

[L.Linkert]

Yep, its in the early shovel manuals, 400lbs on both the inner flywheel nut and the sprocket shaft nut.
However, over a period of a few years these values were dropped somewhat.
Now Iam talking about crankshaft nuts only, and early 5 piece cranks 1970 and up.
They changed the taper on commonized flywheels and lowered the torqe value around 1981.
Cant seem to post photos here, it would make things easier.

[newultraclassic]

Originally Posted by L.Linkert

Yep, its in the early shovel manuals, 400lbs on both the inner flywheel nut and the sprocket shaft nut.
However, over a period of a few years these values were dropped somewhat.
Now Iam talking about crankshaft nuts only, and early 5 piece cranks 1970 and up.
They changed the taper on commonized flywheels and lowered the torqe value around 1981.
Cant seem to post photos here, it would make things easier.

Yes, if you're talking about the nuts inside of the flywheels and the crankpin, those values are a bit higher than the outer compensating nut.

I have a set of commonized -93 Evo flywheels in my Shovelhead. HD called those "commonized " because they are balanced for the Shovelhead pistons. They are three piece. Very smooth running.

I had to purchase a new set when the shaft came loose in the left flywheel. It ruined the taper and I was unable to locate another left flywheel so I got a new crank for $500 from the dealer. It was complete and ready to install.

.

[L.Linkert]

Went through my old shop notes and the service bulletins and found that indeed newultraclassic is correct on the torqe values for the compensating sprocket nut.
My confusion came from George Smiths advice of using 400lbs on the sprocket nut due to the problems we were having with the S&S stroker kits of the time"1977".
However HD factory rep Bill Churchell recomended no more then 250lbs with locktite.
And thats what I still do on chain drives,"right or wrong". Belt drives on big engines, I do close to 400lbs using Jims shafts. Thats another ball game though.
Found the bulletins on the oil evacuator hoses to the tappet blocks introduced around july 1981 and discontinued about feb 1982, motor production.
The commonized flywheel bulletin 1980 describes smaller taper on shafts and crank pin with 90 degree oil holes from keyways. Smaller tapers have a better wedging effect. Where they came up with commonized, I dont know.

[newultraclassic]

Originally Posted by L.Linkert

Went through my old shop notes and the service bulletins and found that indeed newultraclassic is correct on the torqe values for the compensating sprocket nut.
My confusion came from George Smiths advice of using 400lbs on the sprocket nut due to the problems we were having with the S&S stroker kits of the time"1977".
However HD factory rep Bill Churchell recomended no more then 250lbs with locktite.
And thats what I still do on chain drives,"right or wrong". Belt drives on big engines, I do close to 400lbs using Jims shafts. Thats another ball game though.
Found the bulletins on the oil evacuator hoses to the tappet blocks introduced around july 1981 and discontinued about feb 1982, motor production.
The commonized flywheel bulletin 1980 describes smaller taper on shafts and crank pin with 90 degree oil holes from keyways. Smaller tapers have a better wedging effect. Where they came up with commonized, I dont know.

Quite correct on the "oil evacuator hoses". They were, as you say, from mid-1981 to early 1982. The cylinders with the 1/8" pipe bosses for the hose fittings are among the rarest of the rare. Mine are still there with brass pipe plugs.

I, like many others who have the hoses, got rid of them because they were always rotting and leaking oil all over the side of the engine. I got an A/M set of chrome lifter blocks with holes for draining and I now use the pre-81 and post 82 method for oil drains. Hahahaha.

Like many other design "fixes" that HD came up with to extend the life of the Shovelhead, this was an nice fix for a non-existant problem.

Are Linkert and I the only ones that know about this stuff? Hahahahaha. Stay tuned.

Thanks for your stuff, L. It's lots of fun.

[L.Linkert]

Are we getting that old? 1982 doesnt seem so long ago!