Print

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

[wnogood]

I have a 2006 Se ultra, 103, rk3909 breather and last year installed 48n cams with the hydraulic tensioner cam plate, d&d 2-1, tuned with a sert. Dyno said 89hp/98tq. I've owned a 95 inch motor that dyno d 105/107 and this 103 feels stronger. I'm wondering if I should let a different shop retune it or is something amiss inside the engine? Any thoughts?

Thanks......

[sadunbar]

I have a 2006 Se ultra, 103, rk3909 breather and last year installed 48n cams with the hydraulic tensioner cam plate, d&d 2-1, tuned with a sert. Dyno said 89hp/98tq. I've owned a 95 inch motor that dyno d 105/107 and this 103 feels stronger. I'm wondering if I should let a different shop retune it or is something amiss inside the engine? Any thoughts?

Thanks......

I'm not familiar with your cams, but with your results, I'd be tempted to have it dynoed by a reputable tuner before going into the motor...   

[Sklywag]

My 06 SE made 94/101 stock with just SE Slipon Mufflers and an SE air cleaner.  It now make 104/114 with Yuill Bros YB13 Cams and Yuill Bros EliteD Mufflers.  Your numbers are very low.

[Ohio HD]

I've seen a lot of dyno charts with the 48 cams. You're not that far from the mark, more like the average. The best that I've seen was in the neighborhood of 95 or 96 HP, and 105 or 108 torque. Those cams are not top end performers, they're for low and mid range increases. Your 95 probably had more compression, I assume custom head work, and probably cams similar to Andrews 37's. If you want more mid and top end, look into the Andrews 57's or 54's for that 103.

I bet the bike feels great to ride, and that's what's important.

[grc]

I've seen a lot of dyno charts with the 48 cams. You're not that far from the mark, more like the average. The best that I've seen was in the neighborhood of 95 or 96 HP, and 105 or 108 torque. Those cams are not top end performers, they're for low and mid range increases. Your 95 probably had more compression, I assume custom head work, and probably cams similar to Andrews 37's. If you want more mid and top end, look into the Andrews 57's or 54's for that 103.

I bet the bike feels great to ride, and that's what's important.

 

I think many people get all caught up in the peak numbers while comparing apples to oranges, setting themselves up for disappointment.  Peak numbers are just one small part of the equation.

Wnogood, next time (if there is a next time) have the same dyno operator do a set of before runs to give you a baseline chart, then perform the mods and check the after results.  If you have a chart from this most recent "tune", post it so people on the site can look at it for you and help you determine if perhaps you need a better tune.  Just throwing out peak hp and torque numbers doesn't tell us enough to be able to give you meaningful answers.

Jerry

[wnogood]

 I guess I'm more concerned if those numbers indicate a problem or potential problem. The cams did what Andrews said they would, max tq at low rpm. My tq peaks at 2200 and stays flat past 4500. A/f is good. I wonder what iI can do from here, and retain those cams for more grunt?

[HD Street Performance]

The 103 CVO had a strange stock cam and although they don't make too much grunt down low they do hp OK for a stock motorcycle with only stage 1 changes.

Add the right cam and they open up with about the same hp and more and a higher wider torque curve, accomplished by an earlier intake lobe center line and closer lobe separation angle and an earlier intake close. I would not expect the 48 to produce more hp than the stock cam did, but I would expect a lot happier feel just running through the gears and rolling on in the mid range. Other cams specifically ground for this low compression motor will work better. Strictly your call if you want to make a change. Personally I would have put an Andrews 57 (if constrained to Andrews brand) in it but that is just me and my goals are different that others.

[wnogood]

I'm not the least bit concerned about hp, but I'd like to be around 110tq. And preferably down low in the rpms. Any recommendations?

[Doc 1]

I'm not the least bit concerned about hp, but I'd like to be around 110tq. And preferably down low in the rpms. Any recommendations?

Every 48 cam I installed/tuned was over 110 tq......maybe your guy did a 4th gear pull for the final run.
Doc

[dartman]

I have a 2006 Se ultra, 103, rk3909 breather and last year installed 48n cams with the hydraulic tensioner cam plate, d&d 2-1, tuned with a sert. Dyno said 89hp/98tq. I've owned a 95 inch motor that dyno d 105/107 and this 103 feels stronger. I'm wondering if I should let a different shop retune it or is something amiss inside the engine? Any thoughts?

Thanks......

If it was somebody elses bike and you rode it without seeing the numbers, Ill bet you would think it was wonderful, I quit the numbers game a long time ago, if it feels good I would run it. your torque curve sounds great.

[wnogood]

Honestly, it does feel good. It gets a bit winded over 4500 rpm, but down low, where I spend most of my time riding, it's strong. The dyno guy seemed unconcerned that I told him the numbers had to be wrong, and had a general 'it is what it is' attitude. I spent over 1,200 dollars, dyno included, and gained a better cam plate and 5 more ft lbs of torque, and moved my tq curve down about 1,000 rpm. Somehow I thought my results would be more impressive. I don't know what gear he did the final pull in, and quite frankly, I doubt he understands that there would be a difference. I guess if I can find an extra 3 bills laying around, I might let a different tuner check it out. Thanks for the info and advice.....

[wnogood]

And just one more idle thought, I rode my bike the day before I changed cams, (knowing the numbers were 92/93) the next day after the cam swap, I rode it again, without a retune, and thought to myself, 'wow, what a difference!'  I don't think my seat of the pants dyno could detect 5 ft lbs, so in light of that, I'm thinking this guy's dyno is off, or the pull was done in 4th gear....

[Ohio HD]

A lot of guys that have been to dyno school will run the bike in fourth gear dynojet teaches that. As well, they don't want liability of your rear wheel going 160 MPH. You should ask him if it was 4th gear. But if I were at 93 torque already, I would have opted for the Andrews 57's, or 54's with a slight compression bump. That you would feel, and see. 48's will work well in standard 103's and of course smaller, that's what they were intended for.

[wnogood]

A lot of guys that have been to dyno school will run the bike in fourth gear dynojet teaches that. As well, they don't want liability of your rear wheel going 160 MPH. You should ask him if it was 4th gear. But if I were at 93 torque already, I would have opted for the Andrews 57's, or 54's with a slight compression bump. That you would feel, and see. 48's will work well in standard 103's and of course smaller, that's what they were intended for.

The key words in your reply 'compression bump' I've pretty much convinced myself that if the time comes to break the cylinders down and pull the heads, I'm going to go 107" and put my heads in a professionals hands to massage and do it right. My bike has over 40k of hard miles and is using a little oil, so that time may be sooner than later......

[sloride]

IMO...if it makes you smile when you roll on that throttle...then your smile dyno is more important than a #'s graph

Ride it like you stole it...jus sayin