Print

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

[dave brode]

Hello All,

Thanks for letting me join.

I have a old '02 FLHT that has a fairly warm 95", but it's been 10+ years for it, and I'm thinking of going to a bigger combination. I'm trying to get up to speed [pun intended] on the CVO110 head, and other heads that appear to me to be similar. Please forgive me for my ignorance, as I haven't been paying close attention to what late and great until a few weeks ago.


** I see take off CVO110 heads that have 17248-07 casting number, and others that are 17248-07A. I assume that the "A" suffix means it is a later revision? Rears that I've seen are all 17250-07. Are there any other versions that were oem installed on 110s?

There is a thread here in which a vendor claims that the earlier CVO 110 heads had a correct throat diameter. And, the later ones have a raised 45* seat [like at least the first batch of the early bathtub twin cam SE heads]. Do the earliest heads with the correct seat inserts have yet another casting, or were they the "-07" just with proper seats i.d.?

*** Are the "MVA heads the same casting as CVO110 heads, just fluffed up?
      In the 2018 performance book, I see references to "ACR" heads. Are they another similar head with automatic compression releases? 

Thanks to anyone that'll give comment.
Dave Brode
p.s. - I know that the CVO 110 need a big engine under them....

[prodrag1320]

we use a lot of 110 heads on our 107 to 124 builds.after guide replacement,they are very nice foundations for any given build.remember the combustion chamber are bigger than other OEM HD castings and need to be addressed with special domed pistons for smaller motors (which we keep in stock).feel free to call if you've got any other questions for your exact build

[HD Street Performance]

The 110+ heads were a different casting number and smaller csa. I am not sure they are avaluable any more. They are used to make the cnc mva head. The stock 110 casting came from one of two foundries. Either are fine, the later the better. Less core shift. When buying them I stick to 242 t5 alloy, they are marked. Dave I know you from htt many years ago and we have similar interests. Feel free to call me and I will help you. I realize you are a do it yourself guy but I am ok with that.

[dave brode]

Thanks, Gents!

I'll call you both asap. I wondered if anyone here was on the old HTT board.

The '07/08 touring recallheads seem to be plentiful out there. Fwiw, here is a thread in which a fellow describes how to identify them.  Post #22. 

http://www.v-twinforum.com/forums/twin-cam-engine/162572-110-heads-need-help-2.html

Is the T242 T5 identifying markings cast in, or stamped?

Thanks again.
Dave

[HD Street Performance]

By the foundry logo

[dave brode]

Found a pic.

Fwiw, those had a 17248-07, rather than -07A.


Thanks.

[HD Street Performance]

Those early heads usually have some cutback under the intake  seat. The throat at 91.5% doesn't leave any fixing room. I pull the seats and replace then and weld below. Going to a 2.12 valve doesn't solve the issue. Most guys don't care and just run them or blend them back.

[dave brode]

Interesting. Thanks.

How do the fluffed up CVO 110 heads compare to the out of the box MVA heads?

How 'bout those oval ports from SE?

What's a 44mm cv carb'd guy to do on the CVO intake port size? Hack an efi intake? S&S custom? [I know that a 44 is a choke on a biggie]

edit: I see that there is a CV51 intake that matches.

Btw, a buddy has an '11 CVO. I'll tell him about the board.

[MCE]

You can get a big honkin Mikuni. (I'm a Mik dealer if you want one)

[prodrag1320]

Interesting. Thanks.

How do the fluffed up CVO 110 heads compare to the out of the box MVA heads?

How 'bout those oval ports from SE?

What's a 44mm cv carb'd guy to do on the CVO intake port size? Hack an efi intake? S&S custom? [I know that a 44 is a choke on a biggie]

edit: I see that there is a CV51 intake that matches.

Btw, a buddy has an '11 CVO. I'll tell him about the board.

S&S has manifolds for big mikuni`s & CV cabs

[HD Street Performance]

Dave
It's a 95" motor. With very little change the stock 110 head works and the carb requirement shouldn't be huge. Please tell us what kind of power and torque you were trying to get to.

[MCE]

A 45 Mikuni is plenty big, even for a very hot 95, and a 42 would be enough for an everyday performance street build.

You don't size a carb like you do a throttle body (its apples and oranges). You're generally better off to error on the smaller side
with carbs (42 in this case), because you have to maintain the air velocity through the venturi in order for it to work. FI doesn't care
what the velocity is through the TB.

if you want to preserve low & mid TQ/throttle response, use a 42. If you're after peak HP, go with a 48 or split the difference with
a 45.

But keep in mind, it's a trade off between throttle response/low end TQ and peak HP. (Throttle response and TQ are the way to go
on a street bike) Drag strip? Different story... Hope that helps. -MC

[dave brode]

Gents,

I'm thinking about a 106" or bigger. No way I'd want to do CVO110 heads on a heavy bike with a 95". I don't really want to go over 4.030", maybe 4.060". I shy away from the 4.125". [had one]. 

Cheapest deal would be the "SE" stock type tapered rod 4.375" crank [$660 or less at discount] for the '99-'06 A engines and 1.082" tall 103 pistons, but that crank scares me.

A JIMs 4.5" flywheel with 7.600" rods [.067" shorter, iirc] works nicely with a 103 piston. Bolt in, although piston to piston should be checked.
Would work with +.030" or + .060/.065" 103 pistons just the same. 

I'm looking at other possibilities too;

A drop in [into a 103] SE 4" cylinder/piston deal would work with a stock rod length 4.375" crank or a Jims 4.5" with 7.600". Not nuts about the thin spigot on those either.

"Bore the cases" 4" cylinders of some sort. I haven't looks far into pistons for that option.

The 4.060" "bigger bore" cylinders from SE look like a deal, longer spigot, safe for the 4.625" SE crank [same as 120R, but for '99-'06A] . I understand that it has 7.575" rods, which work with the common 1.049"/1.050" tall, 4.060"/4.065/4.070" pistons. Fairly easy and not too pricey 120".


The bike has a Bob Wood 44mm cv, and a small primary Fatcat. So, no sense in trying to make a killer combo, since they would be a choke. I have conversion '07 up SE251s in the 95". They would be smallish for a big engine, but a lower rpm tractor would not bother me. I'd be willing to change cams, but I don't really want to change exhaust or carb.


HD street, thanks for the cutback under the seat info on -07s.

Dave
 

[dave brode]

Anyone care to comment on the SE MVA heads? They are in the 2018 catalog. 16925-11

On par with fluffed up 2.125" valved CVO110 heads?

Are they basically a stock 120R head?

Dave

[MCE]

Thanks, Gents!

I'll call you both asap. I wondered if anyone here was on the old HTT board.

The '07/08 touring recallheads seem to be plentiful out there. Fwiw, here is a thread in which a fellow describes how to identify them.  Post #22. 

http://www.v-twinforum.com/forums/twin-cam-engine/162572-110-heads-need-help-2.html

Is the T242 T5 identifying markings cast in, or stamped?

Thanks again.
Dave

Dave,
Welcome to the site.
 
I think you'll like this place.

The nazi gastepo and fake Internet experts are not here. You'll get straight answers w/o
the smart ass BS from the 'broom handlers' that hang out in engine shops to get their
"expertise" (The guys with actual experience are all here).

So ask away! Somebody here will be able to help you.

Cheers,
-Matt



-Matt
 

[HD Street Performance]

Anyone care to comment on the SE MVA heads? They are in the 2018 catalog. 16925-11

On par with fluffed up 2.125" valved CVO110 heads?

Are they basically a stock 120R head?

Dave

They are the 110+ head cnc ported. I would not go there at 95"
Too big plus now you have a 55% intake ratio. Even though it's a hemi you can do better with stock castings or cvo 110 heads stock 2.08 1.625 valve heads. You aren't going to spin up to 7k I assume.

[dave brode]

HD Street,

Thanks for the info on the MVA heads.

I'm not looking do re-do the 95". Please see my 4:12 post.

I did say bigger combination ion my first post, but I should have said 106-120"

Dave

[MCE]

HD Street,

Thanks for the info on the MVA heads.

I'm not looking do re-do the 95". Please see my 4:12 post.

I did say bigger combination ion my first post, but I should have said 106-120"

Dave

The stock 103 style head (ported) will support 110ci and more easily. You really shouldn't need
those huge heads until you cross the 120+ci mark.

I've gotten 130/130 on 110s using 103 castings at 10.4:1 and under .600 lift (.585).

[HD Street Performance]

I agree with Matt and the oem head is a better move up to about 110". Beyond that personally I like a 3/8 stroke 117. I have actually known guys to destroke a 120r. Cam choice can dial in heads that may be a bit big but I am never a fan of under performing heads and trying to crutch them with a bigger cam. Tell us more about how you will use this bike and what are your goals. Thanks

[dave brode]

Hello Gents,

It's been 10+ years since I've kept up to what's happening. l show how ignorant I am: I assumed that factory 103 bikes, even the SE bikes had the -06 bathtub chamber. I thought that the only slanted quench heads were over the counter. I also didn't realize that there is a newer bathtub head. I studied a bit last night, but I have much catching up to do. 

Geez, I'll guess at mild to wild;
-99-04
'05
-06
'07 up asymmetrical bathtub heads with ACR holes. [are these superior to -06 heads? - I read that they'll only take a 1.900" with stock seat insert.
Slanted quench SE 103 bike heads.
Old bathtub 1.900" SE heads
110 CVO heads
110+ heads? [teach me]
MVA heads
oval ports

The slanted quench HTTC go in there somewhere, but I know very little about those, or how many versions there are/were.

MCE: you mean slanted quench SE103 bike heads?

Before I ask a bunch [more] stupid questions, I'll study.

As far as the bike's use: Ride the wife, but I often get with it a little. Unless another bike is involved, I usually short shift a bit at 5800. It'll pull a little past 6200, but it's not gaining much past 6000 there. I know that dynos can lie, but the bike made 118/114 in 5th with 3.15-1 final on a dyno that is supposed to be realistic. Iirc, 4th was 8 or 10% or so less - been a while] The fatcat exhaust and the SE251 cam timing must get along, as there is very little rich dip, and the torque curve looks the same on both ends, and is nice and flat for 3000 rpm.
[ported -06 heads, 1.900-" valve, stock '06 intake flange i.d. - 10.3-1 CR]

I assume that a bigger engine with the little fatcat [1.625"/1.875"] and the 44mm cv will choke a big engine to somewhere in the 5,XXX rpm range. That's ok with me.

I hope that this thread can be of use to someone else in the future. 
Dave

[HD Street Performance]

Well you have all the heads straight. The 110+, 17071-08A pt #, was short lived as it competed with the OEM 110 head they sold 17166-08 pt #. They did however use that 110+casting, smaller CSA, to CNC and create the MVA head. It has 2.12 intake 1.625 exhaust valves. The MVA heads are not horrible and flow about 315 on my bench. They are bigger than a head I port that has the same valves and flows 330 cfm. The 103 SE CVO head has the same ports as the old (evo) and newer SE performance head and a 98cc open hemi chamber. The 103+ and HTCC (same casting was available in standard and CNC ported) heads have a segmented open chamber. The late model dry head 103 OEM casting with ACRs is the same as the 06 castings you are familiar with. Gone are the Mercury castings thank god. Last but not least the hurricane heads. These are very big. With the right intake hardware attached they flow right at 370 on my bench. Problem is when compared to similar heads like the S&S B2 their exhaust side shape and geometry sucks. Plus it is debatable if that large of CSA can really help a 120" street motor. With a pile of cash I can fix the exhaust side but why? 

All of the heads have potential. Harley gives us a half done (thus HD  ) platform and we need to get he CSA, geometry and valve sizes right. Airflow matches the demand. We can open the barn door too large. They aren't going to rev to 7500 in street trim and to a certain degree too large can be compensated with a shorter cam but it is better to get the sizing closer. The result is a motor that tunes easier and runs at low speeds with less reversion, makes more torque, and requires less compression. Higher VE and lower BSFC. With some of the heads it costs less than others to get from A to B. This is part of what has made the 110 CVO head so popular. An example of one of the heads that is rarely chosen, the 103+ segmented hemi head ported 330 cfm, 17072-03B pt #, on a 126 cu/in motor (custom pistons) recently completed by one of the better builder/tuners made 147hp 150tq and was on right at 2000 rpm. Those heads took more work than the CVO 110 head despite the similar port geometry. I fit those with ACRs too.

First the horsepower level should be chosen. You are no newbe and know that about 1.1hp/cu in is readily achievable and still in a touring street friendly configuration. Without having a cubic inch size chosen it becomes difficult to choose what the motor needs to feed it.

Guys have gone bigger but in my opinion stock cases, stock bolt pattern, practical limits are ~4.165 bore 4.625 stroke. For the benefit of others, If you want bigger then use S&S cases and an S&S bolt pattern with their heads.

[MCE]

Hello Gents,
.... (edited for space MCE)

MCE: you mean slanted quench SE103 bike heads?

No. Standard 103 (flat squish) heads. We're getting between 126 and 130 squared on 110 drop on
kits (S&S cylinders), using 1.95/1.610 valves. The variations are due to the pipe selection. A D&D
Borezilla nets better numbers than the duals.

Correct and uniform airspeeds throughout the runner are what I look for. CFM numbers are not at the
top of my list. I explain why that is on my website, If you're interested, you can check that out. 

Short version: Air speed trumps CFM.

[HD Street Performance]

Specific air speed targets is what I look at (calculated and measured) in the intake tract.

Agreed and I do the same but a 124" VS a 110" is going to have very different requirements based on the calculation.
That was spelled out with my reference to CSA, cu/in, and opening the barn door too far. Air flow gets more and more but gets slower and slower. A soggy sloggy mess. So the one size fits all theory goes out the door and the need to size these heads right and start with an appropriate casting that is practically usable become important

[MCE]

Of course it will (be different). a 124 is not a 110

[dave brode]

Gentleman,

This is very good info, thank you both. I feel better when a thread that I started turns out to be good reference. I'm more of a smaller head, a little bigger cam sort of a guy. I'm a car guy, but I've seem many slugs with too big a head.

I don't have any desire to go to a 4..125" bore. I'm not sure what is available for gaskets, but back in '03 ish, cometic chopped a 4" out and took half of the pressed bead. Their answer was, it costs too much to make the dies. My 11.7-1 118" [.99 FXDL] never lost a gasket, but even with a better gasket, I just don't want to go there. The axtell cylinders always had shadows.....


Many claim that 3.9375" is safe on '88 cylinders and +.060" is safe on CVO110s. I'm more conservative these days [aged 60], and a 3.905" on an '88 cyl and 4.030" on a CVO 110 seems logical. I've read that the 4" drop on HD cylinders for the 88-103 cases are too thin. "Bigger bore" 4.060" for the 110s? The longer spigot on those is nice.

On stroke, the non welded tapered rod 4.375" HD crank scares me. Where does it become a risk? Here it is for the '99-'05 A cases. http://www.boardtrackerharleyonline.com/harley-davidson/screamin-eagle-pro-stroker-flywheel-and-rod-assembly-4-3-8-23728-07a

On the cheap = the $650 ish tapered rod 4.375" crank and either stock 88-103 cylinders. 3.905" for 105", or .030" over stock 110 cylinders for 112"? Bigger bore cyls for 113"? They seem like a good buy to me.

I suppose a fellow could sneak by with a 4.5" on an oem cylinder. Easy 106-108". However, one can buy a SE 4.625" [Jim's?] cheaper than I can find a "from JIM"s 4.5". With the longer spigot bigger bore cylinders, easy 120". *****That APPEALS the most, although I know many don't like a so undersquare deal.

This will not happen until winter, so I'm in the research mode. I can't pick a horse number. I know that the borezilla would suit much better. I don't want to replace the fatcat. I'd really like to uses the SE251s, although following Vizard's studies, the cam 107.5 LSA +3.5*] will not be close to the same in a bigger engine, which needs a tighter LSA.

I was looking at Andrews 55Ns with 1.75-1 rockers [248/252, .592" with 1.75-1, 104* LSA+2. I had Dan Baisley's rockers on the 117"....

I wish Bob Wood made a TW9 in conversion cams [.580- .590"]. I don't want to go over .600". Although, his 408-44R might do ok with 1.75-1s. [248/248*, .570" with 1.75-1s, 101 LSA+1]

I'd really like to uses the SE251s, although following Vizard's studies, the cam will not be close to the same in a bigger engine, which needs a tighter LSA.


Perhaps someone more learned here will know the limits of the fatcat and the 44CV.

Veering off, I had a borezilla on the 117 FXDL, it liked the TW9Bs -131/15X in 3.15-1 5th on John Goldens dyno] Not so with a Propipe [118h, 151, huge rich dip]. 2" KW tapered muffler duals worked very well too 131/147, 133/144 with 1" cut off and high flow baffles, fat fat curve]. 150 dyno pulls for exhaust!] Veering more, severe fuel stand off with the std KW duals at 5700. Cut 1" off, high flow baffles, no stand off whatsoever to 6700 [peaked at 6000]

The head choices still have me head spinnig, although this really helped me out. Thank you again. Sorry that I wote gone with the wind.

Dave



 

[HD Street Performance]

Ok you are closer. The stock late model crank needs to be used in 07up bikes. The over the counter early model replacement crank is junk , .006" run out typical and weak big ends, and when reworked is better but not great. Spend the 1100 and get a S&S 3/8 crank. The use of kb forged pistons will work great at the sizes like 112, 113 you mentioned. S&S cylinders have closed the gap and issues you mentioned at 4.125 are no longer. 106 and 116 are gone with 4.5 stroke. Guys go right to 4.625. The S&S cylinders have a longer spigot so the piston doesn't peek out past gauge line. The reason I like 117 is because it works and doesn't break the bank. And again kb pistons are right there with options. There is nothing wrong with your cam at 117". It will be there from idle to 6k. Use a 1.7 rocker, non roller on both sides. Even an oem head reworked like our pro streets are capable at 117" with that cam. If compression is 11:1 a Woods 9b is ideal, also Mackie 598. Lsa needs to be decided based on the head flow potential. Some of the close lsa stuff can number on a sheet but are snotty on the street. That 251 is unique and will be very civil. I have plenty of 110 cvo castings and personaly would use the oem head up to 113". Larger the CVO 110 head becomes a better choice.

[MCE]

Ok you are closer. The stock late model crank needs to be used in 07up bikes. The over the counter early model replacement crank is junk , .006" run out typical and weak big ends, and when reworked is better but not great. Spend the 1100 and get a S&S 3/8 crank. The use of kb forged pistons will work great at the sizes like 112, 113 you mentioned. S&S cylinders have closed the gap and issues you mentioned at 4.125 are no longer. 106 and 116 are gone with 4.5 stroke. Guys go right to 4.625. The S&S cylinders have a longer spigot so the piston doesn't peek out past gauge line. The reason I like 117 is because it works and doesn't break the bank. And again kb pistons are right there with options. There is nothing wrong with your cam at 117". It will be there from idle to 6k. Use a 1.7 rocker, non roller on both sides. Even an oem head reworked like our pro streets are capable at 117" with that cam. If compression is 11:1 a Woods 9b is ideal, also Mackie 598. Lsa needs to be decided based on the head flow potential. Some of the close lsa stuff can number on a sheet but are snotty on the street. That 251 is unique and will be very civil. I have plenty of 110 cvo castings and personaly would use the oem head up to 113". Larger the CVO 110 head becomes a better choice.

That pretty much nails it.

[MCE]

Back in the old days (late 80s/early 90s) I was doing big block Chevy and Fords for the boat guys.
I Used a fair amount of KB pistons in some of the low buck motors.

I don't know what changed (if anything) but they seem like they're better than they used to be. ??

[dave brode]

Thank you. I should have paid attention to the slant quench stuff years ago. I just never liked them [but what do I know?]

On the slanted quench heads, I assume that we have two styles. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The  16966-03 16960-03 heads are from the factory SE103s and are the open hemi chamber. Better choice for milder engine.
The segmented 103+ / HTTC [ported or non ported] were over the counter.

Same or different valve sizes? In either case, will either take a larger intake on the original seat insert? Chamber volume similar?

Does the non ported SE103 hemi in near stock form have huge potential compared to bathtub 88-103/bathtub SE heads? I assume that is so, and they would be better for a heavy street bike compared to the CVO110 head or the 103+/HTTC.

The piston choices for slanted quench seems to be somewhat limited. Fwiw, I like a 4032 alloy. I would assume that pistons for the 103 heads still sold by HD [103 only, I assume]. I see that Axtell has slanted quench for 110s. Probably 2618.

On cranks, if someone know a vendor that'll discount some on JIMs or S&S, please send me a message.
Dave

p.s. - imo, the KB hypers got a bad rap due to guys not adhering to the top ring gap specs. Other than a few that came apart due to the notch being too close to the ring groove, imo, they were/are fine]. They have moved toward forging now, it seems. 

[HD Street Performance]

Thank you. I should have paid attention to the slant quench stuff years ago. I just never liked them [but what do I know?]
Not a huge fan of the way we used to do these builds with emphasis on the quench band being tight to the chamber. Doing this locked a lot of versatility as far as compression changes, forced custom pistons most of the time, and you ended up with a piston with a high CG.

On the slanted quench heads, I assume that we have two styles. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The  16966-03 16960-03 heads are from the factory SE103s and are the open hemi chamber. Better choice for milder engine.
The segmented 103+ / HTTC [ported or non ported] were over the counter.
True, the first 1.9 x 1.625 the others 2.08 x 1.625 or 2 x 1.625, the latter have different valve angles to accommodate the larger valves

Same or different valve sizes? In either case, will either take a larger intake on the original seat insert? Chamber volume similar?  Different valves on all of them.


Does the non ported SE103 hemi in near stock form have huge potential compared to bathtub 88-103/bathtub SE heads? I assume that is so, and they would be better for a heavy street bike compared to the CVO110 head or the 103+/HTTC.
Kind of the wrong method Dave. Consider what is needed to feed the size motor you choose and which is available at a certain cost and how much is needed to get them to breath and last. Every HD head needs work, how much to get it in prepared condition plus the acquisition cost. Remember the SE103 head has the port originally developed for an 80" motor then it morphed into an 88-95" with the SE performance head. They are small for a 120" motor let's say and can't take much larger valves without a lot of work.

The piston choices for slanted quench seems to be somewhat limited. Fwiw, I like a 4032 alloy. I would assume that pistons for the 103 heads still sold by HD [103 only, I assume]. I see that Axtell has slanted quench for 110s. Probably 2618.
And along the path I learned that a bathtub head piston works fine in either the hemi or segmented hemi head with a little milling. The KB forged pistons are 4032

On cranks, if someone know a vendor that'll discount some on JIMs or S&S, please send me a message. Sent
Dave

p.s. - imo, the KB hypers got a bad rap due to guys not adhering to the top ring gap specs. Other than a few that came apart due to the notch being too close to the ring groove, imo, they were/are fine]. They have moved toward forging now, it seems.

Used a lot of hypers never with issues but the forged are better. They have a few nice features like a slight oversize  .001 so new cylinders can be custom honed to fit plus the deck heights which used to be sloppy are tightened up

[dave brode]

Good stuff, thanks.

One more aspect;

Port inlet diameter. Aside from oval ports, are CVO110s the biggest? Any others same?

I assume CVO103s are same size as -06 bathtub.

Fwiw, I used a .100" bigger [S&S size back then] intake slotted the flange holes and raised the roof on my old 1st generation bathtub SE heads. Baisley 2.100" blanks cut to 2.02", shrunk the exhausts to 1.600? Had to sink valves for V-V, so it wasn't hard. [right or wrong]

Dave

[MCE]

Good stuff, thanks.

One more aspect;

Port inlet diameter. Aside from oval ports, are CVO110s the biggest? Any others same?

I assume CVO103s are same size as -06 bathtub.

Fwiw, I used a .100" bigger [S&S size back then] intake slotted the flange holes and raised the roof on my old 1st generation bathtub SE heads. Baisley 2.100" blanks cut to 2.02", shrunk the exhausts to 1.600? Had to sink valves for V-V, so it wasn't hard. [right or wrong]

Dave

Interesting point you bring up Dave! I was going to talk to this very issue. (The size of intake opening):

The size of that intake port opening on the stock type heads becomes a limiting factor at some point. For
big inch 120+/high rpm applications, it becomes a choke point (bottle neck).

There are ways to mitigate the symptoms but there's only so much you can do before you need to go to a
larger runner/port opening.


 

[MCE]

Interesting point you bring up Dave! I was going to talk to this very issue. (The size of intake opening):

The size of that intake port opening on the stock type heads becomes a limiting factor at some point. For
big inch 120+/high rpm applications, it becomes a choke point (bottle neck).

There are ways to mitigate the symptoms but there's only so much you can do before you need to go to a
larger runner/port opening.

I'd like to add:
The standard (2 bolt) port flange is plenty big for what you're wanting to do. My post above was more of
a general statement as to when do you draw the line and step up to a larger runner. 

[dave brode]

4 bolt heads aside, we have two openings?

CVO110 is 1.75" like MVA?

Ported 103 and 110+ big too?

CVO 103, std HTCC, "Kompressor, old bathtub SE and early and late style bathtub small?

[I wish that I could find my older SE catalogs]

I can't remember the port opening that I used on my 117", but 1.800" sticks in my head [???15+ yrs ago]. Iirc, I bought the S&S intake with their head port opening size, and had to use thin intake flange seals. The S&S intake did fit into the '06 up flanges. The inlet looked like a choke to me. Car guy thinks seat throat should be the choke, and port should taper +/- .5* from plenum to there. Slotting the holes and taking it all from the roof seemed right, but it was hard to drop the port floor and short turn! I did leave a thin fin in the middle. Those old SE heads had a heck of a hump on the floor.

What a learning curve!
Dave

[MCE]

1.8 is one of them

[HD Street Performance]

As a data point only, my cheap Street Pro heads use a 1.710 inlet. It compliments the rest of the port dimensions and allows me to fix core shift there and seat use a 1.9 valve. Just got a call from a builder that put them on a 113 and made 128/129 with 100tq right at 2200. 10.8 245 deg cam. So back to my point about demand (cu in) versus CSA. This result is yet another data point in the dynos i have accumulated and would not be better and aggregated torque would likely suffer using a cvo 110 head ported even on the small side. Our pro head with 1.98 valve would have pulled a little more on top. It has a 1.8 inlet.

[dave brode]

Dang, that's an arm stretcher. Any chance you have the full cam specs? I don't doubt for a minute that your would be better for street on that engine than a CVO110 head. Maybe I should keep my bathtub heads?

Fwiw, for reference, I just measured a stock '99 intake, it's apx 1.620" i.d. at the head flange end. The older SE intake for the 44mm, I believe is the same.

The current .100" larger #29414-07 carb'd intake [for 51mm cv] fits the 1.750" inlet heads. There is also one for the 51mm cv for small inlet heads. 

I'm curious as to what was offered for other larger inlet intakes in the past. I need to scrounge up some older race parts books.
Dave

[MCE]

Dang, that's an arm stretcher. Any chance you have the full cam specs? I don't doubt for a minute that your would be better for street on that engine than a CVO110 head. Maybe I should keep my bathtub heads?

Fwiw, for reference, I just measured a stock '99 intake, it's apx 1.620" i.d. at the head flange end. The older SE intake for the 44mm, I believe is the same.

The current .100" larger #29414-07 carb'd intake [for 51mm cv] fits the 1.750" inlet heads. There is also one for the 51mm cv for small inlet heads. 

I'm curious as to what was offered for other larger inlet intakes in the past. I need to scrounge up some older race parts books.
Dave

There's a 110 with 10.4 compression on my website;
It's actually on my FB page at the top: (MCE Performance) You have to go to
the dyno section on my website (mchalmers.com)
Sorry for the confusion.
129/129. 100ft/lbs starting at 2000 RPM and flat to red line. (On a bagger).
Using basic 103 castings.

[HD Street Performance]

The stock SE cv51 intake was a slug, big drop leg. Look at fabricating one from an S&S E manifold.
The cam was a Crane 296. The heads were stock early castings.1.9 x 1.57 valves modified. Don't get caught up in the good cam bad cam idea. Or even good and bad head castings. This is a fallacy. Along the lines of what both Matt and I have been stating this was the right cam for the motor in the rpm range it runs. The heads the same way, proper CSA to get proper air speed to feed the 113" and remain crisp and stay away from reversion. Pipe by the way was patriot defender.

[MCE]

+1

Airspeed is the key to filling the cylinder (along with properly timed cam events to trap it).

There are probably 50 combinations / ways to do it. But at the end of the day, trapping the most
air over the widest RPM range is what's going to give you a big flat TQ curve, that puts a huge
grin on your mug.

When you see a chart that has a huge TQ hump and falls off (like a camel's back), that means you're
not trapping air efficiently at higher RPM. Either the cam events are wrong or the head can't move
enough air in the short time frame allotted at that RPM. (Or both).

Airspeed is your friend!

[MCE]

The pipe is also a huge influence in the endeavor to trap the most air over the widest RPM range.
The resonant pulses of the pipe assist in getting the air moving in the intake tract during overlap.

If your pipe is doing what it's supposed to, the air in the intake tract is already moving at a pretty
good clip, before the piston starts to really move. That's huge!

bottom line: It all has to match up and work as a combination.

[dave brode]

All,

HD Street, Ahh, the old Crane 296. I always liked the look of that grind. Thanks for the advice on the current big port 51 CV intake.

MCE: My current combo's curve looks identical to the curve on that 103 with the drop on 110 kit [just not as high on the graph LOL] I almost hate to touch it, but we can't let anything alone forever.

A month ago I was set on a simple 106" bolt in combination with my current heads, jims 4.5" wheels, 6.700" rod and flat top 103 pistons. Then I learned of the potential of the cvo110 heads. All of these possibilities.....

This thread is starting to fragment, so I'm going to step away and let all of this sink in. I hope that it will be good reference to folks in the future.

Thanks to ProDrag1320, HDStreet and MCE for offering to advise/assist me.
Dave

[MCE]

Right on. My comments were intended as general information only. Not directed at anyone specifically.
Mainly to help the audience gain a better understanding of the bigger picture so they can make better
informed decisions.

Apologies to those of you that know this stuff already. 

[MCE]

Here's another 110 I just did a week or so ago with MCE 103 heads set at 10.4:1
Compression, dual ex. Tman 585 cams 58mm TB.

Tuned by Larry Buie. We could have gotten more (with higher compression), but we wanted something
that was fuel friendly. (This will run on 89 octane in a pinch). 127/127 Not too shabby for a 110 bagger!

Larry is a very capable tuner, a good friend and great customer.

Bikes by Buie: check him out at bikesbybuie.com

[dave brode]

Anyone care to publish intake port volume on moderately prepped 2.125" CVO110s vs MVA? [SE claims 98cc port on MVA]
It would be wonderful to see back to back apple/apple comparisons between the two on 117-124s.

MCE, nice curve, esp for duals! Sure supports what you and HD Perf claim on the 103 heads being a great head for milder big engines [at higher end cost = me sad]

Anyone want to post sheets from 110-124s with CVO110 or related heads, imo, it would suit the thread. 


Dave

[MCE]

You'll have about the same amount in any set of heads if you include the cost the castings.

[HD Street Performance]

117" is the crossover in my opinion and where a set of ported CVO 110 heads come into their own..
Dynos using my heads are all over the net. I do a lot of 110 heads and our Street Pro package is at a price point that is easy on the wallet.
I have attached one that was sent to me and is relevant because it is with CVO 110 heads and is carbureted.  11:1
Scaling is screwed up and I suppose this is uncorrected. Dyna with boarzilla

[MCE]

117 is what I would call a gray line too. 

[FLSTFI Dave]

Here is a 117 build, using Don's heads.  It is a very easy to ride bike with smooth power everywhere.  Much smoother than stock, and easier to ride.

[MCE]

Here is a 117 build, using Don's heads.  It is a very easy to ride bike with smooth power everywhere.  Much smoother than stock, and easier to ride.

That's what we've been getting out of 110s with 103 castings at 10.4:1

fwtw... (Same power, less compression and fewer cubes.)

https://www.facebook.com/178747439135038/photos/563061087370336

[MCE]

Here is a 117 build, using Don's heads.  It is a very easy to ride bike with smooth power everywhere.  Much smoother than stock, and easier to ride.

Nice looking curve nonetheless. That makes them super fun to ride when the TQ is flat like that.

[dave brode]

Very nice, Dave!

[dave brode]

Ok guys,

No trade secrets being requested, but at least tell us what size intake valve is needed in the round hemi CVO103 head used on big engines.

Dave

[MCE]

Ok guys,

No trade secrets being requested, but at least tell us what size intake valve is needed in the round hemi CVO103 head used on big engines.

Dave

Don't know. I've never done a set of those. I use the bath-tub head on everything.

[dave brode]

Don't know. I've never done a set of those. I use the bath-tub head on everything.

Matt,
 I assumed [wrong] that when you referred to 103 heads, you meant the hemi CVO103 head. Late bathtub 103s, I take it now.

Thanks
Dave

[MCE]

Matt,
 I assumed [wrong] that when you referred to 103 heads, you meant the hemi CVO103 head. Late bathtub 103s, I take it now.

Thanks
Dave

The quench pads need to be flat (always) if performance is the goal. Not a fan of that angled stuff unless it's a
nitrous application.




 

[MCE]

The quench pads need to be flat (always) if performance is the goal. Not a fan of that angled stuff unless it's a
nitrous application.

You can't make chicken soup out of chicken chit.

[HD Street Performance]

Quench area, the SE 103+ head has very little and is a perimeter band, the CVO 103 head same but less of a band. Of course either gain a little with the larger bore and/or milling. The CVO 110 head and it's derivatives all have a lot less quench area than the bathtub but have a little area on the sides if someone wanted to put in Singh grooves, never done them on these castings.

[MCE]

Singh grooves are a bunch of hooey imo. But what do I know...

[dave brode]

Easy, easy.....

Just a hack here, but I have had absolutely wonderful results with the grooves on flat quench heads, car and bathtub Harley [and flatheads]. Wanted leaner afr, less timing, less octane needed. I realize, arguing about them is like arguing about religion, or maybe gapless 2nd rings LOL. Don't bother.

I'm sure that there are slanted quench combos doing great, but it scares me. It seems to me that a 4.060" - 4.125" bore under the 103 CVO heads' little quench ring would/should allow for decent quench action.  If I found a set for cheap, I'd try them.

Dave

[HD Street Performance]

A perimeter band is very effective in my direct experience, CVO 103 and 103+ heads heavily milled

[MCE]

I would have to gather some empirical evidence to say with any certainly weather or not it's worthwhile.
At this point (with no data of my own to form an opinion), I think it's safe to say they can't hurt.

Sorry, It's just my engineer mentality, I can't help it. Always been hard "head"ed. lol

Singh groves are pure nonsense!


 

[johnsachs]

Singh groves never did anything for me, except more time and labor. 
John

[MCE]

Singh groves never did anything for me, except more time and labor. 
John

Did you forget to add the "fuel treatment"? Ha! that makes the difference.

[dave brode]

Fwiw, someone in the know told me that the MVA heads' intake port volume is several cc smaller than CVO110s.

That is all...…….

[HD Street Performance]

They lied or measured wrong.

[zigzag930]

I have been following this thread as I am interested in 110CVO heads as well (considering I have a CVO110).

Yesterday I had a very nice conversation with one of the vendors on this site regarding what I could do with my 110 to see improvements from head/cam work.  I'm really trying to understand what is going to be worth [to me] doing and what I can expect to see in return for my investment.  He indicated to me that head work could provide a nice performance increase along with the proper cam and tune.

At the same time, I've been told by several (including well respected companies that do this) that without a compression change there won't be much to gain.  Additionally, there isn't much I can do to raise compression unless I change pistons.

With a '15 CVO 110 engine, having flat top pistons, what options are available?  I know I can do a cometic .030 gasket and maybe take a small bit off the heads, but with the flat top's what can I expect for compression having made those two changes?  Are there other options?  Can the head chamber size be reduced? Does that even make sense?

Also, for you guys that do this for a living, can you explain exactly what "Porting" is and the benefit.   Is it important to have the heads "CNC" machined or are there non-CNC methods that are just as good?

MCE, if you are reading this - I saw a very nice dyno on a 103 that you did with a 110 kit.  The details of the 110 kit were not listed (or I didn't see them).   Was this just a displacement change or were the pistons changed to high compression pistons as well.   I'm trying to gauge if that 110 kit would be same as my 110 or a 110 with high compression pistons.

This whole thinking process started for me when I found out that I was receiving a new long block 110.  I hoped I could do a cam (ie Tman 625PS, etc) and get a nice "bump".  Then I started hearing the heads needed to be done to work properly with the cam.  Finally I'm being told now that without compression, the heads and cams won't do much.   

Not trying to build a drag bike.  I ride two up on a 1000 lb scooter.  I would love to see 120/120 or so and be happy as long as the torque is early.  I rarely run over 5-5.5K RPM's.   For the record - engine is basically stock except FM 2-1-2 stainless pipes, RC 4.5's (just ordered Fullsac 2.0's to replace the RC's), and TTS.

Any comments are greatly appreciated.  I know there are some of you guys that really know this stuff and I don't want to re-invent the wheel or go through the expensive trial-toss-try again method.

[donk_316]

After reading all 5 pages i still have no idea which 110 casting i should or shouldnt be looking for.

[MCE]

Zigzag (lol, love them);

Allot of 110s that I've done have flat top pistons and ported 103 (ACR) heads. These are S&S drop in kits
with 58 TB and TMan 585 or 590 cams. There are lots of other cams out there that work too.
The S&S kits have good longevity and don't break the bank.

Porting will make the cylinder head more efficient. (flow more air while maintaining high air speeds. That's
what makes those nice flat TQ curves.

You can easily get mid-high 120s (HP and TQ) with those 103 castings. The 110 castings are better suited for
larger engines in my opinion. The large combustion chambers on them force you to use a dome piston to get
the compression you need. So 103 heads lend themselves well in this regard. 110 heads are just big all the
way around. They will work though.

I would save those 110 heads for a large motor (117 and over). With the scenario you describe, 103 castings
would be a better choice (IMO).

[HD Street Performance]

Zigzag the tman 625 is one cam that is a bit of a rule breaker. It does work on a stock 110. Pm bvhog on this or htt. He will tell you how well the bike ran. No other changes other than stage 1 type stuff

[MCE]

For a touring motor, I'd be willing to bet the 103 heads would still work on a 117.  OTOH, a hot 110 (high
RPM) in a light Dyna could use those big heads effectively. You'd give up low/mid TQ in exchange for some
higher HP. A cam that moves the TQ to the right would go with it.

What I'm trying to say is; I don't feel there's a hard cubic inch cut off point when it comes to which head
to use. Where you want the TQ (RPM range), along with the displacement will dictate the runner's cross
sectional area.

I hope that makes sense. It's HOT down here (101*) and I'm worn out.

[MCE]

Is it important to have the heads "CNC" machined or are there non-CNC methods that are just as good?

NO. CNC is only as good as the port that was copied. (CNC is just a copier) The port will be as good (or bad) as the
original. (Just because it's "CNC" doesn't guarantee anything other than it will be virtually identical to the master)
It's especially suited to mass production, where every one is virtually the same.

I've tested quite a few CNC heads and I save the results on the Flow Bench's computer. Some are really good, some are
just ok, others need some tweaking. A little file and sand in the right places and they come around.

Since they all look really 'trick', it's easy to assume they are somehow superior, but they're really not. Nobody is going
to see them once they're on the motor anyway.
 
(Edited for clarity 6/30 09:30)

[zigzag930]

You guys are great.  This is helping me get a much better understanding of everything.   The explanation on CNC really answered my question and makes sense.  Seems like it would be a great way to duplicate a good head design once one has been designed.   

I will check with bvhog on his experience with the 625 and appreciate the reference.

Would be great if that cam can be used now and down the road when I do further upgrades like heads, cylinders and pistons.
   

[HD Street Performance]

You guys are great.  This is helping me get a much better understanding of everything.   The explanation on CNC really answered my question and makes sense.  Seems like it would be a great way to duplicate a good head design once one has been designed.   

I will check with bvhog on his experience with the 625 and appreciate the reference.

Would be great if that cam can be used now and down the road when I do further upgrades like heads, cylinders and pistons.
 

Use it, it will scale up later, best of luck with your build

[HD Street Performance]

Tim, I too have a lot of experience with the Pinto 2000. I learned to port on those heads as you did with the help of Larry Ofia, Valley Head Service in 1972. We used 289 valves if I remember correctly and a Norris 288 cam. Built many manifolds because parts were not all that available in USA for these motors and a Holley 390 didn't work right. Tried dual 5200s on a sheet metal manifold and the Edelbrock Pinto Pony Ram highly modified. Ended up with two 45 DCOE Webers, fabbed manifold. It had a Ford econoline rear for the 4:10 gears and would run 13.9 off the street plus with the suspension mods pull over 1g skid pad. Still a miserable uncomfortable car and one that ate camshafts and alternators. Had a hole in the dash and firewall to change cams out fast.

Back to the topic
So I measured the heads to clear up the apparent discrepancy on port CC. The SE MVA head had 109.6cc. The stock CVO 110 head measured 107.6, for what its worth. The port geometry is completely different which is obvious when looking at what head cores are used to CNC which have origin in the SE110+ heads.

[Nocvo]

You guys are great.  This is helping me get a much better understanding of everything.   The explanation on CNC really answered my question and makes sense.  Seems like it would be a great way to duplicate a good head design once one has been designed.   

I will check with bvhog on his experience with the 625 and appreciate the reference.

Would be great if that cam can be used now and down the road when I do further upgrades like heads, cylinders and pistons.
 

T-Man 625-PS
This cam was developed to make the power sooner in the torque band while still maintaining its power in the higher RPMs. This is a good choice for 103” to 107” cubic inch builds with head and piston modifications utilizing a 10.2-10.6 compression and has worked very effectively in larger displacement motors where customers are seeking a torque monster. Making it a perfect choice for two-up riding where torque is desired while still providing the quick acceleration for hot rodding around town. This cam requires performance valve springs due to its 625 lift and adjustable pushrods in stock twin cam heads. It’s our go to cam for the CVO models as a bolt-in cam and will not require valve spring upgrades but will require adjustable pushrods. Cold cranking pressure at 10.2:1 is 195 PSI and at 10.6:1 is 205 PSI at sea level.

[dave brode]

snipped

Back to the topic
So I measured the heads to clear up the apparent discrepancy on port CC. The SE MVA head had 109.6cc. The stock CVO 110 head measured 107.6, for what its worth. The port geometry is completely different which is obvious when looking at what head cores are used to CNC which have origin in the SE110+ heads.

So much for the "right sized" 98cc port.

I have searched and not had much luck finding pictures or much info at all on the SE110+ heads.

[MCE]

Port CC by itself is virtually meaningless without some sort of context. It's a very crude
way to compare ports. Cross sectional area(s) and length are much more meaningful.

 

[TIMINATOR]

If the port cc is smaller, and the flow is the same or better, then midrange torque will be higher with the smaller head, but with the same top end HP as long as the flow quality is similar.
The out of the box CCs of the untouched MVA heads I installed on my bike measured smaller by 5+ CCs than untouched 110 SE heads that I removed (I'll check my notes and get the exact numbers). I did some light clean-up work later to the MVA ports, but they are still smaller. I bought the 2017 CVO Breakout new in August with the larger CC CVO110 heads on it. I have another set of SE 110 heads on the bench that measure essentially the same as the ones I removed, the other set is on my wife's bike. I'll have to dig up the before and after dyno sheets of the head swap, but both the upper end HP and torque at 2K-3K were higher with the MVA heads, as is the fuel mileage.  So are there different CC CVO 110 heads? 
I did get a return call from someone in the SE division about 6 months ago and he said that the MVA heads were designed smaller, especially in the intake port roof area. TIMINATOR

[MCE]

fill in the dead areas.
Flow goes up and velocity is much more uniform.

[HD Street Performance]

And as I state before the shape and geometry of the 110+ head is very different than the cvo 110 head. Volumes does not tell the story. The mva head is just an opened up 110+.

[TIMINATOR]

If the CCs are smaller, it is not just an opened up 110+ head, it has to be filled somewhere, or start out smaller somewhere. Like the roof of the long side.  TIMINATOR

[TorqueInc]

The mva casting is it's own animal
Designed to be cnc ported

Ports are small before CNC

If you run a mva program on a 110 head less than 70% of it cleans up

[HD Street Performance]

Agreed and I stated that previously in this thread. The die casting cores are the same in the ports as the SE 110+ head.

[dave brode]

Casting #s for 120R and 110+ with 2.120".
17015-08 [or -11]
17016-08 [or -11]

What about similar heads with 2.080" sold as SE Pro with casting #
17067-08
17069 -08
[or -08A]

[HD Street Performance]

They are stock CVO110 castings with late model tbw mount holes drilled.

[dave brode]

Don,

I don't doubt that they have the same ports as the CVO110s, but the heads with 17067-08 / 17069-08 casting #s look different than the CVO110 heads with 17248-07 / 17250-07 casting #s.

The script or plate is in the same location as on the 17015 /17016 casting numbered heads [110+, MVA and 120R]. A little farther from the corner.

Dave

[dave brode]

CVO110 insignia location

[HD Street Performance]

Yes they do look different. The logos are off and two holes are drilled for the badge.

[dave brode]

Fwiw,

I just saw a set of CVO110s with a 17248-08B front and 17250-08A rear.


First one with a B suffix that I've seen.

This the newest versions?

Dave

[RoadKingKohn]

Fwiw,

I just saw a set of CVO110s with a 17248-08B front and 17250-08A rear.


First one with a B suffix that I've seen.

This the newest versions?

Dave

Since no one ever answered this. They made a change to the front head to provide a chassis mount on the front head.  Hence the 17248-08B.