to 2 5 u00b0 results in a more balanced moft at 8 u00b0 and 12 u00b0 exhaust crankshaft lead but a slightly lower overall minimum moft on the j 2 segments at 4 u00b0 lead further increases to the load point transfer offset of the exhaust piston pin would result in diminishing the j 2 segments moft further which is undesirable as the example of fig9 11 suggests there is an optimal initial offset of the load transfer point of the exhaust piston wristpin specifically the example suggests that the optimal value lies between 2 u00b0 and 2 5 u00b0 for exhaust crank leads of 4 u00b0 through 12 u00b0 of course the ranges and values used in this example may be illustrative they should not be considered to be limiting in some aspects of dual crankshaft operation it may be desirable to equip an opposed piston engine for dynamically variable crankshaft phasing in this regard see for example commonly owned u s application ser no 13 858 943 filed apr 8 2013 for u201c dual crankshaft opposed piston engines with variable crank phasing u201d which has been published as us 2014 0299109 a1 on oct 9 2014 for example the crank angle of one of the crankshafts may be dynamically positioned or changed with respect to the other crankshaft in order to optimize engine performance in response to variable engine conditions such as engine speed engine load charge air flow charge air composition or possibly other engine conditions in such instances the load transfer point of the first rocking journal bearing may be selected so as to be effective over a range of crankshaft lead for example the range of 4 u00b0 to 12 u00b0 illustrated in fig9 11 in such a case the angular offset of the.