Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2  All

Author Topic: 110" performance let down?  (Read 10628 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

westtexasroadglide

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
110" performance let down?
« on: September 26, 2013, 11:47:33 AM »

So I recently sold my custom 2011 FLTRX with a 103" motor package for my dream bike, a 2012 skunk CVO road glide. The shock to me is that I had the exact same exhaust system on both bikes, (Vance & Hines power duals headers, and SuperTrapp mufflers), same Fuelpak setup, and programmers on both. The only thing is, my 103" was DRASTICALLY more powerful than this new 110"! Am I missing something here or is this motor the exception to the old saying "there's no replacement for displacement"?
Logged

westtexasroadglide

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2013, 11:58:33 AM »

This is the new one. Hoping to do some similar mods to this bike in the near future. Bars and big wheel and rake kit are already in, just needing time to actually do the work now.
Logged

05Train

  • Mind is not for rent
  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 769
Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2013, 12:23:05 PM »

I was completely underwhelmed with the 110 until I spent some quality tuning time with the Powervision. 
Logged
The best you've had is the best you know.

MrSurly

  • Formidable Faux
  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 790
    • TX

Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2013, 12:44:28 PM »

I was completely underwhelmed with the 110 until I spent some quality tuning time with the Powervision. 

Yes, but are you now truly whelmed? Or just OK with it?
Logged
Rhetorical questions, who needs 'em?

2010FLHTCUSE5
Dethroned Garage Queen, Sullied 2013

05Train

  • Mind is not for rent
  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 769
Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2013, 05:41:43 PM »

Yes, but are you now truly whelmed? Or just OK with it?
I'd go as far as thrilled.  This motor really comes alive with a tune.
Logged
The best you've had is the best you know.

bigskyroadglide

  • Junior CVO Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
  • Live like today is your last day
    • MT


    • CVO1: 2012 Road Glide CVO Skunk
Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2013, 05:46:39 PM »

This is the new one. Hoping to do some similar mods to this bike in the near future. Bars and big wheel and rake kit are already in, just needing time to actually do the work now.

I have the same bike, replaced the head pipe with Full Sac x pipe (don't remember which model B, C or D) re-cored the stock mufflers with full sac 2.25 cores, replaced heavy breather with a ventilator & added a Power vision and a good dyno and came away with 109 HP 117 torque.

The 110 can be made to run, it just seems like it takes a lot of effort. ::)  I think the 255's are a lot of the problem, along with the lower compression ratio. My other bike with a 107 puts out more HP & torque.
Logged

05Train

  • Mind is not for rent
  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 769
Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2013, 08:58:38 AM »

A 110 will never be a crotch rocket but it does come alive with a tune and now runs smoother and cooler than any of the two previous 110s I've owned. Even the exhaust note sounds more refined and I get better gas mileage too.
Yup.  I've still got a little detail work to do, but I'm 90% there.  The bike's far more responsive and smoother, and I'm still getting 43-44mpg.  That's amazing given how much higher my VEs are now.
Logged
The best you've had is the best you know.

MrSurly

  • Formidable Faux
  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 790
    • TX

Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2013, 01:54:13 PM »

...and came away with 109 HP 117 torque.
...I think the 255's are a lot of the problem, along with the lower compression ratio.

Are those numbers with the 255s? Stock heads and CR?
Logged
Rhetorical questions, who needs 'em?

2010FLHTCUSE5
Dethroned Garage Queen, Sullied 2013

NYSport

  • Full CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 194

    • CVO1: 2012 Road Glide, Skunk
Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2013, 07:22:43 PM »

My 110 got a full sac and a dyno tune by  pro.  Results, dramatically better performance and a cooler running motor.
Logged
Former US Army
160th Little Bird Pilot

NYSport

  • Full CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 194

    • CVO1: 2012 Road Glide, Skunk
Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2013, 08:13:59 PM »

Nothing wrong with the picture....wanted the cat gone (not an HD issue).  That required a tune up.....results were great.  The bike ran fine with plenty of punch before the cat removal.   HD needs to present a bike that will last and comply with regulations, they did just that.
Logged
Former US Army
160th Little Bird Pilot

MrSurly

  • Formidable Faux
  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 790
    • TX

Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2013, 01:53:11 PM »

I have the same bike, replaced the head pipe with Full Sac x pipe (don't remember which model B, C or D) re-cored the stock mufflers with full sac 2.25 cores, replaced heavy breather with a ventilator & added a Power vision and a good dyno and came away with 109 HP 117 torque.

The 110 can be made to run, it just seems like it takes a lot of effort. ::)  I think the 255's are a lot of the problem, along with the lower compression ratio. My other bike with a 107 puts out more HP & torque.

I'd like to know, are those numbers with the 255s? Stock heads and CR?
Logged
Rhetorical questions, who needs 'em?

2010FLHTCUSE5
Dethroned Garage Queen, Sullied 2013

bigskyroadglide

  • Junior CVO Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
  • Live like today is your last day
    • MT


    • CVO1: 2012 Road Glide CVO Skunk
Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2013, 03:24:04 PM »

I'd like to know, are those numbers with the 255s? Stock heads and CR?


yes, with 255's, stock heads and CR.  IF i could figure out how to post the dyno sheet i would throw a copy up for you.  It did not seem believable to me either but that is what it says.  I have an 04 with a 107 and the 107 is much stronger than the 110 (121HP/124TQ) with Woods TW6HG cams and 10.5CR and the heads have been done. So, I think i know what 117 ft lbs of torque feels like.

i have about 15K on the 110 now and it seems to be pulling stongly but lifer noise is becoming a concern.
Logged

MrSurly

  • Formidable Faux
  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 790
    • TX

Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2013, 04:08:03 PM »

Well I'd certainly like to see those numbers from my '10 CUSE. Similar setup, mewly added: catted head pipe, factory 2:1 pipe/muff with FS core, ventilator and PV. No tune time yet, but soon.
Logged
Rhetorical questions, who needs 'em?

2010FLHTCUSE5
Dethroned Garage Queen, Sullied 2013

bigskyroadglide

  • Junior CVO Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
  • Live like today is your last day
    • MT


    • CVO1: 2012 Road Glide CVO Skunk
Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2013, 10:10:25 AM »

Well I'd certainly like to see those numbers from my '10 CUSE. Similar setup, mewly added: catted head pipe, factory 2:1 pipe/muff with FS core, ventilator and PV. No tune time yet, but soon.

my AFR is around 13.5 and my fuel economy sucks (like 35 cruise and 30 when i am really into it).  I am running my map without the narrow band sensors (they are plugged off)  I have been experiementing with the PV and have created a economy map (took me about 3 weeks to do) using the basic tune and the narrow band sensors for the cruise range.  this gets my fuel economy up to around 38 to 40 depending on speed.

i am still trying to figure out how to post a pdf or jpeg of the dyno sheet.  I am more mechanical than computer oriented.  The PV is a huge learning curve for me.
Logged

05Train

  • Mind is not for rent
  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 769
Re: 110" performance let down?
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2013, 12:23:11 PM »

my AFR is around 13.5 and my fuel economy sucks (like 35 cruise and 30 when i am really into it).  I am running my map without the narrow band sensors (they are plugged off)  I have been experiementing with the PV and have created a economy map (took me about 3 weeks to do) using the basic tune and the narrow band sensors for the cruise range.  this gets my fuel economy up to around 38 to 40 depending on speed.

i am still trying to figure out how to post a pdf or jpeg of the dyno sheet.  I am more mechanical than computer oriented.  The PV is a huge learning curve for me.
May I ask why you've disabled the O2 sensors and why you're running so rich?

I'm running in closed loop pretty much everywhere up to about 4000rpm and 60kPa, and I'm seeing 44-45mpg.
Logged
The best you've had is the best you know.
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.157 seconds with 21 queries.