• Husqvarna Motorcycles Made In Sweden - About 1988 and older

  • Hi everyone,

    As you all know, Coffee (Dean) passed away a couple of years ago. I am Dean's ex-wife's husband and happen to have spent my career in tech. Over the years, I occasionally helped Dean with various tech issues.

    When he passed, I worked with his kids to gather the necessary credentials to keep this site running. Since then (and for however long they worked with Coffee), Woodschick and Dirtdame have been maintaining the site and covering the costs. Without their hard work and financial support, CafeHusky would have been lost.

    Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been working to migrate the site to a free cloud compute instance so that Woodschick and Dirtdame no longer have to fund it. At the same time, I’ve updated the site to a current version of XenForo (the discussion software it runs on). The previous version was outdated and no longer supported.

    Unfortunately, the new software version doesn’t support importing the old site’s styles, so for now, you’ll see the XenForo default style. This may change over time.

    Coffee didn’t document the work he did on the site, so I’ve been digging through the old setup to understand how everything was running. There may still be things I’ve missed. One known issue is that email functionality is not yet working on the new site, but I hope to resolve this over time.

    Thanks for your patience and support!

connecting rod differences??

Bigbill

Bigbill

Husqvarna
Pro Class
Does early 70's 250cc, 360cc, & 390cc/420cc use the same connecting rods?
The rod crank pin and lower journal are narrower on this rod.
The early 250cc mag engine is totally different with a shorter rod.

The newer 82 cases take a longer crank pin and the lower rod journal is wider. The 250cc and 430cc rods are the same. While the 500cc rod is longer.

I'm just trying to understand here on the journal width and crank pin length and the difference between the rod lengths. With the older 70's cases and the newer 80's cases.
 
The auto crankshafts have a shorter pin and the pork chop shaped crankshaft. I can't comment on any of the other stuff.

Are you sure the journal is wider, on the auto crank the press fit into the crank cheek or portion of crank wheel is thinner, the rod being the same.

87-88 the rod became more I beam shaped as opposed to popsickle stick shaped. There are notches, 4 of them per side at the wristpin presumably for lube. I even have a 430 with an I beam shaped rod with a picture of an elephant on the side, perhaps a cagiva replacement? None of the ones I have had out have a slit on the bottom of the big end for lube like seems to be the norm by now.
 
My understanding is that the MAG 250 series engines has a 125mm center to center distance rod while the primary kick series 250, 400,& 430 engines use a 135mm center to center distance connecting rod. I have not had a reason to measure my 390 con rod as I have no reason to replace it.
 
Many of the rods using the 135 length just require you to use the proper lower crank pin width. Many 250s and 430s use 58.3 while the 390 and other use I believe a 52mm off the top of my head. So a lot the the years are covered by this crank replacement alone.
 
fran...k. said:
The auto crankshafts have a shorter pin and the pork chop shaped crankshaft. I can't comment on any of the other stuff.

Are you sure the journal is wider, on the auto crank the press fit into the crank cheek or portion of crank wheel is thinner, the rod being the same.

87-88 the rod became more I beam shaped as opposed to popsickle stick shaped. There are notches, 4 of them per side at the wristpin presumably for lube. I even have a 430 with an I beam shaped rod with a picture of an elephant on the side, perhaps a cagiva replacement? None of the ones I have had out have a slit on the bottom of the big end for lube like seems to be the norm by now.
Click to expand...
cagiva logo on the rod of a swede? thats pretty cool, never heard of that before
 
Maybe somebody who is in the know could submit a chart showing the different Rods and what they fit. Since Replacement Rods looks to be a stumbling point in the Restoration of Husqvarna Engines. And it since most barn finds that will be found in the future will produce stuck engines, Rods will be a common subject. I wouldn't be to concerned about getting it right on the first try, there is plenty of friendly knowledge on hand here to grade and correct available on the sight.
 
It would be usefull is somebody could talk about the Rods of the 4 stroke also....
The aircooled has same rod of the watercooled ?
Thanks for any news, pics, charts regarding that.
 
I have never even had the cylinder off my 510 but from the parts sheets the 86 sheet shows what looks like a bushing (included in rod kit) at the wristpin and no bushing or bearing is on the sheet for the 88. Since all the two strokes show a needle beaing (not in the rod kit) it isn't suprising the rod kits don't match anything on the two stroke side. At least from a glance at those two sheets. I am guessing by 88 the motox version had a lighter crank as there are two different cranks that year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top