www.CVOHARLEY.com
CVO Technical => Twin Cam => Topic started by: Steve Cole on August 21, 2013, 09:06:52 PM
-
Well 180 miles on it, so while its not completely broke in, it is what it is.
-
$27,000 bike
68 hp = 393 dollars per horsepower.
Using that scenario a new Shelby at 662 hp should cost $260,166.00.
I guess that means customers are getting a deal on the new Shelby or the shaft on the new Harley.
:nixweiss: :nixweiss: :nixweiss: :nixweiss:
SBB
-
That's just embarrassingly lame for that many cubic inches. Have seen 118 commonly cited for crank rating on the 1800 wing with 96-98 personally seen on a couple of unmolested bikes on different dynos.
-
You guys thought that was pretty weak, too, huh? What about all the "more low end and best ever passing power" BS on Harley's website? After all, they listened to the customer and gave us what we asked for! ::)
-
:o :'(
YB
-
You guys thought that was pretty weak, too, huh? What about all the "more low end and best ever passing power" BS on Harley's website? After all, they listened to the customer and gave us what we asked for! ::)
Now where would they get that idea...I didn't ask for 68hp...did you??
-
$27,000 bike
68 hp = 393 dollars per horsepower.
Using that scenario a new Shelby at 662 hp should cost $260,166.00.
I guess that means customers are getting a deal on the new Shelby or the shaft on the new Harley.
:nixweiss: :nixweiss: :nixweiss: :nixweiss:
SBB
I must have missed the SHAFT (drive?) in the tech docs, Chip...
Numbers don't lie, and THOSE numbers are truly BEYOND PATHETIC!
How can they POSSIBLY lose that much TQ between the engine and the rear wheel?
Answer: They DON'T... It's never really made in the first place... except maybe on some test engine sitting in a stand in a lab with a perfect tune under ideal conditions... for the advertising...
Ken
-
Now where would they get that idea...I didn't ask for 68hp...did you??
Now 68 hp on the Aprilia scooter would ring my bell, but it's not what I want on my Harley.
SBB
-
Steve,
Before you put it on the dyno, what was your take on how it performed compared to previous years stock HD?
JW
-
Bigger, heavier bike, a 2014 model 103 with the stock HP & TQ in the ballpark of a TC 88. What's not to love?
A lot.
-
Well 180 miles on it, so while its not completely broke in, it is what it is.
Gang, that is awful.
-
So I guess it's a waiting game.
Wait for Steve at Fullsac to do mufflers, header pipe and a cam then we will find out how much of a dog it really is.
I suspect Steve with all the above mods will show us 91/105.
Steve we are waiting!
;D
SBB
-
So I guess it's a waiting game.
Wait for Steve at Fullsac to do mufflers, header pipe and a cam then we will find out how much of a dog it really is.
I suspect Steve with all the above mods will show us 91/105.
Steve we are waiting!
;D
SBB
Don't forget a really good tune done with the upcoming TTS 3 version!
Ken
-
Agreed
That sucks. With 10-1 compression and alleged new cams I would think it would do better.
I was actually contemplating getting one of the air cooled Street Glides to go with my SEEG, but must admit this changes my mind drastically. Probably just put some more $ in the old girl and keep riding her.
I was speaking with OTIS yesterday and he told me what a turd the pre-Rushmore 103's were, looks like the Rushmore aint no better.
Regards
Shrader
-
I was hoping for better. well the numbers are what they are, just more opportunities for the aftermarket. They offer a $26k starter kit.
The MOCO published the 2014 MY improvements, the largest I can remember, and that said the bulk of them are electronics. The bike starts to look like my wife's car with the screen and all the ginger bread but something got left out along this path, quality. And the MOCO thinks they have our trust to dive into the most expensive highly technical motorcycle they have ever built with the current track record they have? Quality and service are below par for the MOCO as a whole organization despite the few exemplary dealers that still try to swim upstream and help the riders.
If I was buying a new bike that Indian might start to look better and better.
-
I got the answer ... :bananarock:
Have ya checked out the new Indians?? :zwtf:
-
$27,000 bike
68 hp = 393 dollars per horsepower.
Using that scenario a new Shelby at 662 hp should cost $260,166.00.
I guess that means customers are getting a deal on the new Shelby or the shaft on the new Harley.
I love it you guys are spot on! Maybe the power requirement for all the new electronic gobbley-gook shoved into the dash robs the rear wheel horsepower. For comparison, this year BMW, who has been doing twins for 90 years now, liquid cooled the cylinder heads on the boxer for the first time in the GS model. The concept is similar, in that they are just cooling specific areas(no cooling jacket) and the liquid cooling amounts to just 13% overall. Had been 22% oil 78% air, now 22%oil cooling with 13% Liquid(ethyl glycol and H2O) plus 65%air cooling. They picked up 15 horsepower with this simple addition at 12.5 to 1 compression on a 1170cc displacement motor! Now BMW is just a pimple on Harley's ass in terms of world-wide sales so who has more resources for R&D than the MOCO. What the hell is their problem?
:nixweiss: :nixweiss: :nixweiss: :nixweiss:
SBB
-
I got the answer ... :bananarock:
Have ya checked out the new Indians?? :zwtf:
I can't wait to see Dyno test from Indians 111" engine.
-
I expect about 100hp at the rear wheel.
-
There you go. Than, my second "American" will be Indian.
-
I hope that this bike comes back after they get some more miles on it, so we can do another set of dyno pulls. What I showed was the highest and lowest of the pulls we made. While I am not really impressed with what I saw, I still hold out a little hope that the numbers come up some after it gets more miles on it. Now, I'm not holding my breath but am willing to see what it does down the road. The problem is I cannot be assured they will bring it back by again. We will be running more of the new engines in the near future so we will see how they begin to fall in line a month or two down the road.
-
Kinda reminds you of the AMF days, doesn't it. Put out a crap product and tell you how lucky you will be to have one. "You gotta love it, it's a Harley" Just drink the Kool Aid and remember, the MOCO woudln't lie to you. Oh wait....that might have been the government. :oops:
-
I did a little math on the Limited:
This is just the bike:
896 lbs / 68.63 HP = 13.06 lbs per HP
896 lbs / 84.51 lb ft TQ = 10.60 lbs per lb ft TQ
With a 200 lb rider, the numbers look like this:
1096 lbs / 68.63 HP = 15.97 lbs per HP
1096 lbs / 84.51 lb ft TQ = 12.97 lbs per lb ft TQ
With a 200 lb rider, a 160 lb passenger, and 40 lbs worth of gear, the numbers look like this:
1296 lbs / 68.63 HP = 18.88 lbs per HP
1296 lbs / 84.51 lb ft TQ = 15.34 lbs per lb ft TQ
Your performance may vary... but any way you slice it, that's gonna be a SLUG...
Ken
-
I hope that this bike comes back after they get some more miles on it, so we can do another set of dyno pulls. What I showed was the highest and lowest of the pulls we made. While I am not really impressed with what I saw, I still hold out a little hope that the numbers come up some after it gets more miles on it. Now, I'm not holding my breath but am willing to see what it does down the road. The problem is I cannot be assured they will bring it back by again. We will be running more of the new engines in the near future so we will see how they begin to fall in line a month or two down the road.
I'm guessing this pull was bone stock, nothing done at all. So, curious, what made more noise the exhaust or air cleaner?
That was the first thing I noticed when I rode my 05 home, I couldn't hear the exhaust and the air cleaner sounded like the old days of flipping the lid.
-
The dyno runs were bone stock bike in 5th gear. On our dyno that puts the new WC engine about the same as the 2011 - 2013 103 engine as far as HP and slightly higher in torque. Not enough of a difference to write home about and as a matter of fact I'm pretty sure most riders could not tell the difference. Being on th edyno the exhaust is always louder than the intake but on the road things change.
-
So actually with the high flow air and the new cam, the HD tax got a bit less (of course the bike price went up). Now you might just need a tuner rather than all 3.
-
I'm somewhat amazed and amused by all the "shocked" responses to the numbers. Where have you guys been for the past 20 years? This is just a continuation of the traditional Harley business model, where they charge you much more than the competition for a product that is much less than competitive, then they charge you a bunch more for upgrades and kits to possibly make the output competitive. It's been that way for as long as I can remember, and I can't imagine the money grubbing management of that corporation changing the business model as long as they can find so many victims customers willing to be used and abused.
Jerry
-
That's just embarrassingly lame for that many cubic inches. Have seen 118 commonly cited for crank rating on the 1800 wing with 96-98 personally seen on a couple of unmolested bikes on different dynos.
I juent back and looked at my Dyno Numbers for my 03 SERK SE103. Before I did anything at all to it.
TQ - 82.89
HP - 81.33
Boy, HD sure has come along way in 11 years.
Any normal person would have thought that HD could have improved those OEM numbers greatly in 11 years.
-
My 11 FLTRX 103 did 70.9 and 90.6 right before they delivered it to me. And to be frank, it ran pretty bad back then.
-
hmmm, not so impressive numbers ::)
-
This is why there is such positive comments from owners after a proper recalibration on even bone stock bikes.
Bob
-
I would like to get some new bikes on the dyno to double check this.
-
Those numbers sound right to me. I really doubt the exhaust has improved flow, so it's still choked down (A/C was never an issue, anyways). And that new cam? Most likely altered to fine tune EPA instead of power. The stock twin cam platform makes what it makes.
Honey Badger, remember the 60's? Those numbers were from blueprinted engines with no water pumps, fans, etc in engine stands. Sure... MOCO did the tests with good tunes etc, and then pull a Jamie and post up the BEST numbers from the flywheel, and not the average. Remember always that MOCO's numbers are bogus to the rest of us, because we all use chassis dynos and not engine dynos.
Thanks Steve.
-
A set of Andrews 54 cams, Air Cleaner, and Fullsac X pipe will put a smile on anyone's face..... :bananarock:
-
[ftp]<div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151527273026534&set=a.482035466533.264110.112355296533&type=1"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore">Post (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151527273026534&set=a.482035466533.264110.112355296533&type=1) by Fuel Moto (https://www.facebook.com/FuelMoto).</div></div>/ftp]
SOME RAW NUMBERS ON A STOCK 103
-
$27,000 bike
68 hp = 393 dollars per horsepower.
Using that scenario a new Shelby at 662 hp should cost $260,166.00.
I guess that means customers are getting a deal on the new Shelby or the shaft on the new Harley.
:nixweiss: :nixweiss: :nixweiss: :nixweiss:
SBB
Now that's Funny.......ok not really but still made me laugh
-
I really doubt the exhaust has improved flow, so it's still choked down (A/C was never an issue, anyways).
Thinking along these lines, why, at least on an older bike, does better breathing slip ons not require a SE download, but changing out the AC does?
-
Thinking along these lines, why, at least on an older bike, does better breathing slip ons not require a SE download, but changing out the AC does?
Because changing the A/C to a freer breathing one removes the intake restriction and lets more air into the engine. This changes the VEs.
A free flowing exhaust by itself can't change the VEs... It simply lets the exhaust gases out more easily.
Ken
-
It has been my findings that anytime you change air going in or exhaust going out VEs are changed from before. Long term and short term adaptive fuel will show you this.
-
It has been my findings that anytime you change air going in or exhaust going out VEs are changed from before. Long term and short term adaptive fuel will show you this.
Well, the VEs can change slightly if you are running cams with a good deal of overlap... but Harley stock cams had NO overlap until 2014... in fact they have -8 degrees overlap in which both the intake and exhaust valves are closed. Hard to see how an open exhaust can affect VEs much if at all in that scenario, given a still-restrictive intake.
The SE 255 cams have 13 degrees overlap, so yeah that can affect VEs a bit... but not nearly to the extent of opening up the intake. Can't improve VEs much if more air can't get in.
Ken
-
Dyno Pulls of ALL Stock with sample for AFR from exit of exhaust port.
-
Dyno Pulls of ALL Stock with sample for AFR from exit of exhaust port.
-
What is the range of warmed up head temps are you seeing with the twincooled bike?
-
Geez, you guys are funny. Your crunching numbers and talking "performance" while talking about a Harley Davidson? Limited? What?
I just bought a 2015 Peace Officer Limited, I have always been a Harley hater. The years of sticking to a naturally aspirated, air cooled engine? That to me has always been for lawn mowers. I have owned, Honda, Yamaha, KTM, Suzuki and now a Harley. I didn't buy it for performance. I still have my 2006 Suzuki M109R that will eat Harleys all day long, bone stock it cant be touched by any of the guys I short ride with. If I want performance or want to ride sport and short, that's what I will take.
My Limited is for 1 thing only, getting me, my girl and my gear 1000+ miles in comfort while still being on 2 wheels. If I want too, I can still even do that at over 100+ miles per hour. This is NOT a performance motorcycle, was never meant to be. Your conversation here is like someone on a Cadillac website scratching their heads at the their 1/4 mile numbers, and dumping tons of cash in their car trying to keep up with stock Corvettes. No logic at all. No one goes out to buy or build a performance mini van. Its more of a special use vehicle. Mine is a comfy, cushy cruiser with kick ass tunes, it knows how to get me where Im going, gets 42 MPG, keeps the lady happy and we even stay comfortable in rain, snow and cold. Its fantastic at a lot of things but if your looking for power to weight ratios that are great, you will be on a Suzuki. I love my 109 for getting out of my system what you guys are retro-ejaculating on this forum.
Love you guys anyway because in the end, Im a motorcycle enthusiast, not a die hard to any brand.
-
Geez, you guys are funny. Your crunching numbers and talking "performance" while talking about a Harley Davidson? Limited? What?
I just bought a 2015 Peace Officer Limited, I have always been a Harley hater. The years of sticking to a naturally aspirated, air cooled engine? That to me has always been for lawn mowers. I have owned, Honda, Yamaha, KTM, Suzuki and now a Harley. I didn't buy it for performance. I still have my 2006 Suzuki M109R that will eat Harleys all day long, bone stock it cant be touched by any of the guys I short ride with. If I want performance or want to ride sport and short, that's what I will take.
My Limited is for 1 thing only, getting me, my girl and my gear 1000+ miles in comfort while still being on 2 wheels. If I want too, I can still even do that at over 100+ miles per hour. This is NOT a performance motorcycle, was never meant to be. Your conversation here is like someone on a Cadillac website scratching their heads at the their 1/4 mile numbers, and dumping tons of cash in their car trying to keep up with stock Corvettes. No logic at all. No one goes out to buy or build a performance mini van. Its more of a special use vehicle. Mine is a comfy, cushy cruiser with kick ass tunes, it knows how to get me where Im going, gets 42 MPG, keeps the lady happy and we even stay comfortable in rain, snow and cold. Its fantastic at a lot of things but if your looking for power to weight ratios that are great, you will be on a Suzuki. I love my 109 for getting out of my system what you guys are retro-ejaculating on this forum.
Love you guys anyway because in the end, Im a motorcycle enthusiast, not a die hard to any brand.
Are you saying you do or don't care about your lawnmower's performance? :nixweiss: spyder
-
Are you saying you do or don't care about your lawnmower's performance? :nixweiss: spyder
That's funny right there! :huepfenlol2: :huepfenlol2:
-
That's funny right there! :huepfenlol2: :huepfenlol2:
X2 :huepfenlol2: :huepfenlol2: :huepfenlol2: :huepfenlol2: :huepfenlol2: :huepfenlol2:
SBB
-
X3
So instead of investing in a new Harley I am better off buying property in Ferguson?
-
X3
So instead of investing in a new Harley I am better off buying property in Ferguson?
Nope.
Sad part is reading through the 4 pages of hypocrites flipping there lips. If Harley's are so bad why have you guys bought them multiple times? Hmmmm?
-
Harley owners don't want to increase their performance to compete against Suzukis...they want to compete against other Harleys and for bragging rights with their buddies. Your Cadillac analogy is incorrect.
-
Harley owners don't want to increase their performance to compete against Suzukis...they want to compete against other Harleys and for bragging rights with their buddies. Your Cadillac analogy is incorrect.
Wrong answer!