Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: CVO 110 and similar heads 101  (Read 20130 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3118
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2018, 06:21:15 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2018, 06:24:52 PM by HD Street Performance »
Logged

dave brode

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

Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2018, 09:10:44 PM »

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
Logged

MCE

  • Guest
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2018, 10:24:57 PM »

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).

« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 04:42:11 PM by MCE Performance »
Logged

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3118
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2018, 08:21:52 AM »

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
Logged

dave brode

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

Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2018, 09:36:54 PM »

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


« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 09:49:36 PM by dave brode »
Logged

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3118
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2018, 08:58:43 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 09:10:04 AM by HD Street Performance »
Logged

MCE

  • Guest
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2018, 09:33:38 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 09:48:02 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 #22 on: June 08, 2018, 09:52:50 AM »

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
Logged

MCE

  • Guest
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2018, 11:29:55 AM »

Of course it will (be different). a 124 is not a 110
« Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 11:38:45 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 #24 on: June 08, 2018, 04:34:57 PM »

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



 

« Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 04:37:24 PM by dave brode »
Logged

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3118
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2018, 06:16:16 PM »

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.
Logged

MCE

  • Guest
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #26 on: June 08, 2018, 07:40:11 PM »

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.
Logged

MCE

  • Guest
KB Pistons
« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2018, 08:04:39 PM »

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. ??
Logged

dave brode

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

Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2018, 12:57:52 PM »

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. 
Logged

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3118
Re: CVO 110 and similar heads 101
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2018, 05:00:47 PM »

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
« Last Edit: June 09, 2018, 05:04:21 PM by HD Street Performance »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7  All
 

Page created in 0.234 seconds with 21 queries.