ULH torque values

[Pete Engelman]

I'm rebuilding a 1940 ULH engine and had to replace the crank pin and both sprocket and pinion shafts. The book says very tight. That is a wide range?? Does anyone know what the torque values are on each of these nuts? I took the crank pin to about 110 ft/lbs with new 0.065'' thrust washers and I still have about 0.030'' side play on the rod set. I think I have to apply more torque to get the side play down to within tolerance 0.012''. Thicker thrust washers will be proud to the flywheel rather than flush and a proud thrust washer will not stake properly
Thanks
Pete::::::::;;;

[Steve Slocombe]

Dear Pete, some of the new crankpins I've used have been a shade too long, so reducing the rod side play has been difficult. I also think the Harley spec of 12 thousandths is on the tight side and am relaxed at 25 thou. I wouldn't want to take the torque past 150 pounds-feet for fear of damaging the flywheel tapers. In summary, take the torque to 150 if needed then stop with whatever side play results, even if it is more than 0.012".

[Pete Engelman]

Thank you Steve. I thought 150 ft/lbs was where I would stop as well. My 66 shovel crank pin nut torque is 175 ft/lbs. When I disassembled the engine there was 0.085'' side play but the pinion side thrust washer had come loose and wore the flywheel recess inward ~0.020'' so I machined another that when installed was flush with the flywheel. I checked the new cage stack length and they are 0.020'' shorter than the originals. The new crank pin journal is 0.030'' wider than the original but this would create tighter side play. I never checked the length of the taper which I will do next. Here is a picture of the new and old crank pin roller cages. I'd prefer the old style but I am unable to get rollers.
Thanks again
Pete:::::;;;;;;;;

[Pete Engelman]

It looks to me like these new cages (bottom set) were built because the rollers are shorter likely due to the fact that 9341 and 9361 crank pin rollers are no longer available anywhere

[Pete Engelman]

That's exactly what I thought Steve
Thanks
Pete:

[Pete Engelman]

Well boys, I got these 1940 flywheels together. I had to use the old crank pin with the original nuts torqued to 125 ft/lbs. I bought new Jims crank pin nuts that wouldn't even start on the threads? china? I put in 0.065'' thrust washer in sprocket wheel and 0.085'' in the pinion wheel as this flywheel was worn from a loose thrust washer. The new replacement rod set had sloppy side play and roller clearance on both its own crank pin (0.030'' longer than original) and the original crank pin. Being at a dead end as the original 9341 and 9361 series rollers were obsolete for 30 years and none available anywhere I took a chance and replaced the rod races with Eastern races to see if I could get tolerances to acceptable. One race on the female rod was just over a hand press fit (rod end cut too big) china? so I had to use green bearing mount loctite then I staked them all in. After this I was able to use 9101 and 9171 crank pin rollers in the original cages as new cages made the rollers too tight on the crank pin? china again. After all this I got the roller clearance at 0.001'' and the side play to 0.02''. What a goat rope. It is the very best I could do but the parts are nearly impossible to obtain and then the QC of these new parts sure isn't what it used to be.
Thanks for your help guys
Pete:::::::::;;;;;;;;;