www.CVOHARLEY.com

CVO Technical => Twin Cam => Topic started by: Xmas camel on December 09, 2006, 03:55:49 PM

Title: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Xmas camel on December 09, 2006, 03:55:49 PM
I am curious as to why HD introduced a new 110 engine option for 2007 when there already was a 113 which has several piston/head options (bigger bore and 103+) available. Is there some inherent advantage to the 110? Is the 110 the wave of the future with performance options coming down the road, or just another displacement option introduced on 2007 CVO's before they go to 113 in 2008?
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Hoist! on December 09, 2006, 04:05:39 PM
Quote
I am curious as to why HD introduced a new 110 engine option for 2007 when there already was a 113 which has several piston/head options (bigger bore and 103+) available. Is there some inherent advantage to the 110? Is the 110 the wave of the future with performance options coming down the road, or just another displacement option introduced on 2007 CVO's before they go to 113 in 2008?

If I'm not mistaken, the 113" is a not street legal package. It's a SE catalog set-up. You can use the barrels to bolt on to a street legal 110", but that would not be very cost effective for the minimal gains. The 110" in the SE catalog is to convert to the street legal version engine in the '07 CVO's. This my understanding of this (I'm sure I'll be corrected if this is wrong
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: denim on December 09, 2006, 05:49:48 PM
"I think" the 110" retains the O-Ring base gasket, while the 113" doesn't.
Is that a big plus?????

denim
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Hoist! on December 09, 2006, 06:52:37 PM
Quote
"I think" the 110" retains the O-Ring base gasket, while the 113" doesn't.
Is that a big plus?????

denim

I'm not really sure. The 113" is only listed as a race motor. I don't even see the parts in the SE catalog. I think it uses the same flywheels as the 103/110, with 4.06" pistons. They show a recommended combo list , but not the parts. It's funny that they don't show a Dyno for the street legal 110" kit they sell (stock '07 CVO), but they show one for the 113' motor combo. A little embarassed with those stock 110" numbers Mr. MoCo, are we?
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: SPIDERMAN on December 09, 2006, 08:50:06 PM
Quote

I'm not really sure. The 113" is only listed as a race motor. I don't even see the parts in the SE catalog. I think it uses the same flywheels as the 103/110, with 4.06" pistons. They show a recommended combo list , but not the parts. It's funny that they don't show a Dyno for the street legal 110" kit they sell (stock '07 CVO), but they show one for the 113' motor combo. A little embarassed with those stock 110" numbers Mr. MoCo, are we?
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Rhino on December 09, 2006, 08:52:01 PM
The reason is clear, while the 113 WILL kick ass, the 110 can be beat by a 95 with a cam.  Its a money spending thing.  We must keep all our vendors and aftermarket mod guys in the money.

Ya wanna play ya gotta pay.  Pay HD or pay someone else, but the bottom line is ya gotta spend to make that 110 do much of anything.  

So far, Pipes 349, dyno 200, SERT 400, AC 100, an easy 500 for misc, and now what?  More money for a cam, labor, other misc parts, then the new ECM... so stop bitchin and just spend mo money an get some performance outta that choked up excuse for a 110 motor.  Wake up and smell the torque monster hidden within.  It's just a money thing, that's all.  Oh yeh, if they come up with a bigger CU in 08 I would be shocked.   No mo CU until you add water. Then it is no longer a Harley, its a VROD disguised to look like a Harley.    Hmmmm, Isn't that what Yamaha, Kawasaki and others already did? They try and look like Harley, now Harley is gonna try and look like the competition.  Glad I bought the last of the dinosaurs. Might well be worth a fortune in 20-30 years.

its a rant night.

Rhino
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Hoist! on December 10, 2006, 05:10:18 AM
Quote

[highlight]The 113 parts are in the 07 Screamin Eagle catalogue [/highlight]Page 49- - - 4.060" Bigger Bore cylinders Part # 16550-04 for Black and 16551-04 for Silver. Variety of pistons listed on Page 50 all under 113" Bigger Bore. Heads are a matter of choice, but there are recommendations. Grover should be the one to answer all this since his motor is a 113"

B B
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Rhino on December 10, 2006, 07:33:35 AM
Hey Hoist,

I am not upset at all, just going on a little rant. BTW what are you doing up so early anyway?  This is my second Harley, had a used Road King and life was good.  Now as my first NEW dealer bike, the rules seem to be different. Anyway, I will put warranty issues totally out of the picture, and exude confidence regarding any future mods I do.  I am not looking for a screamin monster either, but I know there is a secret combination that will give me what I feel was truly intended for this moteor. A special cam will be more powerful, and I want it to be transparent to the motor, just want it to like it without any wild ECM changes.  

I also fee that there will be an additional mod that will finally make my bike what I expect.  As I quoted to someone the other day, IMO it works.

"I want just a little more power than I will ever need"

Rhino
Go For A Ride!
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: fatboyse2 on December 11, 2006, 08:21:01 PM
I can tell you I'm pulling 115Tq and 114HP out of my 113" all SE build and it runs great. I'm sure a 110" with another 5K in upgrades would run very close.
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Hoist! on December 11, 2006, 08:29:19 PM
Quote
Hey Hoist,

I am not upset at all, just going on a little rant. BTW what are you doing up so early anyway?
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Rhino on December 11, 2006, 08:54:30 PM
Only another 5K?  Make me wanna run out and spend some immediately.   Actually, I really like playing around with the bike, and as I go farther for upgrades that is more than the SERT AC and Pipes, I will want to do it myself.  That is really part of my enjoyment. Of course for the head work I will ship it off some where, but the takedown and reassembly, why that's where it's at for me.

It's a HOBBY, with a little of the lifestyle thrown in.  I am waiting to see what options come about for the 110.  I am sure there is going to be a bunch!  I already have the Thunder ECM, just waiting for it's replacement.   I am anxious to get going on something more, but I can't wait 2 years.

Now I am very fortunate to have a bud who has a full blown shop, and it's his HOBBY too, not a business. Makes for some fun opportunities as they come along.  

So one day, the 110 will come alive, but only one way for me. Reliability and streetability.  I don' want to be a gineau pig on this one, my pretty B & O.

Rhino
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Hoist! on December 11, 2006, 09:11:43 PM
Quote
Only another 5K?
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Fired00d on December 11, 2006, 09:19:16 PM
Quote
...... It's a trip bike. [highlight]750lbs does not a race bike make[/highlight]. The Pro Street is 450#. Still not a race bike but, hold on and have fun!  [smiley=xyxthumbs.gif]  Hoist!   8-)
Brotha, you are going to be surprised when you see some of the member
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: SPIDERMAN on December 11, 2006, 09:22:12 PM
WOW, I see Fired00d's name under a thread and the topic isn't " MOVED"  Cool  8-)

Big B
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Hoist! on December 11, 2006, 09:23:56 PM
Quote
Brotha, you are going to be surprised when you see some of the member
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: SPIDERMAN on December 11, 2006, 09:24:40 PM
Quote
I can tell you I'm pulling 115Tq and 114HP out of my 113" all SE build and it runs great. I'm sure a 110" with another 5K in upgrades would run very close.

See if you get Grover to cough up his Dyno #'s  He and his 113 won the now famous Maggie Valley Roll On with his wife ridin co-pilot.

B B
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Unbalanced on December 11, 2006, 09:26:27 PM
Its rebutle night :)  Way to bored...

I have outlined my compaints previously so I am not going to inject them here.

While it maybe true there arent many "known combinations for this motor" , but that is because, not that many will embrace the 110 over the 113 from a stock perspective and why should they except for cost conscious / warranty needy people.   they can spend the 2500 and the labor and be done and have warranty.  A Hoist kind of situation .... its better than their 96 and they get their 2 year warranty.  I really doubt you would see someone go 88 to 110 makes no sense to do this.

So not that many people other than Screaming Chicken people are going to try and develop real power combinations, its a misplaced market at this point. You will most likely see a package or 2, but I actually think they will be very rigid in what will work.   Much like the 575's no head work bolt in, but time will tell.

The true problem isn't with the bike not delivering the power.   The bike delivers better than the harley's previously delivered by the MOCO and not in horsepower or torque sense in the fact that they delivered a cam that was epa compliant and in the avg riding range of their prospective customers.  2500 - 4500 range  

Another perceived problem is that over the last 7 years they delivered a twin cam that was capable of not being lugged when you ran the motor at or below 2000 rpm.  Today with the introduction of the 96 /110 motor people need to know that running it below 2500 rpm is in fact LUGGING THE MOTOR.   Its a stroker motor and it seems that this information is really not being shared in an educational way to the general public.  

Run the motor under 2500 and hear the transmissions / motors belly ache.  Its the nature of the beast so get over it people.  It comes down to the MOCO not doing its due diligence because their modern day riders learned to ride at 1800 -2300 rpm just cruising and now you must learn 2500 and up and people aren't accustomed to that.  Its like a harley guy getting on a crotch rocket or a vrod they expect the power at the bottom end they dont realize that when they hit 6k rpm the bike snaps to life .. its a hoot watching a long time harley rider get on a vrod and say it doesnt get out of its own way.   They arent used to hitting 5k on the tach never mind 9k.

Now all that being said put a cam in that is marriage with the 103 stroke / 9.3 compression and a bit more air flow and you will have a better than avg running bike with very little investment.   Comparing the rideability not overall numbers capable, but the 07 runs much better light to light than the stock 103's with air cleaner / tuner / pipes drag on ... not rolling runs.   That is because of the way the cam was designed.   The issue now with the 110's is the 255 cam dies errr i mean starts its decline at 4200 rpm  and falls fast by 5200 its low 90's, but the torque is coming in much better than the stock 103's.  

Rolling the 103 wins because most people have almost 12 hp more than the stock 110 with a stock 103.  Its a matter of shifting the curves around low end grunt vs mid range / top end comparision.   I should probably have done a comparison on the same sheet of paper, but for now i can just look at 2 curves and see it pretty plainly.

Quit your bitch'in and tell us how much muhla your going to invest now that you are done worrying about warranty??  What combination are you going to try ....
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Fired00d on December 11, 2006, 09:28:16 PM
Quote

i ain't saying that d00d. I can't wait too see these awesome rides I've been hearin' about. I'm just sayin' that I don't want that for myself. I have a slightly different agenda. You know what they say d00d, there's an a'hole for every seat. My a'hole fits my seat, and everyone elses fits theirs. It's all good!
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Hoist! on December 11, 2006, 09:38:38 PM
Quote
Its rebutle night :)
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: SPIDERMAN on December 11, 2006, 09:48:18 PM
I know you guys don't want to hear this, but for about $25k out the door you can go buy the 07 1250 V-ROD (not a CVO yeah I heard)Still gorgeous in those Screamin Eagle V&H replica colors though; Add a Thunderheader, a K&N Filter, A SERT and some good dyno time and there ain't no 103, 110,113 or 124 gonna touch it. It took a monster of a 145 to beat my 1250cc SEVROD and I weigh 300lbs brothers. So lets be honest here ok. This ain't about buildin race bikes, it's about buildin sleepers. Fancy baggers with a lot of flash that the average weekend warrior is like my boy Efram (you know, not only don't know nothin, don't even suspect nothin)  and don't see comin. Beagle chased down a crotch rocket rider when he and I went out for a ride with CVOJoe. You know one of those guys with Joe Sprocket leathers ridin a bike like Willie Shu. The look on the dude's face was priceless. That's what it's all about ain't it. Gettin that look when the fat old bastard on a bagger dusts the young punk on a cruiser. Course this is only my $0.02 as my broski the Qster likes to say

B B
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Unbalanced on December 11, 2006, 09:49:38 PM
Haha Hoist
Don't know how you could ever consider that aimed towards you ...  You are all about worrying about the warranty and thats your choice and its all good.   But the cryptic message was actually for Rhino.  Trust me I am not shy I direct my chop busting directly.  As Big B will tell you, I really don't take the long route to say what I want to say :)  So have a beer and relax I ain't teasing you in this case.

So to explain so no one else thinks I am teasing them.

I told him (Ron) I was going to get that sticker "Quit YOUR Bitch'n" and put it on my helmet, cause he would be able to read it a lot from back there :)
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: SPIDERMAN on December 11, 2006, 10:18:53 PM
Harry,
        Check out page 21 of the 2007 Screamin Eagle Parts Catalogue. Look at the last calibration listed under the 2007 Touring Section. 110 Stage 1 Race for 2007 FLHTCUSE2. That's where I got my info from. Just readin the bible from the church of Harley-Davidson is all bro. If brother Willie is lyin to me, then I'm a lost sheep and not a sinner.

B B
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Unbalanced on December 11, 2006, 10:37:13 PM
Brian,

It is for non cvo models.
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: SPIDERMAN on December 11, 2006, 10:44:55 PM
Quote
Brian,

It is for non cvo models.
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Hoist! on December 11, 2006, 11:43:02 PM
Quote
Haha Hoist
Don't know how you could ever consider that aimed towards you ...
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Rhino on December 12, 2006, 01:09:45 PM
Rhino here.

So Spectator, you trying or did you actually bust my chops.  All I been hearin is how my buds 103 gonna eat me up, and your SO 103 is gonna do the same.

I don't think so, cause all I hear is talk, and many occasions to do it arise, and n obody takin me up on it.  I go vrooom at the light and there is always an excuse.  

So maybe we gotta end this thing once and for all.  You allz just pissed cause my bike dynoed better than yours apples to apples on the 110's.

Ready to run for pinks?  Come and get it big boy!!!  I always wanted three harleys in my stable.

Rhino







ps:  just kidding
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Hoist! on December 12, 2006, 03:27:09 PM
Quote
Rhino here.

So Spectator, you trying or did you actually bust my chops.
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Rhino on December 12, 2006, 03:34:09 PM
i HAD NO CHOICE TO SAY ...JUS KIDDING...  
because i think i would lose a couple of real good friends if I had to take their bikes away...


But in the meantime, I and those that have 110's, the day will come when it will be appropriate to beef it up when good and true parts become availalbe.  We all know about the 113, etc, and it is designed to race.

But if one can take a 103 and "claim" it goes faster than our 110's, we can always take that 110 and make it go better than a stock 120 or so it goes..  Displacement will always win with enough$$$.

If your point initially was to .... what was the point anyway?  Me forget.

Rhino
But Spectator
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: Hoist! on December 12, 2006, 03:40:39 PM
Quote
i HAD NO CHOICE TO SAY ...JUS KIDDING...
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: d-rock on December 18, 2006, 11:26:48 AM
I just rode a stock 110 and was very disapointed. On the other hand I never rode my 103 in stock form. My new 113 has 123tq and 125 hp with 7500 miles on it this year and it still runs like the day I had it done. Having said that
Title: Re: 110 vs 113 cu in
Post by: JDOFLHRIDER on December 18, 2006, 07:44:27 PM
WELL I'M SORRY THIS HAS SPEED ON IT INSTEAD OF RPM .I WASN'T LOOKING WHEN SERVICE MGR PRINTED IT UP.THIS 07 SEUC HAS D-D FAT CATS(HP BAFFLE),SE AC AND SE PT AND OWNER GRINNING EAR TO EAR LOVE'H HIS BIKE.