Print

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

[JCZ]

Work with us JC, work with us!
Or ask Terrie.

       

SBB

Terrie, Jim and a few of Jim's customer were standing there.  I did it right in front of Jim's shop.........but they couldn't get there cameras out quick enough.  And Terrie's pretty darn quick with that new Droid phone.

Seriously, I don't think I'll be making that a habit, but it's fun to ride.

[HD Street Performance]

You like that cam in a stocker?
For all the same reasons (goals) the TW5-6 or TW7 will get you more torque under the riding curve and higher peak numbers. That cam would look better to me advanced +4. Put the LCs in better places and earlier intake close to work in the RPM range we use. Not a put down of the company or their products just a comment based on what I know the motor needs, this CVO110 specifically

[BigLew]

So guys what is the better combo? I still thinking about the set up from Steve at fullsac for the 09 SERG. Just looking for some more usable torque.

Mike

[HOGMIKE]

So guys what is the better combo? I still thinking about the set up from Steve at fullsac for the 09 SERG. Just looking for some more usable torque.

Mike

What are you looking for? Figure out where you do 90% of your riding, and be realistic!
It's fun to do a high speed/rpm blast once in awhile, but, think of day in day out "real world" riding.
For example: I do most of my riding 2-up, loaded and rpm range of 2000-3000 most of the time, depending on hills, etc.
I am after low rpm torque. Not everyone has these goals.
There are combos that will suit your needs, you just have to define them! Lots of choices!

[hd-dude]

You like that cam in a stocker?
For all the same reasons (goals) the TW5-6 or TW7 will get you more torque under the riding curve and higher peak numbers. That cam would look better to me advanced +4. Put the LCs in better places and earlier intake close to work in the RPM range we use. Not a put down of the company or their products just a comment based on what I know the motor needs, this CVO110 specifically

I know that based on the specs of this cam it was a bit of a risk trying it in the 110 CVO engine. I labored over the decision for a while before deciding to pull the trigger and give it a try (see my first post). I also gave the +4 degree cam gear consideration. After discussions about this with Fueling and Bob Wood I decided against this.(Bob Wood does not recommend using the +4 gear with the TW7 either).

The results are great the torque is crossing 100 ft/lbs at 2700 rpm and pulls strong through the range. Based on what I have seen the TW7 has a similiar curve. The Andrews 54 is the other cam of consideration but I like the curve of the 574 and the tw7 better.

[JCZ]

You like that cam in a stocker?
For all the same reasons (goals) the TW5-6 or TW7 will get you more torque under the riding curve and higher peak numbers. That cam would look better to me advanced +4. Put the LCs in better places and earlier intake close to work in the RPM range we use. Not a put down of the company or their products just a comment based on what I know the motor needs, this CVO110 specifically

I'd like to see a dyno sheet on a 110 that is using the Fullsac baffles, stock air cleaner, stock heads, oem head gaskets, (stock compression) stock pushrods and the TW7.  Are you able to post one for comparison?

[Chuck Pryor]

Just for reference here is the curve using the Andrews 54's with Fullsac 2.25 cores, stock AC, etc. No other mods.
CAP

[JCZ]

Thanks for posting that Chuck.

[HD Street Performance]

For example: I do most of my riding 2-up, loaded and rpm range of 2000-3000 most of the time, depending on hills, etc.
I am after low rpm torque. Not everyone has these goals.

Maybe not everyone has these goals but more should. I get too many calls from guys that are caught up in airflow numbers, dyno numbers, bigger everything and "want it all". Most of those calls are after the fact and then we have to detune or reel in the "builds gone wild" with internet hype and testosterone mixed.

BTW this is a side note and not related to the Feuling cam. This seems sensible. Plus I respect the smart move to lower the CCP.

I have no dynos of the 7 in stock motors. I only have one that was with my heads and a pathetic tune and bad pipes (longshots). Made 109/119. I am not sure any dyno is a great representation of what real world will be for "I do most of my riding 2-up, loaded and rpm range of 2000-3000 most of the time" which is probably 95% of us but only 50% will cop to it. FWIW if you want to see dynos of the cam I would like to see in a 110 look at what the TW5 cam does in a 103"

This dyno is from a 103" with my Pro Street heads (the CVO 110 heads reworked are equal or better). This has a bit too much compression for a bagger (10.5) but detuned a bit in a 110 (7 added cubes) I would expect a better result, wider torque band and higher hp, slightly. This follows the Cycle Rama philosophy a lot closer with an extension of the SE255 which is too short for most. I would not rule out the Andrews 54 advanced either, it then has the same look and feel as a high lift 37 which is a good thing especially with 110 Cu In and heads that work.

Still the dyno is just a test done at WOT, a hard roll-on from ~2K to redline. It does not speak to where we ride and roll-on manors and putting in parking lots and parades. Not really a good representation of the "pass a truck" either as most want to do this without dropping a gear. Might be closer to what the ride will do from 60-80mph which we do more frequently. Just my 2c and once again open minded on the Feuling cam. The Feuling resembles an S&S 585 which advanced +4 and end up with a similar exhaust event and a 41° intake close   The intake can use a 1.725 rocker for added lift which in my minds eye is more for the added lift velocity and more lift sooner, the object being full cylinder fill by the time the piston reaches maximum velocity at about 70-76° ATDC on intake stroke. Where is the valve lift at this point? Just thinking

[JCZ]

That's great for somebody wanting peak numbers, head work and all.  However, if you'll go back to Reply #10 you'll see what my goals were and in what order.  100 ft. lbs. of torque at 2700 rpm is what  I was after while keeping the heads and compression stock for reliability and rideablity and affordability.  I spent to many years on to many motors chasing those peak numbers.  Now I just want usuable power for the kind of riding that I do now and keeping it quiet as possible at the same time.

So, to answer your question.........yes, I'm very happy with what I have in a stock motor!

By the way, comparing a 103" to a 110" just isn't comparing apples to apples is it?  While my 103 (in my 04 SEEG) had greater numbers, this thread is about the mods to my 110".  If I were after peak numbers I'd drive the 35 miles to Stockton and have my motor built there and headwork done at BC Gerolomy's.....to build a motor like my friend Gary's   (there's a reason they call his Tree Stump Puller).........    
http://www.bcheads.com/dyno.htm  

[HOGMIKE]

That's great for somebody wanting peak numbers, head work and all.  However, if you'll go back to Reply #10 you'll see what my goals were and in what order.  100 ft. lbs. of torque at 2700 rpm is what  I was after while keeping the heads and compression stock for reliability and rideablity and affordability.  I spent to many years on to many motors chasing those peak numbers.  Now I just want usuable power for the kind of riding that I do now and keeping it quiet as possible at the same time.

So, to answer your question.........yes, I'm very happy with what I have in a stock motor!

By the way, comparing a 103" to a 110" just isn't comparing apples to apples is it?  While my 103 (in my 04 SEEG) had greater numbers, this thread is about the mods to my 110".  If I were after peak numbers I'd drive the 35 miles to Stockton and have my motor built there and headwork done at BC Gerolomy's.....to build a motor like my friend Gary's   (there's a reason they call his Tree Stump Puller).........    
http://www.bcheads.com/dyno.htm  

You mean like this?

[JCZ]

You mean like this?

 

You got to much slack in that rope......it'll fly out of there and smack you in the back of the head.

[HOGMIKE]

You got to much slack in that rope......it'll fly out of there and smack you in the back of the head.

My mother always told me Harley riders were not too smart!

HA!
Is this better???

[JCZ]

My mother always told me Harley riders were not too smart!

HA!
Is this better???

That's right.....but have you ever wondered what 128 ft. lbs of torque would be like to just twist the throttle?

[FLTRI]

JCZ,
Who tuned it?