Print

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

[9sec240]

While I am a little disappointed the numbers were not higher, other than saying, “numbers vary from dyno to dyno” there were a multitude of things working against a good tune.  We were under a time crunch for me being at work the next day (got home at 1:15am), there was a severe thunderstorm rolling in, the engine was tight with only 50 dyno miles on it, and despite what the graph says the ambient conditions were ~94F with ~70% humidity.  So, I believe once the engine has some miles on it, there is additional tuning work to be done.

Shortcomings?…
A consulting engine builder (on this forum) does not like my pipe/muffler (vs. 2-1 & baffle size/style) choice and my actual engine builder does not like my intake (vs. HPI 58mm) choice.  They believe I have left easy power on the table, but both components were reused from my previous stage III build.  I would love to hear CVOHarley.com opinions on this.

Things I am noticing after one ride, first the good…
Significant power increase from my previous stage III build with Fueling 574 cams!  Two-up ridability is much improved as torque starts much lower.

The not so good…
Excessive valve train noise (wife said, “what’s that noise, I’ve never heard that before?”)
Excessive heat (on +90F day, wife said, “is the heat always going to be like this from now on?”)

Weak link…
Stock bottom-end with .0035 crank run-out

Please check my signature for specs before asking redundant spec questions.

Oh, and surprisingly my pistons were .007 (instead of .004) in the hole.  So, .027 HGs (instead of .030) were used to compensate.

Thanks,

dnlpnd

It seems by your response to other posts that you are saying your compression ratio is 10.8:1.  I thought the drop in kit was 9.9:1 . 

[Screeper]

This is more likely than not the throttle blade snapping open and closed at idle.  Most 58mm TBW bikes do this...for better or worse.

i have heard the reversion and the blade.  either way I i understand it is harmless and part of the cost of going high performance.  i am not going to worry and just ride.  One of the plus sides of the drop in kit is the one year warranty.  this works out well as I had six months left on my factory warranty so in theory i extended my warranty by installing the kit....  At least thats what I tell myself to justify the cost... lol

[dnlpnd]

It seems by your response to other posts that you are saying your compression ratio is 10.8:1.  I thought the drop in kit was 9.9:1 .

It's in my signature, but yes calculated compression is 10.8:1.  This was acomplished through a thinner head gasket and shaving the heads.  "A low compression engine is a lazy engine.", ~King of Cubes

[9sec240]

It's in my signature, but yes calculated compression is 10.8:1.  This was acomplished through a thinner head gasket and shaving the heads.  "A low compression engine is a lazy engine.", ~King of Cubes

That's a lot of shaving!  .010" on the gasket is a tenth of a point on stock heads at this bore.  Unless your heads were welded and reshaped, that's .080" off the heads.  Wow!

[dnlpnd]

That's a lot of shaving!  .010" on the gasket is a tenth of a point on stock heads at this bore.  Unless your heads were welded and reshaped, that's .080" off the heads.  Wow!

I'm not going to argue the point, but for the sake of misinformation on a public forum, the math of my head builder, my engine builder, and myself indicate that with .050" off the heads and with a .027" head gasket with 4.125" piston .007" in the hole, equals 10.8:1 compression with the pistons that come in the drop-on 117 kit.  Ask BostonBoy, if you don't believe me.  No reshaping of the combustion chamber on stock SE 110 heads was performed. Intake runners aligned perfectly on a boroscope.

dnlpnd

[Unbalanced]

if you work the numbers backwards and go by the calculator as a basis for compression, it would seem that the heads were decked around .040-.045 to get to 88.7cc.    That is if the other numbers posted are correct.

.007 in the hole,
.027 headgasket    (forgot to put that in the list of considerations)  edited to add this
10.8 to 1 compression
flat top pistons
600 cam

[rockytop117]

if you work the numbers backwards and go by the calculator as a basis for compression, it would seem that the heads were decked around .040-.045 to get to 88.7cc.    That is if the other numbers posted are correct.

.007 in the hole,
10.8 to 1 compression
flat top pistons
600 cam

There you go being all technical again...

[Unbalanced]

There you go being all technical again...

My apologies what was I thinking clearing that up  

[cvosjoe]

Well it was worth the wait getting pistons made for the 117 cylinders. Could probably get it to hit harder down low by using a different muffler but all in all it'll be fun to ride.

About the build.
117 HD drop in cylinders
CP dome pistons  (11.4 static)
HD Street Performance 110 heads
HPI 55mm with 5.3 injectors
Woods TW9B-6 cams
Jackpot stainless 2-1-2 head pipe
4" Rinehart mufflers

[Ridgerunr]

WOW, fine job by all involved. 

[cvo1717]

great numbers enjoy

[FLSTFI Dave]

Joe,

That is a very nice build.  Over 120 torque at 2750 RPM, and just keeps climbing until over 140 by just over 3500 RPM and Stays over 140 until 5000RPM and does not fall below 120 until after 6000 RPM.

That should be a real fun ride, HP over 140 too!

Sure makes me Anxious to get my Pistons!

[Unbalanced]

Well it was worth the wait getting pistons made for the 117 cylinders. Could probably get it to hit harder down low by using a different muffler but all in all it'll be fun to ride.

About the build.
117 HD drop in cylinders
CP dome pistons  (11.4 static)
HD Street Performance 110 heads
HPI 55mm with 5.3 injectors
Woods TW9B-6 cams
Jackpot stainless 2-1-2 head pipe
4" Rinehart mufflers

Great numbers and result, but there is something a miss in that tune whether it be tuning or clutch the graph should not be so choppy with smoothing 5.   

Great numbers and result, but there is something a miss whether it be tuning or clutch the graph should not be so choppy with smoothing 5. you see it from the beginning of the pull to 4000 rpm and a bit later as well.   typically you could see that with smoothing 3, but should be much smoother at 5.       leaning towards the clutch ... ask the tuner to give you a graph of the same run with the gear instead of torque, might help decipher if the clutch is the cause.

[cvosjoe]

Great numbers and result, but there is something a miss whether it be tuning or clutch the graph should not be so choppy with smoothing 5. you see it from the beginning of the pull to 4000 rpm and a bit later as well.   typically you could see that with smoothing 3, but should be much smoother at 5.       leaning towards the clutch ... ask the tuner to give you a graph of the same run with the gear instead of torque, might help decipher if the clutch is the cause.

I'll ask when I pick up the bike.

[Ridgerunr]

My bet is the clutch. I had J&B tune my CVO RK, Brandon told me I had some clutch slip, as my lines were "choppy" also = inherent with the "slipper clutch in the CVO models.
He suggested this:https://aimcorp.myshopify.com/collections/vp-sdr-for-cvo-new-clutch.
I had a VPC in my 113" @ 130+ tq, no felt, or visible on the dyno graph slippage.