Print

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

[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.