Print

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

[Coffy]

What is a good make of slipons that don’t rob the low end torque?
Have Rhinehart 4.5 motopro slip-ons at moment, am getting MR103 cams installed and tuned with custom maps on Dyno with power vision, the Dyno guru tells me the Rhineharts rob the low end torque, and I really need something not so flo through or at least baffles, for which I believe I can’t get for these slipons, he also recommends V&H monster rounds for a better set up,
Any input from others out there

[zigzag930]

More information would be helpful.  First, what yr/bike/engine.  Second, stock header or has this been replaced?  If this is a newer (ie Rushmore) bike, the cat (catalytic convertor) will be in the header.

If running a factory header with a cat, it's doubtful any slip-on will effect your performance very much.  However, if you have removed the cat (or exchanged the head for a cat-less style), then baffle size will make some differences in low end torque.   

I believe most bikes 110cu in and less, with Stage 1 or less will run best with a 1.75 - 2.0 inch baffle (according to the experts).

Hope that helps.

[Coffy]

Hi Zigzag,

Bike a 2016 110 cvo ultra
Stock cvo AC
MR103 cams
Fueling lifters
V&H powerduals,
4.5 Rhinehart, hiflo baffles
Powervision tuner

[zigzag930]

There are some real experts on here that may offer additional advice, but considering your bike is close to stock, here are my comments:

1) Stock A/C, perfectly adequate and little if any to be gained from changing it.
2) MR103, can't say - I did the TTS100 and very happy with the results.  Again, most "bolt-in" cam changes will give only modest improvements in torque and HP.  Real gains will come from cams along with head work and compression adjustments.   That type of work get's expensive and voids most warranties.  TTS100 was a very noticeable seat of the pants performance gain.  Hope you get similar results with the MR103.
3) Great that you have replaced your lifters with non-HD lifters.  They are a problem for most 110's at some point.  Mine took out the entire engine at 42K miles.  Most riders have failures at or before that point with the 110 stock HD lifters.  There are tons of posts about this issue.
4) Probably will be told that these head pipes are sacrificing low end power.  If it's only noticeable on a dyno, then probably not worth worrying about.
5) This too (like #4) will get you lots of comments that you are losing power.  I had purchased RCX 4.5's for my bike before researching slip-ons.  I liked the look and loved the sound.  I do think I felt a loss of low end power when I installed them.   Anyway, when I changed my head pipe, I liked the sound of the RCX 4.5's even more - but they did get pretty loud (not a bad things as far as I'm concerned).   When I received my new motor (after the lifters failed), I installed the TTS100 cam and planned to have the bike tuned by Doc (in FL).  He'd already told me that the RCX 4.5's should go.   I swapped them for CVO cans with Fulsac 2.0 cores.
6) PV - probably very adequate for your current build, but may be limiting if you do more extensive work down the road.

[Coffy]

Thanks for the input,  great info and it sure does all help, much appreciated

[hawgzilla]

 You would be well served with the stock Harley mufflers with the 2” Fullsac baffles.

[MCE]

I think the tune & tuner will be the predominate factor(s). Tweaking the fuel and timing in those
problem areas will often overcome those TQ dips you see and hear about.

I'm not a tuning expert, but I work for a few. From what I've been told, PV has some limitations,
so that might be a factor. I can ask one of them about that if you'd like.

Based on the sheets I get back from doing work on various builds, the duals don't seem to be
a big limiting factor. (They're not all that far off from similar builds with a good 2->1)

Crusher Mellows seem to be very good at delivering good (flat) TQ curves. There are likely
allot of others out there that will do that as well.

I think most of it boils down to how much effort is put into tuning out those pesky dips that you get
in the TQ curve.

I don't think PV has the granularity that some of the others do. But I could be confusing that with one
of the others. I can ask one of the experts to verify that. (They don't port heads and I don't tune bikes.
lol)

PM me if you want me to look into it some more, but that's how I understand it. There are plenty of
ppl here that can verify that as well.

Good luck. If I can help, give me a shout.
-MC

 

[CVO 2015]

Crusher mellows or Fullsac 1.75 power cores inserted in your stock CVO cans offer the best low end torque...For hp and torque the mellows may win out a little or go with Fullsqchs 2.0 powercores...A builder in Lancaster Ca. has used the MR 103 in a 103 , but they also installed S&S pistons and it was mentioned that the pistons really need to be warm  before "getting on it."

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[kojak]

You have good slip one. The tech gave you bs advice.

[1roadking]

Any big baffle 4.5 inch slip on reduces low end TQ by about 10 to 15% and it’s definitely noticeable. If you read dyno sheets and comments from any good tuner they will tell you a 1.75 to 2.0 inch core baffles from Fullsac will give you the best combo of low end TQ and max HP. Another option is a 2 into 1 which gives you louder sound and max TQ To HP ratio. I swapped out Vance and Hines OS 450 rounds, same size baffles for a Bassani Road Rage B4 on my 117 built motor and the TQ down low went up about 15% and max HP went up about 5%. The low end is night and day compared to the big baffle OS 450’s. After a lot of research I would lean towards Bassani B4 or D and D Fat Cat if going 2 into 1.