New here. CVT issues with an 05.

[Dave_J]

Based on Cliffs last posting, I agree. That is why I would totaly "PAD" weld up the slot, drill and retap the "HOUSINGS" stopper bolt threads for a larger diameter bolt and redrill the slot round or slightly oval with very little fore/aft movement allowed. I would also make the slots hole as high as I could, so it was a pad with the hole centered. The pad would just fit in the case with a few thousanths for heat expansion.

[cliffyk]

Based on Cliffs last posting, I agree. That is why I would totaly "PAD" weld up the slot, drill and retap the "HOUSINGS" stopper bolt threads for a larger diameter bolt and redrill the slot round or slightly oval with very little fore/aft movement allowed. I would also make the slots hole as high as I could, so it was a pad with the hole centered. The pad would just fit in the case with a few thousanths for heat expansion.

Throwing some assumed numbers at this, specifically that:

• the primary shaft is made of a decent alloy steel and is 8" long;
• placing the operating temperature (based on the brownish yellow/brown discoloration of the pulley faces) at 500°F or so;

I calculate the thermal expansion of the shaft for a 450°F change in temperature (50°F to 500°F) to be in the order of 0.025". I.e. not an enormous value but quite a bit more than ball bearings could deal with without a fixed/floating arrangement.

Having now seen the full enchilada so-to-speak, I feel that just welding up the circumferential groove as described above would provide a significant increase in the bolt's and the slot's resistance to wear. 'Twas me I think this is the approach I would take.

Have you measured the width of an undamaged section of the slot, and of the stop bolt nose? I am curious to know how much "slop" they built in to the design.

If I were to make a new bolt I would use alloy tool steel ("drill rod", I prefer oil hardening such as grade O1), make it larger diameter if possible and size the slot in the carrier accordingly--I would not try to fit the bolt nose and slot any tighter than 0.010". The new bolt should be hardened and tempered, I would temper it to 54-55 Rockwell hardness. You don't want it too hard as it will be brittle.

It would be neat if the bolt nose could be square or have flattened sides, however as it screws in getting it properly aligned would pose a challenge. You could make a bolt with an oversize nose, screw it into the case, torque it as desired and then place match marks on the bolt head and case. The nose of the bolt would also have to be marked to indicate where the flats should be milled. Remove the bolt, machine the flats, reinstall the bolts and then assemble the CVT. The obvious problem here is that should the bolt nose wear or break the CVT will have to be disassembled to replace the bolt.

[herbeckg]

This explains why Suzuki with model 2011 made the slot 2 mm deeper. Now the bolt has 4 mm contact area on both sides. No sharp corners. I believe that should fix the problem.

[cliffyk]

This explains why Suzuki with model 2011 made the slot 2 mm deeper. Now the bolt has 4 mm contact area on both sides. No sharp corners. I believe that should fix the problem.

I have read of the bolt being longer, but not of any change in the bearing carrier. Per Boulevard Suzuki's and other's parts lists the p/n for the primary pulley assembly remains the same in 2011 as in previous years, 21070-10810. From this I would assume the circumferential groove remains and the slot depth is unchanged. The groove is likely there as a relief, to reduce the sliding contact area and thus "stiction" of the floating carrier.

If the groove remains then making the slot deeper (if this was done) and bolt longer (the p/n for the bolt did change in 2011, from 21748-10G10 to 21748-10G20) would be an improvement, however without eliminating the interrupted groove the point contacts created by the groove's edges would still present an issue.

[Ken]

This explains why Suzuki with model 2011 made the slot 2 mm deeper. Now the bolt has 4 mm contact area on both sides. No sharp corners. I believe that should fix the problem.

I have read of the bolt being longer, but not of any change in the bearing carrier. Per Boulevard Suzuki's and other's parts lists the p/n for the primary pulley assembly remains the same in 2011 as in previous years, 21070-10810. From this I would assume the circumferential groove remains and the slot depth is unchanged. The groove is likely there as a relief, to reduce the sliding contact area and thus "stiction" of the floating carrier.

If the groove remains then making the slot deeper (if this was done) and bolt longer (the p/n for the bolt did change in 2011, from 21748-10G10 to 21748-10G20) would be an improvement, however without eliminating the interrupted groove the point contacts created by the groove's edges would still present an issue.

The part number for the primary assy did change along with the stopper bolt. New stopper bolt is longer and I would assume the slot is deeper. My parts are due in Tuesday. I will do some measuring of the old and new parts and post what changes are found.

[cliffyk]

The part number for the primary assy did change along with the stopper bolt. New stopper bolt is longer and I would assume the slot is deeper. My parts are due in Tuesday. I will do some measuring of the old and new parts and post what changes are found.

Cool...

[MJR]

Does the driven end bearing, the one that sat on the chewed up shaft, still turn relatively freely? I ask because the wear on the shaft does not look as though the inner race spun, but rather appears to be fretting and galling more typical of an ill fitting and/or overloaded contact.

No it did not turn freely, in fact initially I couldn't just turn it with my fingers. It was only after I had removed the bearing that I could hold it firm enough to have my fingers turn it, only once I got over the initial resistance did it free up, and then I was able to turn it by my fingers.

110% speculation here, however I believe this is what caused the inner primary shaft bearing to be overloaded.

You can see in these photos that the end of the stop bolt had worn to a rectangular shape, that fit precisely into the groove of the floating primary shaft bearing hanger:When engaged as shown in the second photo it would quite effectively block the intended "in and out" movement of the floating hanger--I.e. the hanger would no longer "float" and would no longer (no pun intended) be able to move outward as the shaft lengthened as it heated (the discolouration of the pulley flanges show that the pulley faces and shaft get rather hot in operation).

As the floating hanger could no longer relocate the forces generated by the lengthening of the shaft were bourne by the shaft bearings, with the smaller bearing at the driven (and hottest) end of the primary shaft taking the brunt of the abuse, fretting and galling its way into the boss as shown above. The inner race of the bearing in the floating hanger has a larger area of contact with the shaft boss, and is better secured than the drive end bearing.

An interesting idea but based on inspection of my '03 with half the miles (26,228 miles) I do not believe the stopper bolt caused the bearing to fail. It's stopper bolt showed only minor wear but yet the damage to bearing caused to the shaft was twice as bad. I believe the input bearing and o-ring were the start of the problem helped along with rust.

One thing I would do if rebuilding a 650 CVT is to weld up the circumferential groove in the bearing carrier near the stop bolt slot, and recut the the stop bolt slot.

As currently designed the stop bolt has greatly reduced contact within the locating slot because of the groove, and the groove provides four nice sharp and square corners guaranteed to initiate and accelerate wear of of the stop bolt's nose. This is very sloppy design...

As long as you can do so without damaging the bearing yes but I think Ken's idea of just cutting an additional notch offset from the original is better. The bearing cannot be removed without at minimum destroying the snap ring retainer as they did not allow a way for removal and the bearing custom made for application. I agree that having a groove just to attach a shield is stupid as well as the loss of full width support in the case. There are better ways to do it.

Throwing some assumed numbers at this, specifically that:

• the primary shaft is made of a decent alloy steel and is 8" long;
• placing the operating temperature (based on the brownish yellow/brown discoloration of the pulley faces) at 500°F or so;

I calculate the thermal expansion of the shaft for a 450°F change in temperature (50°F to 500°F) to be in the order of 0.025". I.e. not an enormous value but quite a bit more than ball bearings could deal with without a fixed/floating arrangement.

But that movement would have to be carried across the pulley halves by the belt and under tension to belt moves up/down the pulley face.

Have you measured the width of an undamaged section of the slot, and of the stop bolt nose? I am curious to know how much "slop" they built in to the design.

If I were to make a new bolt I would use alloy tool steel ("drill rod", I prefer oil hardening such as grade O1), make it larger diameter if possible and size the slot in the carrier accordingly--I would not try to fit the bolt nose and slot any tighter than 0.010". The new bolt should be hardened and tempered, I would temper it to 54-55 Rockwell hardness. You don't want it too hard as it will be brittle.

It would be neat if the bolt nose could be square or have flattened sides, however as it screws in getting it properly aligned would pose a challenge. You could make a bolt with an oversize nose, screw it into the case, torque it as desired and then place match marks on the bolt head and case. The nose of the bolt would also have to be marked to indicate where the flats should be milled. Remove the bolt, machine the flats, reinstall the bolts and then assemble the CVT. The obvious problem here is that should the bolt nose wear or break the CVT will have to be disassembled to replace the bolt.

No I have not but making custom tolerance bolts would be expensive and Suzuki had to allow for a little more variance with standard manufacture bolts I would think. I would never use something harder than the adjuster end unless you want to replace that regularly. A softer easy to replace bolt is much preffered to the expensive and labor intensive part. Maybe they should have just left the gold bolt and told you a regular inspection/replacement schedule.

You could not square off a bolt and expect it to line up exactly everytime. Better would be a square key held in by a bolt. There are other issues with the adjuster end beyond just the stopper bolt as well, namely not enough width support in the case.

I have read of the bolt being longer, but not of any change in the bearing carrier. Per Boulevard Suzuki's and other's parts lists the p/n for the primary pulley assembly remains the same in 2011 as in previous years, 21070-10810.

I consulted multiple catalogs and well and measuring depth on my '03, '05, '06, and '09 bikes. The 2011 stopper bolt can only fit the 2011-up primary pulley assemblies based on my measurements. There simly isn't sufficent depth in the earlier ones to alllow approx 2 mm of additional bolt length. The primary pulley assembly has changed numbers three times since '03 here and '02 worldwide. All previous part numbers supercede to the current part # and also explains why the 2011-up part comes with the stopper bolt as shown here. Item #9 includes item #10. http://www.mrcycles.com/fiche_section_detail.asp?section=1443559&category=Scooters&make=SUZUKI&year=2011&fveh=39880

21071-10G00 '02-'03
21071-10G10 '04-'09
21070-10810 '11-up

I hope Ken will post up some photos of the new 2011 part because I would like to see the changes. I suspect they did something different with the shield because the photos of wear on the 2011 stopper bolts seem to not have the notch in them.

[cliffyk]

An interesting idea but based on inspection of my '03 with half the miles (26,228 miles) I do not believe the stopper bolt caused the bearing to fail. It's stopper bolt showed only minor wear but yet the damage to bearing caused to the shaft was twice as bad. I believe the input bearing and o-ring were the start of the problem helped along with rust.

I was not referring to your "'03 with half the miles", but rather the stop bolt shown in the photographs accompanying my post...

One thing I would do if rebuilding a 650 CVT is to weld up the circumferential groove in the bearing carrier near the stop bolt slot, and recut the the stop bolt slot.

As currently designed the stop bolt has greatly reduced contact within the locating slot because of the groove, and the groove provides four nice sharp and square corners guaranteed to initiate and accelerate wear of of the stop bolt's nose. This is very sloppy design...

As long as you can do so without damaging the bearing yes but I think Ken's idea of just cutting an additional notch offset from the original is better. The bearing cannot be removed without at minimum destroying the snap ring retainer as they did not allow a way for removal and the bearing custom made for application. I agree that having a groove just to attach a shield is stupid as well as the loss of full width support in the case. There are better ways to do it.

I did not realise the bearing was not removable. That is classic "happy-homeowner" design criteria.

Throwing some assumed numbers at this, specifically that:

• the primary shaft is made of a decent alloy steel and is 8" long;
• placing the operating temperature (based on the brownish yellow/brown discoloration of the pulley faces) at 500°F or so;

I calculate the thermal expansion of the shaft for a 450°F change in temperature (50°F to 500°F) to be in the order of 0.025". I.e. not an enormous value but quite a bit more than ball bearings could deal with without a fixed/floating arrangement.

But that movement would have to be carried across the pulley halves by the belt and under tension to belt moves up/down the pulley face.

Negative, the fixed flange/primary shaft spans the length between bearings as shown below:



The force would be transmitted as directly as could be possible--the movable flange floats on the primary shaft.

Have you measured the width of an undamaged section of the slot, and of the stop bolt nose? I am curious to know how much "slop" they built in to the design.

If I were to make a new bolt I would use alloy tool steel ("drill rod", I prefer oil hardening such as grade O1), make it larger diameter if possible and size the slot in the carrier accordingly--I would not try to fit the bolt nose and slot any tighter than 0.010". The new bolt should be hardened and tempered, I would temper it to 54-55 Rockwell hardness. You don't want it too hard as it will be brittle.

It would be neat if the bolt nose could be square or have flattened sides, however as it screws in getting it properly aligned would pose a challenge. You could make a bolt with an oversize nose, screw it into the case, torque it as desired and then place match marks on the bolt head and case. The nose of the bolt would also have to be marked to indicate where the flats should be milled. Remove the bolt, machine the flats, reinstall the bolts and then assemble the CVT. The obvious problem here is that should the bolt nose wear or break the CVT will have to be disassembled to replace the bolt.

No I have not but making custom tolerance bolts would be expensive and Suzuki had to allow for a little more variance with standard manufacture bolts I would think. I would never use something harder than the adjuster end unless you want to replace that regularly. A softer easy to replace bolt is much preffered to the expensive and labor intensive part. Maybe they should have just left the gold bolt and told you a regular inspection/replacement schedule.

You could not square off a bolt and expect it to line up exactly everytime. Better would be a square key held in by a bolt. There are other issues with the adjuster end beyond just the stopper bolt as well, namely not enough width support in the case.

Actually you could, in fact I have machined assemblies with such requirements in the past (I spent 18 years as plant engineer of a rope manufacturing plant, re-engineering and fabricating replacement parts for one-off custom design, and 100+ year-old machinery), however it would have to be custom fitted as I described above--and fitted after hardening as the threaded portion of the bolt will twist during heat treatment.

I have read of the bolt being longer, but not of any change in the bearing carrier. Per Boulevard Suzuki's and other's parts lists the p/n for the primary pulley assembly remains the same in 2011 as in previous years, 21070-10810.

I consulted multiple catalogs and well and measuring depth on my '03, '05, '06, and '09 bikes. The 2011 stopper bolt can only fit the 2011-up primary pulley assemblies based on my measurements. There simly isn't sufficent depth in the earlier ones to alllow approx 2 mm of additional bolt length. The primary pulley assembly has changed numbers three times since '03 here and '02 worldwide. All previous part numbers supercede to the current part # and also explains why the 2011-up part comes with the stopper bolt as shown here. Item #9 includes item #10. http://www.mrcycles.com/fiche_section_detail.asp?section=1443559&category=Scooters&make=SUZUKI&year=2011&fveh=39880

21071-10G00 '02-'03
21071-10G10 '04-'09
21070-10810 '11-up

I hope Ken will post up some photos of the new 2011 part because I would like to see the changes. I suspect they did something different with the shield because the photos of wear on the 2011 stopper bolts seem to not have the notch in them.

Per the source you provided, http://www.mrcycles.com/fiche_section_detail.asp?section=1443559&category=Scooters&make=SUZUKI&year=2011&fveh=39880, the current primary pulley assembly part number is the same across all years 2003 through 2011, with the 21070-10810 assembly being shown as the only available replacement for all years--changed once someplace along the line.

So if they changed it for 2011 they did not change the current assembly part number, and it would seem therefore that replacing p/n 21071-10G10 with p/n 21070-10810 would allow use of a longer stop bolt.

from the MrCycles online catalog:

• 21070-10810 - 2011
• 21070-10810 - 2008 (replaces 21071-10G10)
• 21070-10810 - 2007 (replaces 21071-10G10)
• 21070-10810 - 2006 (replaces 21071-10G10)
• 21070-10810 - 2005 (replaces 21071-10G10)
• 21070-10810 - 03/04 (replaces 21071-10G10)

The proof of course will be in the pudding, I too await measurements and photos of the new parts...

[cliffyk]

My mind flashed back to your photo collection, the bearing is removable from the floating carrier--I have seen this sort of "blind" lock ring in the past:



As indicated above by using a needle point probe (a carbide tipped scribe works well) you rotate the lock ring until its ends are visible, the pry one end of the ring up and out the the recess and rotate/pull the lock ring out. It's a "knacky" sort of thing, one of those where once you have does it once you could do 100 more in your sleep. Like taking a key-ring off a key...

[rc26]

I have not gone through the threads here to get a total on the folks who are in the same boat I'm in. I plan to call a few of Ron Ayers' competitors to see if they will beat their price on the shaft. I've found a few who say they will offer price matching on items, but...I'd like to see a deeper discount by them beating RA's price.

Never know until you try.

Edit: I called MR Cycles. They'd match Ron Ayers' price of $612.42 + $36 to ship it. Ron Ayers' would charge me $35 for. A $1 difference in price. I called my local dealership...they originally quoted me a price of $798 out the door. I then asked if they would be willing to match Ron Ayers' price. They would. With VA sales tax it would be $643 out the door.

[Buffalo]

Do you have any speculation on what the function of that slot is. I haven't figured out one but I don't know why Suzuki would go to the trouble of machining it in there if it had no function. It seems the stopper bolt would wear less without it as the surface area would be increased.

[cliffyk]

Do you have any speculation on what the function of that slot is. I haven't figured out one but I don't know why Suzuki would go to the trouble of machining it in there if it had no function. It seems the stopper bolt would wear less without it as the surface area would be increased.

I had thought, and put forth earlier, that it was to reduce the contact patch and thus "stiction" so as to make the floating bearing carrier move more easily. However after viewing the above photo showing how the bearing could be removed, and others from MJR's excellent collection, I realised that the carrier outside diameter on its outboard end is larger than that of the inboard portion--blowing the reduced contact patch notion out of the water.

So that leaves me wondering why it's there as well, it could somehow be related to the part's machining (being a locator or engaged by a holding fixture-maybe)? IDK...

[Ken]

I think the purpose (speculation on my part) of the grove is to allow for the installation of the shield and to keep the shield in place after installation. That portion of the adjuster/bearing hanger is machined smaller for the shield to have clearance in the case. I really think the could have designed that area without the grove and changed the method of attaching the shield. Without the grove would definitely decrease wear on the stopper bolt.

[Buffalo]

Ken you may be right. Looking back at this picture MJR posted there is a lip on the tab that probably fits into the slot.

[cliffyk]

I think the purpose (speculation on my part) of the grove is to allow for the installation of the shield and to keep the shield in place after installation. That portion of the adjuster/bearing hanger is machined smaller for the shield to have clearance in the case. I really think the could have designed that area without the grove and changed the method of attaching the shield. Without the grove would definitely decrease wear on the stopper bolt.

That makes sense. It's a shame they choose to do it that way, a simple slot cut with a rotary cutter would have accomplished that without compromising the stop bolt. It would have likely added another step to the production sequence though...

[Ken]

Ken you may be right. Looking back at this picture MJR posted there is a lip on the tab that probably fits into the slot.

Yes, that tab is positioned in the slot and is what keeps the shield in place.

[Buffalo]

I'm guessing you slip the shield on with the tab in the stopper bolt recess then turn it around in the slot. Once it is in place the stopper bolt would keep it from rotating back around.

If you didn't have the slot going all the way around then you would have to machine a recess on the other side to allow the shield to be slid on.

[Ken]

I'm guessing you slip the shield on with the tab in the stopper bolt recess then turn it around in the slot. Once it is in place the stopper bolt would keep it from rotating back around.

If you didn't have the slot going all the way around then you would have to machine a recess on the other side to allow the shield to be slid on.

You are correct.

[MJR]

I was not referring to your "'03 with half the miles", but rather the stop bolt shown in the photographs accompanying my post...

I understand you were reffering to the '06 but since the failed parts were the same I thought it would make sense that the cause of failure was the same, maybe not. Of course for comparison the failed parts Ken is working with might confirm or disprove this. It would be so nice to have more failed parts to nail the problem down wouldn't it. Sad that Suzuki has most likely known for years but I'm glad that Ken, rc26, and others are adding information from their failures as well, it all helps.

Actually you could, in fact I have machined assemblies with such requirements in the past (I spent 18 years as plant engineer of a rope manufacturing plant, re-engineering and fabricating replacement parts for one-off custom design, and 100+ year-old machinery), however it would have to be custom fitted as I described above--and fitted after hardening as the threaded portion of the bolt will twist during heat treatment.

Wish I had the access to custom machine parts, that would be very handy.

Per the source you provided, http://www.mrcycles.com/fiche_section_detail.asp?section=1443559&category=Scooters&make=SUZUKI&year=2011&fveh=39880, the current primary pulley assembly part number is the same across all years 2003 through 2011, with the 21070-10810 assembly being shown as the only available replacement for all years--changed once someplace along the line.

So if they changed it for 2011 they did not change the current assembly part number, and it would seem therefore that replacing p/n 21071-10G10 with p/n 21070-10810 would allow use of a longer stop bolt.

from the MrCycles online catalog:

• 21070-10810 - 2011
• 21070-10810 - 2008 (replaces 21071-10G10)
• 21070-10810 - 2007 (replaces 21071-10G10)
• 21070-10810 - 2006 (replaces 21071-10G10)
• 21070-10810 - 2005 (replaces 21071-10G10)
• 21070-10810 - 03/04 (replaces 21071-10G10)

The proof of course will be in the pudding, I too await measurements and photos of the new parts...

The multiple catalogs I looked at I found what I believe to be the complete supercession from '03-up. For instance Ron Ayers was the only one to list the K3 CVT (part # 21070-10G00 primary pulley assembly) seperate from the K4 though they also have a shared listing for K3/K4 all the others (Babbit's Online, Mr Cycles, Oneida) only list the combined K3/K4. You can search in Ron Ayers or I found Babbit's as well for part # 21071-10G00 which supercedes to 21071-10G10 which in turn supercedes to 21071-10810. Yes 21071-10810 is the superceded part replacement (but not the originally installed part number) for all years and since the stopper bolt arrangement changed it makes sense the new assembly includes the new bolt. Yes I would really like to see one for myself or at least in photos.

My mind flashed back to your photo collection, the bearing is removable from the floating carrier--I have seen this sort of "blind" lock ring in the past:

As indicated above by using a needle point probe (a carbide tipped scribe works well) you rotate the lock ring until its ends are visible, the pry one end of the ring up and out the the recess and rotate/pull the lock ring out. It's a "knacky" sort of thing, one of those where once you have does it once you could do 100 more in your sleep. Like taking a key-ring off a key...

It seemed a bit odd to me since I haven't run across this kind before but we are always learning. Thanks I will give that a try, hopefully I don't have too many problems and get frustrated trying to get it out. It's not like I need to save the parts but I am taking them apart for my own curiousity and to share information here.

I think the purpose (speculation on my part) of the grove is to allow for the installation of the shield and to keep the shield in place after installation.

I'm guessing you slip the shield on with the tab in the stopper bolt recess then turn it around in the slot. Once it is in place the stopper bolt would keep it from rotating back around.

Exactly the groove is for the shield, pretty stupid eh? Yes it goes on and rotates around with the stopper bolt holding it from rotating all the way around. However the shield is free to vibrate and float within the space of the notch that holds it. I was quite surprised when removing the PPS you can stick your finger it and move it around (kinda rattles). Because of that groove is does reduce stopper bolt holding surface (can been seen by the wear on the stopper bolt).

From what I've seen of only photos of worn 2011 stopper bolts it doesn't appear the groove intersects the stopper bolt hole on the newer version (no notching of the stopper bolt). I would really like to see one and/or photos of it.

There is some outer case wear where the adjuster end rides and Ken has reported this as well. The adjuster end is only supported by roughly a 1/4" band all the way around in the aluminum housing. If the shield and adjuster end were different you could get probably get more than twice that support minimizing wear. I'll have to add some additional photos later.

[Ken]

I am expecting parts tomorrow and I will take pics and measurements and post both since "inquiring minds want to know" Thinking ahead, I have a concern about being able to torque the nut on the secondary shaft. If possible, since I don't have the special tool to hold the splines (Buffalo used a pipe wrench), would using a strap wrench, 165 Lb torque limiter impact tool (I think they are also called torque sticks)and good quality air impact get the job done without possible damage while getting the nut torqued to spec?

[MJR]

If possible, since I don't have the special tool to hold the splines (Buffalo used a pipe wrench), would using a strap wrench, 165 Lb torque limiter impact tool (I think they are also called torque sticks)and good quality air impact get the job done without possible damage while getting the nut torqued to spec?

Usually using an impact holding it with a glove or rag should work. If you can find a torque stick of the size I see no reason it shouldn't work. I doubt a dealer tech would torque it by hand, most likely just use his impact gun.

[azrider]

Received a new v2 and v3 bolt today. The v3 bolt is 2mm longer

[MJR]

Received a new v2 and v3 bolt today. The v3 bolt is 2mm longer

Cool good to know the measurement for sure. Nice to see the tip doesn't have the dished out part as well.

[azrider]

Received a new v2 and v3 bolt today. The v3 bolt is 2mm longer

Cool good to know the measurement for sure. Nice to see the tip doesn't have the dished out part as well.

The new bolt really has a quality look and feel to it, makes the old one look like pot metal with that dished tip. Has the letter C stamped in the head. I'm not going to bother test fitting it until we see pics of Ken's new pulley assembly.

[MJR]

I am expecting parts tomorrow and I will take pics and measurements and post both since "inquiring minds want to know"

I am expecting to see instead of a notch for the stopper bolt a oblong slot machined down to the outer race of the bearing and a different attachment for the shield. I removed the snap ring and bearing last night with the instructions from Cliff which allowed me to get some measurements. It's the only way they could get the additional depth without designing a new part as far as I can see.