Buying a 2002 GS500, needs crankshaft - Need advice or direction

[Tim McCreary]

Hi,

I am in the middle of purchasing a 2002 GS500 with 6100 miles.  It had a crankshaft that locked up on the rod bearing.  It seems this is a more common problem than I thought.  The crank was sent out to be repaired, but the guy skipped town and never returned the crank and rods to the owner.  I am buying the bike and it is missing the crankshaft and rods only.  Everything else is supposed to be there.  I will find out this weekend.

I have heard that the 1980-1983 GS450 L crankshafts are the same (same older part number).  What problems will I run into by using them instead of the $600 new one.  Also, there is a 1983 GS 450 GA (automatic model) that has a different crankshaft part number.  Can it be used instead also?  What is the differences with the GA, and the revision changes from the 450 to the 500 crankshaft.  I assume that I will need to get the correct size bearings to seat the crank in the lower end journals.

If anyone has a motor or good crankshaft/rods for sale, please contact me.  I prefer to have a 2001-2009 motor.  I am located in Roaring Spring, PA.  If anyone knows where I can get a crankshaft repaired for a reasonable price also, please let me know that too.  My goal is just to have a nice stock bike for driving to work (100 miles round trip) to get good gas mileage.

Thanks,
Tim

[joshr08]

If the rod seized to the crank it had no oil in motor and that would mean new motor not just crank and rod.  Plan on replacing the entire motor for sure.

[Tim McCreary]

The guy bought it thinking that the starter and battery was bad.  It would crank over, but slow.  He then bought a new starter and installed.  It cranked over once.  The next time it locked up the motor.  The motor and bearings are spotless on the inside of the motor.  The cylinder walls are clean with factory cross hatching.   No metal shavings or metal flake visible, no damage anywhere internally.  The only damage was to one of the rod bearings.  He tore it out, removed the crank and rods.  He said the crank journal had seized up with the one rod bearing.  No other damage.  He had taken the crank and rods to get machined and resized, but the guy left and never returned his crank.

Cam bearings and cams, gears, etc.  all look spotless with no damage or no nicks, marks on the gear faces.  Motor has been stored in a climate controlled garage for two years now.

It did not lock up while actually running.  Most likely it was binding while running, but then the original owner sold the bike to this guy as is.  He got screwed.

I did find a 1996 with 4,758 miles that was not running since 2003 for cheap.  The gas tank has rotted through and I cannot tell if it will run.  The motor turns over freely.  I was thinking that the crank and rods would work in mine.  If I am lucky, the motor would be good and just do a swap, but setting that long, I think the cylinders might be bad (rusted or pitted over time).  Since it spins, the crank and rods should be good with the low miles.

[Mauricio]

Doubt the '83 450 crank will work. The GS twin changed quite a bit over the years. The 450, from '85 onwards, is very, very close to the 500 except for cylinder bore. Previous years are different bore, stroke, etc.

[Paulcet]

There is a GS450 crank in mine. Not sure of the year. You might need the 450 magnet rotor. Ping dgyver. He did the work on mine.

[sledge]

I was once told by a very reputable shop that undersize crank bearings are not available for the GS5 so grinding is pointless 

Try asking the question in here......  http://www.thegsresources.com/_forum/index.php 

[Tim McCreary]

I don't have a crank so grinding it is not an option anyway.  I did find a 96 gs500 that has been setting 10 years.  Motor last ran in 2009.  Motor spins over but won't run as gas tank is rotted out.  Can I assume the crank is good?  Possibly motor good?.  I assume carbs are trashed with rust.  Only 4800 miles.

It was advertised as needing tires and a gas tank.  Do you think it would be worth pulling crank or possibly getting running to swap into the 2002 bike?  Do you think the cylinder walls are ok or possibly shot?

[weedahoe]

If the rod seized to the crank it had no oil in motor and that would mean new motor not just crank and rod.  Plan on replacing the entire motor for sure.

X2

Much faster. Less work. Less money. Less headaches

[Worm]

If the rod seized to the crank it had no oil in motor and that would mean new motor not just crank and rod.  Plan on replacing the entire motor for sure.

X2

Much faster. Less work. Less money. Less headaches

X3

[jestercinti]

If the rod seized to the crank it had no oil in motor and that would mean new motor not just crank and rod.  Plan on replacing the entire motor for sure.

X2

Much faster. Less work. Less money. Less headaches

X3

That makes 4 of us.  Buy a known good running motor, and RIDE.

[sledge]

If the rod seized to the crank it had no oil in motor

Not neccesarily, the gallery feeding the journal could have become blocked and starved it of oil

If the rotating parts, camshaft, balance shaft, pistons and bore etc show NO signs of damage and measure up within spec I wouldnt hesitate to go with them. Particularly as the engine is already out and in bits 

[Tim McCreary]

If the rod seized to the crank it had no oil in motor

Not neccesarily, the gallery feeding the journal could have become blocked and starved it of oil

If the rotating parts, camshaft, balance shaft, pistons and bore etc show NO signs of damage and measure up within spec I wouldnt hesitate to go with them. Particularly as the engine is already out and in bits 

Without seeing the actual crankshaft and rod, I can only assume that this happened as the rest of the parts look new with minimal wear on the journals.  I have noticed numerous lower end housing assemblies for sale on ebay, but almost no crankshafts available.  I have done searches and it seems this problem is more common than what people believe based on the number of available parts and posts about the engine locking up with low miles. 

The interesting thing is that I don't see too many older motors (pre 1999) having this problem, only the newer motors.  It makes me wonder if one of the design revisions in the crankshaft is to blame.  Also, the addition of an oil cooler in the later models makes me think that they knew there was a lubrication issue.

[sledge]

Also, the addition of an oil cooler in the later models makes me think that they knew there was a lubrication issue.

I will go with that theory