Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cvosjoe]

Does anyone know what has changed to increase the TQ spec on the 2012 FLTRXSE 110 motors. The new specs say 122 not the 115 of previous years 110 motors.

[HDCrazy]

Where did you see this spec?
I just checked HD website still says 115lbs tq

[cvosjoe]

I have the CVO booklet that has all the new bikes listed and it states the TQ as 122.

[grc]

Does anyone know what has changed to increase the TQ spec on the 2012 FLTRXSE 110 motors. The new specs say 122 not the 115 of previous years 110 motors.

Only change I can see is to the air cleaner, and I kind of doubt that the HB is worth an additional 7 ft-lb over the Ventilator.  Maybe if you compare to the old style plastic airbox type of aircleaner? 

As noted by HD Crazy, the spec page on the web site for the 2012 FLTRXSE still shows torque at 115 ft-lb.  Obviously the web page person and the brochure person didn't compare notes.


Jerry

[GregKhougaz]

Also remember these numbers are "at the crank."  Actual / real number is far less.      

[HDCrazy]

I Found it in the brochure. It does make sense though... They commented in the review at Molorcycle USA the Road Glide felt faster, more responsive

[FLSTFI Dave]

I did not notice that in my CVO book.  I just looked after reading this and it does say 122 torque.

So if that is correct, what was done to change it.

I know in 09, there were different torque specs for different CVO motors depending on the bike.

Does this mean the 12 will out accelerate the 09?

[Beemer]

I believe they've also changed the compensator again as well. 

Also, someone on here who test rode one said it sounded louder than a stock CVO...that may mean an exhaust change.  That coupled with intake and a tweaked map might be the reason. 

Then again, don't believe everything you read in those pamphlets.  They stated the 09SERG seat was all leather with buffalo hide inserts...NOT!

[cvosjoe]

I Found it in the brochure. It does make sense though... They commented in the review at Molorcycle USA the Road Glide felt faster, more responsive

This is from the CVO book.



It also has the SG CVO with a TQ of 118. Still be nice to know what they changed.

[Fired00d]

I believe they've also changed the compensator again as well. 

Also, someone on here who test rode one said it sounded louder than a stock CVO...that may mean an exhaust change.  That coupled with intake and a tweaked map might be the reason. 

Then again, don't believe everything you read in those pamphlets.  They stated the 09SERG seat was all leather with buffalo hide inserts...NOT!

Exactly (or on the internet )... more then likely one is a "typo". 

 
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 

[Dr.D]

Yeh I've got the same book and saw the same stuff. If all have the same motors then power production should be the same. As was posted, at the crank, maybe? I had to put quite a bit of work and $ in mine to get 120tq at the wheel.

BS. BIG TIME. I'll go for slips right now my little bike against the 122 ft/lbs.

[Fired00d]

There is even conflicting information on the MoCo website.

CVO RG Custom Spec Sheet (under motorcycles)...

 
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 

[Fired00d]

From MoCo website under News Releases...

 
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 

[FLSTFI Dave]

I too noticed the web site spec had a higher RPM, 4000 and a lower peak torque. 

I am aware either of these are at the crank, but which is the correct one?

[Beemer]

Also, is it 122 SAE or STD? 

...makes a difference.

My 09SERG makes 92.85 hp & 112.55 tq SAE or 95.08 hp & 115.25 tq STD.  I'm running the heavy breather, catless header, SSERT and AMSOIL...plus the bike is well broke-in with 20K miles.

We here on this forum have explored many options for tweaking the hp/tq and I'd say my numbers are "average" or slightly above.  122 tq is wandering into cam change territory. 
 

[Dr.D]

Also, is it 122 SAE or STD? 

...makes a difference.

My 09SERG makes 92.85 hp & 112.55 tq SAE or 95.08 hp & 115.25 tq STD.  I'm running the heavy breather, catless header, SSERT and AMSOIL...plus the bike is well broke-in with 20K miles.

We here on this forum have explored many options for tweaking the hp/tq and I'd say my numbers are "average" or slightly above.  122 tq is wandering into cam change territory. 
 

Cam change and compression increase to get those numbers at the rear wheel.

[grc]

Apples versus oranges.  Harley's numbers are at the crankshaft, and on the '07 and later designs those numbers are about 18-20% higher than what you will get at the rear wheel due to the rather inefficient primary and final drive system.  Thus the 115 claimed ft-lbs of the CVO110's translated to approximately 95 ft-lbs at the rear wheel.  If you assume the same efficiency ratio with the latest claim of 122 ft-lbs at the crank, you'd be looking at approximately 101 ft-lbs at the rear wheel.  Not exactly major mod territory.

I wouldn't put much credence in that latest number btw.  If you look at the numbers they've been claiming on the CVO110 bikes for several years now, they made no differentiation between the Ultra models with the old full airbox type air cleaner and the SG / RG / RK models with a real high flow air cleaner.  In other words, the numbers they list aren't terribly accurate, and they in fact have a footnote stating that the numbers will vary.

If you look at the current spec pages on the H-D web site today for the 2012 CUSE, you will see that the torque figures for that bike are listed at 0 ft-lbs @ 0 rpm.  While that is an accurate number, it's not what should be listed on the spec page.  So much for attention to detail on the spec sheets and brochures.


Jerry

[Beemer]

Jerry,

I see what you mean with my using my rear wheel dyno numbers of 92.85 hp & 112.55 tq.   My starting numbers were 80.36 hp & 96.08 tq at the rear wheel.

If you figure in about 20 ft lbs loss in the drivetrain, my bike would now be making 132 tq at the crank/flywheel...right?  My meager mods produced around 17 ft lbs in tq.

My 09 was stated to have 115 tq @ 4000 rpm in the literature of the day and that was also measured at the crank.  This still begs the question of where they came up with the increase of 7 ft lbs.  Several with/without comparisons of the heavy breather have been made (Steve @ Fullsac?) on the dyno and there was only around 2 ft lbs increase noted with the HB.

[motor1]

NOT trying to Jack this thread but if you are looking at HD brochure info check out weight as shipped and wet weights, they make no sense. Check weights of Touring bikes vs CVO Touring bikes.