Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Fullsac Baffles  (Read 6295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mr. Warlock

  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 781

    • CVO1: 2014 CVO Limited - unnamed
    • CVO2: 2011 Softail Convertable "Bourbon Betty" - Traded
    • CVO3: 2005 SE FatBoy - Sold
Fullsac Baffles
« on: August 30, 2017, 07:09:30 AM »

For those who have tried both.....

What is the difference in noise levels from the 2.0 Baffles to the 1.75 Baffles?
I have had the 2.0 and contemplating the 1.75.

Thanks!!
Logged
Lived hard and fast, laughed harder than humans have a right to and continue to do so.

GregKhougaz

  • It's a Two Wheeled World.
  • Global Moderator
  • 5k CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9542
    • CA


    • CVO1: '22 BMW Grand America
    • CVO2: '18 Porsche C4 GTS
    • CVO3: '22 Porsche Macan GTS and my mountain bike.
Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2017, 09:23:44 AM »

I'm not sure that anybody telling you the difference in noise is going to help you. Use the search function. Some years ago fullsac did post horsepower and decimal comparisons, if I recall. A couple of members also posted YouTube videos showing comparisons.
Logged


"We've got some tall tales we love to tell.  They may not be true but we sure do remember them well." 
 Sawyer Brown

When you come to a fork in the road... take it!

Mr. Warlock

  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 781

    • CVO1: 2014 CVO Limited - unnamed
    • CVO2: 2011 Softail Convertable "Bourbon Betty" - Traded
    • CVO3: 2005 SE FatBoy - Sold
Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2017, 01:08:39 PM »

Question still stands. My question is for anyone that has tried both.

I already tried the search function Greg. If I would have found the answer that I was looking for I wouldn't have asked.
Logged
Lived hard and fast, laughed harder than humans have a right to and continue to do so.

ultrarider123

  • Guest
Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2017, 02:06:46 PM »

Must notta tried very hard (just kidding... ;D :huepfenlol2: )  Some good information on sound levels, comparing to 1.75/2.0/2.25 baffle sizes but some of the answers are deep in the body of the posts.

https://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=103251.msg1332176#msg1332176
https://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=111949.0

Here's someone that sold their system because the 1.75 and 2.0 were too loud
https://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=108040.msg1386515#msg1386515

JCZ's comment the second one down
https://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=110776.msg1415908#msg1415908

I used the search criteria on the home page of Fulsac 1.75 baffles and Fulsac 1.75 vs 2.0 baffles


Lot's of sounds on YouTube, too, using search criteria "fulsac 1.75 vs 2.0 baffles".  A few examples









« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 02:09:09 PM by Haird »
Logged

Ironhorse

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4337
    • CA


    • CVO1: 2006 SE Ultra
    • CVO2: 2018 GoldWing DCT Airbag
Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2017, 05:19:10 PM »

Yes, I have tried both on my old 2001 Ultra. I found the 2.0 to be louder, and the 1.75 to give more torque. No dyno testing to show on paper, just a seat of the pants feel. I stuck with the 1.75 as it was not as loud.
Logged
"But men are men, the best sometimes forget" Shakespeare, Othello Act 2, Scene 3

woodzynh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
  • www.CVOHARLEY.com
    • NH

Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2017, 06:21:04 PM »

I went with the 2.25" with tune, don't see any difference in seat of the pants from stock. Nice sound, not to load IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged

HOGMIKE

  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2349
  • 65 FLH 93" + others
Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2017, 06:36:38 PM »

For those who have tried both.....

What is the difference in noise levels from the 2.0 Baffles to the 1.75 Baffles?
I have had the 2.0 and contemplating the 1.75.

Thanks!!

Yes, I have tried both on 4 different bikes.
Yes there is a difference in "noise" levels.
Yes I have tried variations on the 1.75 cores and there is a slight difference in sound/frequency depending of either stock, modified, etc, etc

I guess it's what you are "contemplating" going to the 1.75?
Are your concerns "noise", "power", "driveability"??

There has been much testing on the Fullsac cores over the years and a call to Steve may be what you need to do.
He may ask a WHOLE bunch of questions to try to fit the cores to what you want. The nice thing I have found out is that I have 3 bikes with the cvo mufflers and different cores I can change easily.
Maybe if we had a little more info about your riding style, and what your goals are we can help a little.
 :nixweiss:


Logged
HOGMIKE

Mr. Warlock

  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 781

    • CVO1: 2014 CVO Limited - unnamed
    • CVO2: 2011 Softail Convertable "Bourbon Betty" - Traded
    • CVO3: 2005 SE FatBoy - Sold
Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2017, 07:52:15 PM »

Thanks for the replies, I guess I asked incorrectly. I found pretty much everything that you posted Haird but I wanted to get a personal feel from those that have actually tried both.

Thanks again!
Logged
Lived hard and fast, laughed harder than humans have a right to and continue to do so.

motor1

  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
  • Current Harley: 2022 FLTRKSE

    • CVO1: 2022 FLTRKSE
    • CVO2: 2022 FLRTXSE traded, 2015 FLTRUSE traded
    • CVO3: 2012 FLTRXSE traded, 2011 FLTRUSE traded
Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2017, 10:27:24 PM »

Have had both, and prefer the 1.75.  The smaller baffle made it easier enjoy the stereo and to cruise locally. I came to the conclusion that the smaller outlet was loud enough to let you know you're on a Harley and still enjoy the ride.
Logged
Excuses are the conditions under which you have failed.

Chief2505

  • Senior CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 411

    • CVO1: 2013 Ultra Tribal Orange
    • CVO2: 2016 CVO Limited two tone silver
Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2017, 09:22:30 AM »

I wonder if that guy ever sold that set up and would it fit my 16 CVO limited?
Logged

TNCarters

  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 651

    • CVO1: 2015 CVO RGU
    • CVO2: 2011 Ultra Limited (Traded)
Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2017, 11:11:37 AM »

I have run both 1.75 and 2.0 on my 2015 CVO which has a FuelMoto head pipe.  I like the idle and acceleration sound of the 2.0 baffle better but my old ears like the 1.75 baffle when touring.  Wife (passenger) prefers the 1.75 as well so that is usually whats in the bike.  I do think my 2 year old stock muffler packing is about gone so that could make both a bit louder.
Logged
Ron
2015 CVO RGU
Burgundy Blaze

Cat Eye

  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1389


    • CVO1: 2015 FLHXSE
Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2017, 12:34:17 PM »

I started with the 2.25 and liked the sound but the drone at cruise caused me to wear ear plug on long trips.

Got tired of the ear plugs so I installed the 2" baffles which did soften the drone at cruise. Idle and acceleration noise/tone seemed the same the as the 2.25....but was probability a little softer.

However, the 2" baffles eventually caused me to wear ear plug again.

So I installed the 1.75 which were perfect at cruise but idle/acceleration was a lot softer.

I then installed a 2" baffle in the left muffler and kept the 1.75 in the right.  This seemed to increase the idle and acceleration a touch and kept the cruise drone at a nice level.

So far I pleased with this setup.

Hope this helps.

Logged

MoparBob

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • www.CVOHARLEY.com
    • AK

Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2017, 07:04:13 PM »

I started with the 2.25 and liked the sound but the drone at cruise caused me to wear ear plug on long trips.

Got tired of the ear plugs so I installed the 2" baffles which did soften the drone at cruise. Idle and acceleration noise/tone seemed the same the as the 2.25....but was probability a little softer.

However, the 2" baffles eventually caused me to wear ear plug again.

So I installed the 1.75 which were perfect at cruise but idle/acceleration was a lot softer.

I then installed a 2" baffle in the left muffler and kept the 1.75 in the right.  This seemed to increase the idle and acceleration a touch and kept the cruise drone at a nice level.

So far I pleased with this setup.

Hope this helps.

Stock or aftermarket headpipe?
Logged
2018 CVO ULTRA LIMITED - Dark Earth Fade

HOGMIKE

  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2349
  • 65 FLH 93" + others
Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2017, 10:55:13 PM »

Stock or aftermarket headpipe?

You do make a valid point about the header.
I HAVE noticed that the sound will change depending on the header being an "x" configuration and also depending on the packing material (assuming stock CVO cans).
I have tried various combinations of core size and length, packing, stock screens to keep the gap between the screens and the core.
I have found the combination that works very well for ME.
I like my tunes, don't like the droning sound when pulling my trailer, etc. etc.
My setup won't work for everyone, but I've been satisfied for many years with the complete system from Fullsac.
"System" is the key here IMHO
Logged
HOGMIKE

dknuttgen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
  • www.CVOHARLEY.com
    • VA


    • CVO1: 2010 FLHTCUSE5 Crimson Mist
Re: Fullsac Baffles
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2017, 06:29:13 AM »

I am interested in getting those 2.0s from you if you decide to change and want to sell them. I removed the cores from my stock mufflers and need to put something back in till I can do a complete fullsac system.
Thanks!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.166 seconds with 21 queries.