Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7  All

Author Topic: CVO 110 and similar heads 101  (Read 20124 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dave brode

  • Junior CVO Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
  • www.CVOHARLEY.com
    • MD

Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2018, 02:25:26 AM »

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
Logged

MCE

  • Guest
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #31 on: June 11, 2018, 11:18:29 AM »

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.


 
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 12:50:31 PM by MCE Performance »
Logged

MCE

  • Guest
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2018, 12:38:33 PM »

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. 
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 01:11:12 PM by MCE Performance »
Logged

dave brode

  • Junior CVO Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
  • www.CVOHARLEY.com
    • MD

Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2018, 01:20:27 PM »

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
Logged

MCE

  • Guest
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2018, 08:05:04 PM »

1.8 is one of them
Logged

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3118
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2018, 09:15:40 PM »

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.
Logged

dave brode

  • Junior CVO Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
  • www.CVOHARLEY.com
    • MD

Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2018, 10:27:22 PM »

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


Logged

MCE

  • Guest
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #37 on: June 12, 2018, 08:58:52 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 09:20:16 AM by MCE Performance »
Logged

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3118
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #38 on: June 12, 2018, 09:04:31 AM »

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.
Logged

MCE

  • Guest
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #39 on: June 12, 2018, 09:37:13 AM »

+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!
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 10:40:11 AM by MCE Performance »
Logged

MCE

  • Guest
Trapping air
« Reply #40 on: June 12, 2018, 10:03:22 AM »

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.
Logged

dave brode

  • Junior CVO Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
  • www.CVOHARLEY.com
    • MD

Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #41 on: June 12, 2018, 11:27:26 AM »

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
Logged

MCE

  • Guest
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #42 on: June 12, 2018, 11:34:51 AM »

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. 
« Last Edit: June 15, 2018, 10:45:28 AM by MCE Performance »
Logged

MCE

  • Guest
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #43 on: June 12, 2018, 02:04:27 PM »

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




« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 09:11:54 AM by MCE Performance »
Logged

dave brode

  • Junior CVO Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
  • www.CVOHARLEY.com
    • MD

Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2018, 02:09:08 PM »

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
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7  All
 

Page created in 0.227 seconds with 21 queries.