Print

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

[SneakyPete]

To all,

This is your opportunity to help me spend my money!  I am considering three options and of course, cost is a factor, but I am looking for the most bang for the buck, so there are tradeoffs with each that I will take into consideration based on the voting.  To sum up your choices:

Option 1:  113" uses existing 103 heads, HD 4.060" pistons/cylinders, red shift 657 cams and existing 103 crank.  Will look closest to "stock" configuration.  Expected performance 125 hp/125 tq. based on dyno tests.

Option 2:  117" using Zipper's heads/4.125" cylinders/pistons, red shift 657 cams and existing 103 crank.  Expected performance a little more than the 113", but not sure as Zipper's has not produced a dyno sheet on this one yet, however, a site member has performed the same build on his 2003 SERK with numbers similar to the 113" (he believes the numbers are low based on the dyno used)

Option 3:  120" kit using Zipper's heads/cylinders/pistons same as 117", red shift 647 cams and new 4.5" crank.  Expected performance 125+ hp/135+ tq according to Zipper's dyno tests.

Needless to say, all of the above require Timken bearing conversion, etc. and standard rebuild parts which is the same for all as I will be sending the complete motor to them to perform work and then return to me for install.  I will tell you that the price variance between high (120") and low (113") is about $2,500.

Ok, l'm sitting down, let me have it!

[SPIDERMAN]

Grover's got what I believe to the sweetest 113 around. I've seen it run and it is strong as a bull, quick as a cheetah and reliable as an ole bluetick hound. You might wanna PM him and see what he's done.

[SCRM-R]

Option 2:  117" using Zipper's heads/4.125" cylinders/pistons, red shift 657 cams and existing 103 crank.  Expected performance a little more than the 113", but not sure as Zipper's has not produced a dyno sheet on this one yet, however, [highlight]a site member has performed the same build on his 2003 SERK with numbers similar to the 113"[/highlight] (he believes the numbers are low based on the dyno used)

I think that the site member you are referring to is me.  I am real happy with the performance of the 117...I had my sights set on a 120, but for me it came down to not being able to justify the cost of a new crank for three more cubic inches.  Runs great, pulls like a tractor...the only real issue that I have is that with the ThunderMax the turn signals will not self-cancel, but Zippers is working on that issue...seems to be something that is peculiar to my bike.  One other thing that I will point out too...you don't want to let this motor idle long in traffic, because it gets hot quick.  Out on the road, oil temp runs about 212 to 215, but when you stop it begins to go up pretty quick.  I'm running Amsoil, so that helps.  Just wanted to give you the benefit of my observations.  Good luck with whatever you decide.

[SneakyPete]

Grover's got what I believe to the sweetest 113 around. I've seen it run and it is strong as a bull, quick as a cheetah and reliable as an ole bluetick hound. You might wanna PM him and see what he's done.

BB, Grover and I have already spoken.  He didn't do the Zipper's kit (i.e. changed HD heads, different cam, etc.) but I am looking at the same results based on his hp/tq numbers.  I didn't get a chance to ride with him at MV, but I heard his bike is kickass, looks great too!  Actually, Zipper's used DCFIREMAN's bike to test their 113 kit and he is very happy with the results.  I am most interested in torque produced at low to mid rpm range where most of us ride.  No doubt the 120 can produce more torque, just not sure if it is enough of a difference to justify the additional expense.  Decisions, Decisions, Decisions.....

[SneakyPete]

I think that the site member you are referring to is me.  I am real happy with the performance of the 117...I had my sights set on a 120, but for me it came down to not being able to justify the cost of a new crank for three more cubic inches.  Runs great, pulls like a tractor...the only real issue that I have is that with the ThunderMax the turn signals will not self-cancel, but Zippers is working on that issue...seems to be something that is peculiar to my bike.  One other thing that I will point out too...you don't want to let this motor idle long in traffic, because it gets hot quick.  Out on the road, oil temp runs about 212 to 215, but when you stop it begins to go up pretty quick.  I'm running Amsoil, so that helps.  Just wanted to give you the benefit of my observations.  Good luck with whatever you decide.

I read your post and that's why I have the same concern about going to the 120.  I'm glad you brought up the heat issue because I thought that would be a problem as well.  It gets just as hot/humid in SE Virginia as Florida in the summer.  Zipper's recommended thermal coating the heads (CC chamber, ports) and pistons (top and skirt).  They said it would make the engine run cooler.  I am also considering coating my pipes.  Heard this works helps lower the temp as well as improves performance.  It's not expensive to do as long as the engine is already apart.

[SCRM-R]

Also, one of the reasons that I had the heads and cylinders diamond cut was that it is supposed to help with engine cooling.  At least that is what they say...if it's all hype, then I bought it.  Oh well, even if it don't run cooler, it does look cooler.

[Fired00d]

I prefer the sleeper look. I would want the most out of my motor within the limits of keeping the stock looking appearance. For me that just seems the best thing to do w/a CVO. [smiley=nixweiss.gif]

 [smiley=pumpkin.gif]
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 [smiley=fireman.gif]

[HUBBARD]

Pete,
  Go on with the 120.  You'll wish you did, if you don't.  No heat problems with mine.  RINEHART True Duals, and Jett-Hot coating.  I do stay out of slow moving traffic, though.  Later--HUBBARD

[SPIDERMAN]

BB, Grover and I have already spoken.  He didn't do the Zipper's kit (i.e. changed HD heads, different cam, etc.) but I am looking at the same results based on his hp/tq numbers.  I didn't get a chance to ride with him at MV, but I heard his bike is kickass, looks great too!  Actually, Zipper's used DCFIREMAN's bike to test their 113 kit and he is very happy with the results.  I am most interested in torque produced at low to mid rpm range where most of us ride.  No doubt the 120 can produce more torque, just not sure if it is enough of a difference to justify the additional expense.  Decisions, Decisions, Decisions.....

Once I get LD to the point where the only change is likely to be something like a Dragon shift linkage ( CVOJoe is sending me a link) My next project is going to be a 113 upgrade to Elvis. I s'pose where E is not ridden that often I could go with some Max performance set-up and be the fastest guy around, but my past experience with that is it costs more up front and continues to cost and cost and cost as something is always in need of fixing. I'll be more than happy to get the same results as Grover and spend the money once and be done with it. Guess my point here is don't get so far out there you can't rely on your bike.

B B

[geezerglide]

I went the JIMS 120 route, SBC Vortec Heads, S&S 640 G Cams, rest engine stock. SERT with Custom MAP by JARZ Performance. 57 mm Kurayakyn TB c/w 6.33 injectors. V&H Pro Pipe, soon to change back to Freedom Cycle Rhienhart True Duals, HD SE 6 Speed.

No overheating problems, have Oil Cooler, don't the CVO Bikes have them standard.

Dynos at 131 hp and 134 TQ, 45 - 48 mpg, runs great in the city and on the highway.

128 Lb. Ft. TQ at 3200 rpm.

You will have a great engine if you go 117" or 120", and a lot of fun to ride, and get ready to hold on.

And, one last item, most important well be your tuner no matter what system (Thundermax, SERT, PC etc.) you decide on make sure the tuner is the best that their for the system.

geezerglide

[jfh]

If I had a 2004-2005 SEEG, I would do the 113 build.  However, I have a 2007 FLHTC and the 113 is not really an option that would make sense since I do not have the CVO heritage to preserve.

I am currently having my 2007 FLHTC converted to a Zipper's 120". I was originally going to do a 117" to save the cost of a new crank, but the '07 crank is not the same as the earlier SE cranks used in your SE 103 motors.  The new H-D 4.375" crank is much lighter and Zipper's was not confident in its reliability for a high output application or I would have done the 117" build.  Given that I needed to purchase a new crank for either the 117"" (SE 4.375) or 120" (S&S 4.5") build, I opted to go the 120" route. I had to wait a bit for S&S to release the new 4.5" crank for the '07 motor, but it has been delivered and the build is almost finished.  The clutch is also different and aftermarket vendors are still in the process of releasing their updated products.  I ended up choosing the AIM VPC clutch, since it was the only one available at the time. I also went the Diamond Cut route on the cylinders and heads for the patented enhanced cooling capability - or at least the cool looks;).  I did however opt to do the build with a 9.8:1 CR to deal with pump gas, and heat issues with the increased displacement.  I have dealt with higher CR 120" Merch Evo style motors in the past and chose to go a bit more conservative this time on the TC.  Overall output may suffer a bit, but reliability and durability should be preserved. I have attached a dyno sheet, provided by Zippers,  from a similar 120" 9.8:1 CR build with D&D Boarzilla 2:1 and ThunderMax Auto Tune.  I should have a first hand ride report in the next couple of weeks.

[SBB]

hdfr120

Looks like a good combination.
Which Aim VPC did you choose?

 [smiley=xyxthumbs.gif]

[SneakyPete]

Once I get LD to the point where the only change is likely to be something like a Dragon shift linkage ( CVOJoe is sending me a link) My next project is going to be a 113 upgrade to Elvis. I s'pose where E is not ridden that often I could go with some Max performance set-up and be the fastest guy around, but my past experience with that is it costs more up front and continues to cost and cost and cost as something is always in need of fixing. I'll be more than happy to get the same results as Grover and spend the money once and be done with it. Guess my point here is don't get so far out there you can't rely on your bike.

B B

BB, I hear you.  One of the reasons I am going with Zipper's is that regardless of the displacement they build reliable everyday motors that run on pump gas.  I do a lot of riding (16K last year) many times off the beaten path and I don't need the worry of being stuck out in the middle of BFE with a finicky motor.  I am also considering the effect on clutch, trans, etc. which all adds $$$ when the power/torque starts to climb.

[SneakyPete]

If I had a 2004-2005 SEEG, I would do the 113 build.  However, I have a 2007 FLHTC and the 113 is not really an option that would make sense since I do not have the CVO heritage to preserve.

I am currently having my 2007 FLHTC converted to a Zipper's 120". I was originally going to do a 117" to save the cost of a new crank, but the '07 crank is not the same as the earlier SE cranks used in your SE 103 motors.  The new H-D 4.375" crank is much lighter and Zipper's was not confident in its reliability for a high output application or I would have done the 117" build.  Given that I needed to purchase a new crank for either the 117"" (SE 4.375) or 120" (S&S 4.5") build, I opted to go the 120" route. I had to wait a bit for S&S to release the new 4.5" crank for the '07 motor, but it has been delivered and the build is almost finsihed.  The clutch is also different and aftermarket vendors are still in the process of releasing their updated products.  I ended up choosing the AIM VPC clutch, siince it was the only one available at the time. I also went the Diamond Cut route on the cylinders and heads for the patented enhanced cooling capability - or at least the cool looks;).  I did however opt to do the build with a 9.8:1 CR to deal with pump gas, and heat issues with the increased displacement.  I have dealt with higher CR 120" Merch Evo style motors in the past and chose to go a bit more conservative this time on the TC.  Overall output may suffer a bit, but reliability and durability should be preserved. I have attached a dyno sheet, provided by Zippers,  from a similar 120" 9.8:1 CR build with D&D Boarzilla 2:1 and ThunderMax Auto Tune.  I should have a first hand ride report in the next couple of weeks.

I agree and am leaning toward the 113 due to the CVO badging plus the fact I already have the Zippers TB/AC combo for the 113 which is money I can put towards the TMAX with autotune.  However, Zipper's did mention that they have run into an instance of a bad 103 SE crank assy.  If that happens in my case, I'll use that as my excuse to go to the 120 as well.

[hdnut]

I'm getting week on the 113 build by Zippers,I will decide what way to go in a week or so,that way it will be done when the snow melts. [smiley=orange.gif]