Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All

Author Topic: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110  (Read 16983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

skyhook

  • Senior CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 356
  • ride 'em don't hide 'em

    • CVO1: '08 fxdse2
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2008, 09:28:30 AM »

having a very busy weekend...yesterday moved bunch of stuff from one storage shed to another, going to play santa clause today ho ho ho...again I must defer to al on the specifics of bottom end work, just started for him and not sure exactly...we have talked about it, and if I remember correctly, he doesn't switch the left bearing to timkin, but does weld the crankpin to the flywheels...that's the weak point with the stock setup

I'll work on getting prices and an exact breakdown of recommended work...in the meantime you can go to the vendor discount section of this forum, go to the big al's southern performance page, and view the price sheets...one page has a couple items describing bottom end/crank rebuilding



Logged
08 fxdse2, r&r heads, 257 cam, hpi 55mm t/body, supermeg

Iglide

  • Senior CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 467

    • CVO1: 2009 FLTRSE3
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2008, 12:10:48 PM »

Thanks Santa!
Logged
The impossible just takes a little longer

Hoist!

  • Monster
  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21634
  • This chit ain't ROCKET SCIENCE!!!!

    • CVO1: '07C FLHRSE3, BLACK ICE OF COURSE, CUSTOM 110" TC 6-SPEED +++, "CYBIL"!!!
    • CVO2: '99 FXR3 BRIGHT & DARK CANDY BLUE W/FLAMES, STAGE II 80" EVO 5-SPEED +++, "JOY"!!!
    • CVO3: 4: & 5: '85 FXWG BLACK w/CUSTOM FLAMES, 110" EVO 6-SPEED +++ CVO style!!!; '08 NSMC PROSG CUSTOM FXR BASED PRO STREET BLACK, 89" EVO 5-SPEED, VERY FAST!!!; '09 NSMC HSTBBR CUSTOM RIGID HOISTBOBBER, SILVER METALFLAKE BATES SOLO SEAT & TIN w/BLACK WISHBONE FRAME, 80" EVO (w/Shovelhead bottom end) 4-SPEED! VERY COOL!!!
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2008, 12:18:04 PM »

SE-255: lift 0.550"/0.550", I 211°/E 235°
Intake: 6° BTDC/25° ABDC, Exhaust: 48° BBDC/7° ATDC  Overlap 13

216354 54H 16/42 238 .555    .165 .615
                 43/15 238 .555   .158 .615   Overlap 31

SE 251        18/46 .579  .178
                  56/14 .579 .158  Overlap 32

SS 625G      20/55 .625  .189
                 60/20  .625  .184  Overlap 40
I always find this topic very interesting.  IMO if you are going to spend the money for a motor build, timken bearing crank and balanced flywheels should be considered.  I also believe in gear drive cams for best performance.  Looking at the cam specs there really is not that much difference between the 255 you have now and the 54H.  The Torque peak from a 255 cam is all there by 2500rpm, the 54h the torque peak would be there later by approximately 1000rpm.  With the overlap being longer the peak torque value may be less with the 54H but the power would be up.  Can not give exact numbers as so much depends on heads, compression and exhaust.  The SE251 cam would show the same characteristics and the peak torque would be out a little farther, the Torque may be a little less but power would be up.  The 54H could be run in the stock setup, not sure about the 251 since the lift is higher.  (do not remember max lift the stock 110 head can accommodate).

  The 625G cam is a whole different animal and for it to perform properly compression would have to be added to the motor.  The peak torque for this cam would be around 4500rpm or in that vicinity.  Power would be up with the added compression(head work,etc.etc.)needed to support it.

  I always recommend a good 2:1 pipe for these motor builds especially if you use the 625G cam.  This is what I have seen on my Dyno with some of these combinations.  No mater what you do you will need a good tune to get the best overall performance and driveability.  This is my opinion and what I have seen number wise.

Thanks for the info edd5! :2vrolijk_21:

Just out of curiousity, what compression do you recommend for running the 625G? I have an S&S crank (4-3/8") and Timken bottom end. I have worked 110 heads that were milled for 9.8:1 with Cometic .030 gaskets for use with CR 595 cams and CP Forged flat tops (4"). I expect to be at similar compression. I'm running a HPI 62mm TB and D&D FatCat w/big bore muffler. Any opinions? Thanks! ;)

Hoist! 8)
Logged
"We wanna be free to ride our machines without being hassled by The Man!"

Traxxion Dynamics Suspension Rules! "It ain't braggin' if you can back it up!"

"Cause I'm sitting on top of the world!" (zoom in on satellite map in my Profile)

eddfive

  • Guest
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2008, 07:59:29 AM »

Nothing less thatn 10:1, I prefer 10.5:1.  Static cranking pressure close to 190.
Logged

djkak

  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1278
  • FLHRSEI.ORG
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #34 on: December 15, 2008, 01:32:36 PM »

depends on who you ask about crank failure...one builder I talked with recently says he's built 100 hotrod '07 and later big twins without a single issue, but some of the dealers he builds for are reporting crank issues with the '07 cvo 110...the man said he believes it was a bad batch and that the issues have been corrected...of course there will always be a low incidence of issues, which are greatly exaggerated here on the internet...most builders recommend bulletproofing as a cover your azz kinda deal...no one wants the customer to have problems, and then things become a finger-pointing match

Two popular concerns regarding the bottom end when considering performance mods are flywheel shift (scissor) and the ’03 & up left main bearing. Flywheel shift occurs when torque at the crankpin is great enough to overcome the friction between the flywheel and crankpin. Often the first thing suspected of causing a flywheel shift is reduced friction resulting from an inadequate interference fit of the crankpin and flywheel. Another item that doesn’t get a lot of attention in the field, but the manufacturer seems to have their eye on, is managing the torque spikes at the crankpin.

A scenario that subjects the crankpin to extreme torque load is when the engine is lugged down in high gear, to a very low RPM, at high throttle settings. These conditions result in a rapid and abrupt loading and unloading of the drivetrain. This drivetrain “snatch” exceeds the torque capacity of the compensating sprocket, transferring load directly to the sprocket shaft and left flywheel. The inertia of the right flywheel opposes the forces acting on the left, resulting in sharp torque spikes at the crankpin. These torque spikes are analogous to the torque spikes created by the Technician’s hammer during a flywheel truing operation from days gone by.

I was chatting with the girls around the water cooler a while back, and the topic of crankshafts and torque load came up (cut it out). My memory is a little fuzzy on the details, but my recollection of the conversation is that the interference fit of the Twin Cam’s crankpin and flywheel assembly will normally withstand somewhere around 1,300 ft. lbs. of torque. Testing reveals that torque spikes approaching 1,600 ft. lbs. can occur when the machine is operated under the above described scenario.

It is my understanding that Milwaukee’s “torque smoothing” calibration was designed to reduce torque spikes at the crankpin by reducing the engine’s output when running at very low RPM’s with aggressive throttle settings.

A couple of other things that Milwaukee appears to have done in an effort to reduce crankpin torque load are: the cushion drive sprocket and the new high capacity compensating sprocket. The new “accessory” comp sprocket is advertised to have 700% more capacity than the OE component. These items become more important in the longer stroke engines. As the crankpin’s center is moved away from the crankshaft centerline, the leverage against the crankpin increases, reducing the relative force required to generate high torque load at the crankpin. It seems to me that the new accessory comp sprocket will go a long way to reduce the extreme torque spikes in high output or other extreme applications. This is especially true since the advent of the Cruise Drive. IMHO, the 6-speed’s larger comp sprocket doesn’t have the energy absorbing capacity for performance applications. Under certain conditions it isn’t unusual to hear the new comp sprocket mechanism hammering against its stops.

IMHO, the highest risk OE scenario is a 2007 Cruise Drive 110, without the torque smoothing cal, cushion drive sprocket and P&A comp sprocket. This machine has high overall gearing, long stroke, high output, and none of the later countermeasures designed to reduce torque spikes at the crankpin.

Regarding the left main bearing, IMHO the ’03 & up bearing is more likely to experience durability issues when it is run in an engine with a sprocket shaft that is not running parallel to its bearing. The off axis operation concentrates load on the end of the rollers, resulting in bearing overload. The most common cause of off axis operation is flywheel shift; although it may be possible that in some applications, under max load, there may be enough flex and distortion to cause an uneven loading of the bearing; although that is speculation on my part.

The Timkin left main bearing design is better suited to handle off axis operation. The question is whether the ’03 & up bearing is reliable in high performance applications where the sprocket shaft remains reasonably parallel to the bearing. The issue still somewhat subjective; although based on just over 6 years of operation, it does not appear that there is growing evidence of durability issues with the late style left main bearing.   

As always, this is just my humble opinion.

djkak
Logged

Iglide

  • Senior CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 467

    • CVO1: 2009 FLTRSE3
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #35 on: December 15, 2008, 06:33:21 PM »

djkak,

Great info, I won't pretend to understand all of it, but I will study your comments and hopefully get up to speed one day. For the time, and in your opinion... What needs to be done (if anything), to the bottom end on an 09 CVO 110 engine in order to make it reliable for TQ in the 115 and under range. Considering we don't lug it around below 2000 rpm for any period of time, that's something I don't do.
Logged
The impossible just takes a little longer

skyhook

  • Senior CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 356
  • ride 'em don't hide 'em

    • CVO1: '08 fxdse2
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2008, 09:12:58 PM »

djkak, cheers man, excellent post...because I have a lot of power on a stock 110 bottom end, I'm always careful not to shock-load the drivetrain...and my best indicator of how I'm doing is when I hear the compensator bottoming out

Logged
08 fxdse2, r&r heads, 257 cam, hpi 55mm t/body, supermeg

djkak

  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1278
  • FLHRSEI.ORG
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #37 on: December 16, 2008, 04:47:30 PM »

djkak,

Great info, I won't pretend to understand all of it, but I will study your comments and hopefully get up to speed one day. For the time, and in your opinion... What needs to be done (if anything), to the bottom end on an 09 CVO 110 engine in order to make it reliable for TQ in the 115 and under range. Considering we don't lug it around below 2000 rpm for any period of time, that's something I don't do.

Greetings Iglide,

I am personally comfortable with 115 rear wheel hp/tq output with the stock bottom end in a ’09 110” CVO. The issue isn’t completely black and white, and because of that there is some risk to be managed; although I personally feel that it is a “good bet”.

I’m not trying to be coy, it’s just that four years ago you would have been flamed to an absolute crisp for even considering a 100+ hp Twin Cam without a Timkin left main; today it’s a good bet that it will be a reliable package; although it is still not a sure bet, IMHO.

I will add that the 40247-08 compensating sprocket, which is a no brainer IMO, will significantly reduce the risk of flywheel shift compared to a machine running without it. This piece should return good value for $250, with 7x the capacity of the OE component.

djkak
Logged

Hoist!

  • Monster
  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21634
  • This chit ain't ROCKET SCIENCE!!!!

    • CVO1: '07C FLHRSE3, BLACK ICE OF COURSE, CUSTOM 110" TC 6-SPEED +++, "CYBIL"!!!
    • CVO2: '99 FXR3 BRIGHT & DARK CANDY BLUE W/FLAMES, STAGE II 80" EVO 5-SPEED +++, "JOY"!!!
    • CVO3: 4: & 5: '85 FXWG BLACK w/CUSTOM FLAMES, 110" EVO 6-SPEED +++ CVO style!!!; '08 NSMC PROSG CUSTOM FXR BASED PRO STREET BLACK, 89" EVO 5-SPEED, VERY FAST!!!; '09 NSMC HSTBBR CUSTOM RIGID HOISTBOBBER, SILVER METALFLAKE BATES SOLO SEAT & TIN w/BLACK WISHBONE FRAME, 80" EVO (w/Shovelhead bottom end) 4-SPEED! VERY COOL!!!
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #38 on: December 16, 2008, 04:50:40 PM »

Greetings Iglide,

I am personally comfortable with 115 rear wheel hp/tq output with the stock bottom end in a ’09 110” CVO. The issue isn’t completely black and white, and because of that there is some risk to be managed; although I personally feel that it is a “good bet”.

I’m not trying to be coy, it’s just that four years ago you would have been flamed to an absolute crisp for even considering a 100+ hp Twin Cam without a Timkin left main; today it’s a good bet that it will be a reliable package; although it is still not a sure bet, IMHO.

I will add that the 40247-08 compensating sprocket, which is a no brainer IMO, will significantly reduce the risk of flywheel shift compared to a machine running without it. This piece should return good value for $250, with 7x the capacity of the OE component.

djkak


Thanks dj! First I've heard someone speak of the new SE comp Sprocket. And after reading this, I'm glad I got it too! :2vrolijk_21:

Correction: The correct P/N for this HD Comp Sprocket is 40274-08

Hoist! 8)
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 04:57:58 PM by Hoist! »
Logged
"We wanna be free to ride our machines without being hassled by The Man!"

Traxxion Dynamics Suspension Rules! "It ain't braggin' if you can back it up!"

"Cause I'm sitting on top of the world!" (zoom in on satellite map in my Profile)

wcgrinder

  • BigAl
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #39 on: December 16, 2008, 05:39:16 PM »

Excellent info. I have had no problems with the new bearing set up The flat roller bearings are best suited for forces applied strait up or down.It is when the crankshaft starts to flex that the problems start.This is when the tapered bearings work better.Think of all the forces on the front wheel of your car.The tapered bearings do have a little more friction.The end play is critical as well as the straitness.I will true a crank to within .001 runnout then weld the crank pins. It is important to weld in small sections one across from the other or you will pull the crank out of true.The welding will pull it out as much as .003. Then we will re-true and yes it is a pain in the butt.The crank will seek its own level ( after you run it it may go out of true a tick .0015 or so) this is normal.It is just a pain in the butt to pull a motor,split cases and assemble just to weld the crank,But it is the safe bet.This will open the door for more mods inh the future.             
Logged

strohkr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #40 on: December 17, 2008, 11:17:25 AM »

Hoist or anyone who knows the answer  8)

Decided to do what Hoist suggested when I do the "performance upgrade" - going with 10.1:1 compression, 251 cams, new pushrods, performance lifters, S/E camplate and new TB with D&D Fat Cats.

Anyone know what would be the best size TB I should use with the above?? I've been told 50mm would be euff - should I go larger???
Any thoughts would be appreciated since we're going to be putting her back together soon.

Thanks!!!! ;)
Logged

Talon

  • Life is like a jar of jalapenos, what you do today may get you in the a$$ tomorrow!
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4072
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #41 on: December 17, 2008, 01:48:12 PM »

Hoist or anyone who knows the answer  8)

Decided to do what Hoist suggested when I do the "performance upgrade" - going with 10.1:1 compression, 251 cams, new pushrods, performance lifters, S/E camplate and new TB with D&D Fat Cats.

Anyone know what would be the best size TB I should use with the above?? I've been told 50mm would be euff - should I go larger???
Any thoughts would be appreciated since we're going to be putting her back together soon.

Thanks!!!! ;)

What size motor?
Logged

djkak

  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1278
  • FLHRSEI.ORG
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #42 on: December 17, 2008, 04:47:55 PM »

Thanks dj! First I've heard someone speak of the new SE comp Sprocket. And after reading this, I'm glad I got it too! :2vrolijk_21:

Correction: The correct P/N for this HD Comp Sprocket is 40274-08

Hoist! 8)

Actually the 40247-08 is the same component but it’s made out of unobtainium. It’s a hell of a lot stronger, but it’s impossible to find. :) I’ll be seeing my Doctor tomorrow for the dyslexia; thanks for the heads up.

djkak
Logged

Hoist!

  • Monster
  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21634
  • This chit ain't ROCKET SCIENCE!!!!

    • CVO1: '07C FLHRSE3, BLACK ICE OF COURSE, CUSTOM 110" TC 6-SPEED +++, "CYBIL"!!!
    • CVO2: '99 FXR3 BRIGHT & DARK CANDY BLUE W/FLAMES, STAGE II 80" EVO 5-SPEED +++, "JOY"!!!
    • CVO3: 4: & 5: '85 FXWG BLACK w/CUSTOM FLAMES, 110" EVO 6-SPEED +++ CVO style!!!; '08 NSMC PROSG CUSTOM FXR BASED PRO STREET BLACK, 89" EVO 5-SPEED, VERY FAST!!!; '09 NSMC HSTBBR CUSTOM RIGID HOISTBOBBER, SILVER METALFLAKE BATES SOLO SEAT & TIN w/BLACK WISHBONE FRAME, 80" EVO (w/Shovelhead bottom end) 4-SPEED! VERY COOL!!!
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #43 on: December 17, 2008, 04:50:17 PM »

Actually the 40247-08 is the same component but it’s made out of unobtainium. It’s a hell of a lot stronger, but it’s impossible to find. :) I’ll be seeing my Doctor tomorrow for the dyslexia; thanks for the heads up.

djkak

Well I know I missed that famous dj warped sense of humor! Glad it's back here. But WTF do I know anyway! ::) ;D ;D ;D

Hoist! 8)
Logged
"We wanna be free to ride our machines without being hassled by The Man!"

Traxxion Dynamics Suspension Rules! "It ain't braggin' if you can back it up!"

"Cause I'm sitting on top of the world!" (zoom in on satellite map in my Profile)

skyhook

  • Senior CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 356
  • ride 'em don't hide 'em

    • CVO1: '08 fxdse2
Re: Andrews 54H or SE 251 for the 110
« Reply #44 on: December 17, 2008, 05:13:32 PM »

I'd recommend the 48 or 51 horsepower inc, depending on what year your bike is...In my opinion, screamin' eagle throttle bodies don't work significantly better than stock, due to their restrictive manifold...this restriction becomes most apparent as you near the rev limit, so if you don't go there often, maybe the cheaper screamin' eagle is ok

if it's an '06 and later bike, don't forget larger injectors if you want big numbers on the chart...I believe some screamin' eagle throttle bodies include big injectors, which does make them somewhat of a value, even though they're not stellar performers
Logged
08 fxdse2, r&r heads, 257 cam, hpi 55mm t/body, supermeg
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All
 

Page created in 0.248 seconds with 25 queries.