Print

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

[prodrag1320]

and how much $$ was that?,just wondering

[HD Street Performance]

No larger valves. I know the flow bench says no need but real world is another deal. The throat on the cvo 110 is 92%+ with a stock 2.08 valve, the mva goes up to 2.120 for good reason. On a 117" the 4.125 bore is ideal for the change.

[RoadDawg]

No larger valves. I know the flow bench says no need but real world is another deal. The throat on the cvo 110 is 92%+ with a stock 2.08 valve, the mva goes up to 2.120 for good reason. On a 117" the 4.125 bore is ideal for the change.

This is what I found on his web site: "Our newly developed CNC port for the CVO 110 heads using the stock valve sizes (2.080" In./1.610" Ex.). The program CNC ports around the stock valve guides and also profiles them for more flow, making it unnecessary to remove and replace the valve guides. This head flows a whopping 321 cfm @ 28" at .650" lift, compared to a stock CVO 110 head which flows 280 cfm."

[HD Street Performance]

I would love to not use new guides, which carry the benefit of a tighter stem fit, longer life, better seat sealing, contoured shape, and longer valve seal life. I would also not change out perfectly good valves with new larger then I could lower the cost. Not going to happen. I state this to deseminate information only not slam anyone. I have been testing changes to these heads since early 2008 and tried several valve sizes and styles before arriving at my current configuration.

[RoadDawg]

LOOKING FOWARD TO RESULTS HOW DOES IT FEEL ?

Finally got a chance to put some miles on the bike after the dyno tune. The numbers may not have jumped as much as I expected, but I can tell you that the performance certainly did! If the tuner would have told me I had 140 hp I would have believed it! HUGE difference in power, especially at 3500 rpm and more especially in in 4th through 6th gear. Very noticeable increase in the way the bike runs. I'm impressed and quite happy with the results!
  

[WYD OPN]

I would love to not use new guides, which carry the benefit of a tighter stem fit, longer life, better seat sealing, contoured shape, and longer valve seal life. I would also not change out perfectly good valves with new larger then I could lower the cost. Not going to happen. I state this to deseminate information only not slam anyone. I have been testing changes to these heads since early 2008 and tried several valve sizes and styles before arriving at my current configuration.

Reading the last few of your posts here, I see what you're saying.  If the heads are being done, the most optimum configuration should be done while it's apart while doing the 117" drop-in kit.

I see you changed pistons instead of another means of getting to 10.6:1 compression.  I'm unsure how much compression I'd being willing to live with as a max.  I don't like getting much into the 10s for the sake of fuel considerations, etc.

[North Star]

Reading the last few of your posts here, I see what you're saying.  If the heads are being done, the most optimum configuration should be done while it's apart while doing the 117" drop-in kit.

I see you changed pistons instead of another means of getting to 10.6:1 compression.  I'm unsure how much compression I'd being willing to live with as a max.  I don't like getting much into the 10s for the sake of fuel considerations, etc.

I told GMR the same thing when Steve told me my 113 build would use 10.8 compression pistons.  He explained to me that it isnt just about the compression number, but your bikes PMS level is based on the ccp number. Mine is 215, so he said I shouldnt have any issues with fuel while travelling.

[HD Street Performance]

Reading the last few of your posts here, I see what you're saying.  If the heads are being done, the most optimum configuration should be done while it's apart while doing the 117" drop-in kit.

I see you changed pistons instead of another means of getting to 10.6:1 compression.  I'm unsure how much compression I'd being willing to live with as a max.  I don't like getting much into the 10s for the sake of fuel considerations, etc.

The term I use is don't dabble. Some of the items are a reliability issue over the long haul. When they start to use oil they will ping and tear themselves up.

North Star 215ccp is not light. OK in Canada with your 94 but would be pressing things in some US states all things considered such as octane, altitude, and weather.

[WYD OPN]

I told GMR the same thing when Steve told me my 113 build would use 10.8 compression pistons.  He explained to me that it isnt just about the compression number, but your bikes PMS level is based on the ccp number. Mine is 215, so he said I shouldnt have any issues with fuel while travelling.

I see.  I just get a bit nervous when compression is from 10.0:1 toward 11.0:1, especially past 10.5:1.

I'm always concerned about fuel quality and overall load on the engine, acutely so during the hot weather months.

[WYD OPN]

The term I use is don't dabble. Some of the items are a reliability issue over the long haul. When they start to use oil they will ping and tear themselves up.

North Star 215ccp is not light. OK in Canada with your 94 but would be pressing things in some US states all things considered such as octane, altitude, and weather.

On that build above, all you did was swap in domed pistons for 10.6:1 with the drop-in 117" SE kit, right?

[North Star]

On that build above, all you did was swap in domed pistons for 10.6:1 with the drop-in 117" SE kit, right?

No, GMR 113 build with headwork. Well, I better not have any issues on my upcoming trip to SD, Beartooth Pass, Montana, then up through BC and Alberta. Steve assured me it won't be finicky with gas.

Don, yes Petro Canada sells 94 octane with ethanol, but I run ethanol free 91 octane. FYI for fellow Canadians, Esso 91 and Shell 91 are ethanol free at all stations across the country. In Ontario, Costco 91, Canadian Tire 91, and Ultramar 91 are also ethanol free.

I had it tuned on Sunoco 91 octane in PA rather then using 93 or 94, since I normally run 91. Hopefully this made my tune more fuel tolerable. I have no pinging or driveability issues thus far.

And sorry if this is a hijack 

[fastfreddy]

just an FYI the fuel in the area you r planning to visit has poor fuel...and for me i seemed to find every station that sold fuel with ethanol...its a pain to look for decent fuel when your trying to tour. last year my bike was throwing a fit up in the mountains above 5k elevation, and cant even begin to explain how bad it was in Vegas with the 110 plus temps! not sure what my ccp is, on paper its 10.64:1

[Ward Performance]

In response to the thread suggesting we do not replace valve guides in order to cut costs or corners, please know that is not the case.  In fact, we do this for a specific reason.  In 2010 for a short period HD produced castings with 332M Markings on them. 332M is the alloy and heat treat. These particular heads are notorious for cracking around the valve guides. We have seen them cracked in untouched, stock form, and some crack while removing the valve guides, while others crack when installing the valve guides.

We have gone so far as to remove the guides by machining them out. This eliminates any pressure from pressing or pushing them out with an impact driver. During installation we also heat the head in an industrial oven, then submerse the guide in liquid nitrogen. At that point we are able to push the standard size guide in the head by hand, using no extra force.  However, we have still experienced occasional cracking with this method.
It got to the point where we wouldn’t even rework heads with the 332M markings on them. The heads marked 242 T5 were the only heads we would touch.

In 2014 HD released the Twin Cooled 110. These heads were once again marked 332M. Naturally we were very concerned we would see the same cracking issues. My feeling was the best option on these heads was to leave the stock valve guides in place and not risk having the heads crack. I created a CNC program to circular interpolate the valve guide, tapering it to the shape of the performance bronze valve guides we typically use. I then had to create a CNC porting program to port around the valve guides. Both of which took weeks to develop to get the finish and flow results we were looking for.
We can only use this approach on new heads or heads with low miles. Valve guides must have acceptable clearances or we are forced to replace them. I can assure everyone we did not go through all this extra work to cut corners or be cheap.

As far as larger valve sizes, we too offer larger valves for the 110 head. We have great results using the original 2.080” on the flow bench and the Dyno. We have experienced and also had feedback from other shops on 113” and 117” builds, with horsepower numbers in the upper 130’s and low 140’s using this CNC head package. Obviously Dyno numbers can vary greatly depending on the combination, Dyno and tuner.

[WYD OPN]

• The tuned 117" with the kit pistons @ 9.9:1 CR with stock heads did 116/129 SAE.
• With headwork and standard valves, the above 117" did 122/131 SAE.
• Another 117" with replacement dome pistons @ 10.6:1 CR with stock heads did 126/132 SAE.

Combining the replacement dome pistons @ 10.6:1 CR with headwork AND adding larger intake valves for 335+cfm "should" get very close to 135/135-square SAE.

[rockytop117]

• The tuned 117" with the kit pistons @ 9.9:1 CR with stock heads did 116/129 SAE.
• With headwork and standard valves, the above 117" did 122/131 SAE.
• Another 117" with replacement dome pistons @ 10.6:1 CR with stock heads did 126/132 SAE.

Combining the replacement dome pistons @ 10.6:1 CR with headwork AND adding larger intake valves for 335+cfm "should" get very close to 135/135-square SAE.

You don't need larger valves to see flow numbers in that range...