Print

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

[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.