Print

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

[SirMichael]

KD, I've got the "standard" quiet baffle.  No performance baffle. I'm only interested in bottom end and making that as good as I can while not paying any more noise penalty than I have to.

When it goes back together the combination will be the FatCat 2-1s, HTCC CNC ported heads, Axtell 3 15/16" cylinders for 107" with their pistons to match and head work done to match the cylinders and pistons, Mackie's 598 cam and a 50mm throttle body and intake.

Just curious, why are you going with the HTCC CNC ported heads? I used the 103+ heads and they seemed to work really well!!

                                                                     MIKE

[StreetDog]

 2Lane, I wonder what the performance gains ( if any ) are for the quiet performance baffles compared to the quiet standard baffle ( I think Hoist said it was about 6 or 7 hp ) and I wonder how restrictive the quiet standard baffles are compared to the stock pipes? Any idea ?   I am doing similar mods and can't determine which baffle would be best. I would like to go with a quieter baffle if it will work well with this setup and not choke the mods down. What have you found out. Not really looking for THE MOST hp , looking more for torque.

[Twolanerider]

Just curious, why are you going with the HTCC CNC ported heads? I used the 103+ heads and they seemed to work really well!!

                                                                     MIKE

The head choice was based on three things.

First was the least important (though not entirely insignificant) since they were going to be retouched by the machine shop anyway (though only minimally).  This was that the general trend of all the homework said the HTCC ported versions were just a bit better at the bottom end. 

Second and very important factor was that Axtell had a strong recommendation of that head as a mate to their 3 15/16" cylinders.  The machining bringing the jug/pistons and the heads together was in detail with this combination.  Since this followed in step with the general trends of the homework and research that was part of #1 there wasn't a strong reason to look much elsewhere.

Third (and given the first two this clinched it) I got a chance to get a set at a really good deal.  Someone I know around here had gotten way too deep in to an engine build.  His wife told him he'd spent way too much.  So much too much that he'd be sleeping on the couch if he didn't recoup some.  So I traded him a set of take offs from a 96" and a fair bit less than half the new cost of the CNC ported HTCCs for the new heads.

[Twolanerider]

2Lane, I wonder what the performance gains ( if any ) are for the quiet performance baffles compared to the quiet standard baffle ( I think Hoist said it was about 6 or 7 hp ) and I wonder how restrictive the quiet standard baffles are compared to the stock pipes? Any idea ?   I am doing similar mods and can't determine which baffle would be best. I would like to go with a quieter baffle if it will work well with this setup and not choke the mods down. What have you found out. Not really looking for THE MOST hp , looking more for torque.

Can only relate what the D&D people told me.  Two different people there relayed nearly identical information.  For a "smaller" engine like mine they suggest that the quiet baffle will actually be slightly better for the bottom end.  The same baffle they say would be too restrictive for an engine a little bigger. 

Have done a fair amount of homework on this.  Read quite a few dyno charts (though they're only suggestive of trends of course).  Talked to D&D and spoke with a local and gifted tuner along with another I know from elsewhere.

It all suggested that for a build in the range of what I'm doing that the FatCat with the "standard" quiet baffle would be a good choice if the intent is bottom end in and early.  Since I really don't even care what the dyno says above 4500 that bottom end in and early is what I'm after.

[SirMichael]

The head choice was based on three things.

First was the least important (though not entirely insignificant) since they were going to be retouched by the machine shop anyway (though only minimally).  This was that the general trend of all the homework said the HTCC ported versions were just a bit better at the bottom end. 

Second and very important factor was that Axtell had a strong recommendation of that head as a mate to their 3 15/16" cylinders.  The machining bringing the jug/pistons and the heads together was in detail with this combination.  Since this followed in step with the general trends of the homework and research that was part of #1 there wasn't a strong reason to look much elsewhere.

Third (and given the first two this clinched it) I got a chance to get a set at a really good deal.  Someone I know around here had gotten way too deep in to an engine build.  His wife told him he'd spent way too much.  So much too much that he'd be sleeping on the couch if he didn't recoup some.  So I traded him a set of take offs from a 96" and a fair bit less than half the new cost of the CNC ported HTCCs for the new heads.

I had heard that the HTCC CNC heads were more of a top end head, but I guess they can be any way with different combinations,
 I used the 103+ heads and they worked great with the combination that I used!! My friend Tom had the HTCC CNC ported heads on his 95 build and the bike was all top end with his combo!!

                                                                     Later,
                                                                                MIKE

[Twolanerider]

I had heard that the HTCC CNC heads were more of a top end head, but I guess they can be any way with different combinations,
 I used the 103+ heads and they worked great with the combination that I used!! My friend Tom had the HTCC CNC ported heads on his 95 build and the bike was all top end with his combo!!

                                                                     Later,
                                                                                MIKE

Most everything I was reading suggested otherwise (when used in a proper combination).  Granted, this is Harley we're talking about; but they're not even marketed as a top end/ horsepower product.  The HT in HTCC is high torque.  Three reputable and national machinists all suggested it as a good option for this goal along with a couple of great tuners.  My own homework beyond seemed to jive with what they were saying.  Sure hope it doesn't suck !

[SirMichael]

Most everything I was reading suggested otherwise (when used in a proper combination).  Granted, this is Harley we're talking about; but they're not even marketed as a top end/ horsepower product.  The HT in HTCC is high torque.  Three reputable and national machinists all suggested it as a good option for this goal along with a couple of great tuners.  My own homework beyond seemed to jive with what they were saying.  Sure hope it doesn't suck !

      

[tommyo]

Had the HTCC ported heads with a S&S 585 cam combo and ran Rineharts TD Not as much TQ as you think. This is on a 95" big bore all HD stuff. It did have a few detonation issues in the beginning. Had to retard the timing in the summer. 4th gear 99.64 hp & 94.32 tq. 5th gear 102.26 hp & 99.04 tq. It did run well and was not beaten by anything but what SirMike had built. His 103 just edged me out but the 113 I just bought from him will kill it. CVO eater for sure!!!

[SirMichael]

Had the HTCC ported heads with a S&S 585 cam combo and ran Rineharts TD Not as much TQ as you think. This is on a 95" big bore all HD stuff. It did have a few detonation issues in the beginning. Had to retard the timing in the summer. 4th gear 99.64 hp & 94.32 tq. 5th gear 102.26 hp & 99.04 tq. It did run well and was not beaten by anything but what SirMike had built. His 103 just edged me out but the 113 I just bought from him will kill it. CVO eater for sure!!!

[/b] 
                                           Duh!!

[StreetDog]

Can only relate what the D&D people told me.  Two different people there relayed nearly identical information.  For a "smaller" engine like mine they suggest that the quiet baffle will actually be slightly better for the bottom end.  The same baffle they say would be too restrictive for an engine a little bigger. 
Have done a fair amount of homework on this.  Read quite a few dyno charts (though they're only suggestive of trends of course).  Talked to D&D and spoke with a local and gifted tuner along with another I know from elsewhere.

It all suggested that for a build in the range of what I'm doing that the FatCat with the "standard" quiet baffle would be a good choice if the intent is bottom end in and early.  Since I really don't even care what the dyno says above 4500 that bottom end in and early is what I'm after.

Does that mean too restrictive for the 110' with a larger TB 50mm or 51mm with 10.5 pistons different cams very minor headwork..?

[Twolanerider]

Does that mean too restrictive for the 110' with a larger TB 50mm or 51mm with 10.5 pistons different cams very minor headwork..?

KD, from the several conversation with them and a couple of tuners I'd say no; not even close.  Mine will be 107" with a 50mm tb and static CR about the same and I'm well within the ballpark.

[StreetDog]

2Lane, thanks for all the info. Looks like I will be going with the standard quiet baffle too. And I too will be finished @ April with all the mods. In the mean time I will be replacing my baffle and will let you know if I can feel any differance between the two before the mods are done. Thanks again.

[Twolanerider]

2Lane, thanks for all the info. Looks like I will be going with the standard quiet baffle too. And I too will be finished @ April with all the mods. In the mean time I will be replacing my baffle and will let you know if I can feel any differance between the two before the mods are done. Thanks again.

Thanks KD, the comparisons are always worth noting.  Since we almost never have two machines exactly the same the direct before and after comparisons of a given component are great info.

I've heard the quiet baffle, the quite performance baffle and the kiss-my-ass-that's-loud baffle.  There is a real difference with the quiet baffle.  Should make the radio far more useful and the ears far happier at the end of a long day.  That it does this apparently without hurting torque production makes me a happy camper and looking forward to seeing it in action.

[sadunbar]

Thanks KD, the comparisons are always worth noting.  Since we almost never have two machines exactly the same the direct before and after comparisons of a given component are great info.

I've heard the quiet baffle, the quite performance baffle and the kiss-my-ass-that's-loud baffle.  There is a real difference with the quiet baffle.  Should make the radio far more useful and the ears far happier at the end of a long day.  That it does this apparently without hurting torque production makes me a happy camper and looking forward to seeing it in action.

Is that the "official" name?   

[Twolanerider]

Is that the "official" name?   

Scott, I think the official name was the Binx-can't-believe-it-makes-all-that-racket baffle .