Print

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

[HD Street Performance]

You could pick up the noise level a little with the Woods, when compared to the 54. I have been using some Ferrea springs that run very quiet because they are low pressure on the seat but have plenty on top. I run them with their Titanium retainers and the only downside is they are expensive. The 5 in the 110 will exceed the torque of the SE255 yet still be around at 5,500. I have had great luck with the 5 and it especially works well when using a high flow head like the CVO uses and looking for a wide high torque curve. .030 HG would be wise just for reduced squish value but not essential.
What makes the 5 a better choice IMO VS the 54
Pros
-5° intake close
Closer LSA
Higher lift and lift rates, more duration under the lift curve
Downside
More potential noise

[HDDOCFL]

Don Thanks for your come back reply. I have a quiet motor and wants to keep it that way.  Thanks Again.  Doc

[happyman]

You could pick up the noise level a little with the Woods, when compared to the 54. I have been using some Ferrea springs that run very quiet because they are low pressure on the seat but have plenty on top. I run them with their Titanium retainers and the only downside is they are expensive. The 5 in the 110 will exceed the torque of the SE255 yet still be around at 5,500. I have had great luck with the 5 and it especially works well when using a high flow head like the CVO uses and looking for a wide high torque curve. .030 HG would be wise just for reduced squish value but not essential.
What makes the 5 a better choice IMO VS the 54
Pros
-5° intake close
Closer LSA
Higher lift and lift rates, more duration under the lift curve
Downside
More potential noise

What would you recommend for compression using the 5-6 where 91 octane gas is about all thats available.  especially for a  big heavy baggers  new frame  especially

[HD Street Performance]

9.7/1 would be safe assuming tight squish (which the 07s don't have)

[happyman]

9.7/1 would be safe assuming tight squish (which the 07s don't have)

i  had the 07 CVO Roadking but now i have a 2010 Ultra LTD.
My idea was if feasable just do a drop in. should have a decent compression for that cam?   no headwork for now at least.    i do have   brand new set of  heads i did up for the 07 CVO done up by Baisley and some of his corrected geometry roller rockers  i have been trying to sell on the forums May just slap them on the 103" LTD and ride it think the differance in the bore size from the 110" to the 103" should not be an issue?     too bad the high compression pistons won't work too.   think i would  actually be wise  to use the 251 or the 259 as i think with flat tops i would be at around  10.4.1 with a .030 hg  with 94 cc heads.

[hd-dude]

i  had the 07 CVO Roadking but now i have a 2010 Ultra LTD.
My idea was if feasable just do a drop in. should have a decent compression for that cam?   no headwork for now at least.    i do have   brand new set of  heads i did up for the 07 CVO done up by Baisley and some of his corrected geometry roller rockers  i have been trying to sell on the forums May just slap them on the 103" LTD and ride it think the differance in the bore size from the 110" to the 103" should not be an issue?     too bad the high compression pistons won't work too.   think i would  actually be wise  to use the 251 or the 259 as i think with flat tops i would be at around  10.4.1 with a .030 hg  with 94 cc heads.

07 heads will not work on 08+ bikes. The motor mount is different for the front head.

[happyman]

07 heads will not work on 08+ bikes. The motor mount is different for the front head.

yes they will work. not problem at all.  find a machinist that has his poop in a group, and its  a easy job.  Don is one of the proters here i know that has done it on several occasions.   

[HD Street Performance]

I have converted the heads. Not an issue I have the tooling set up to do it perfectly. But the bigger issue, why do this? The stock heads with just minor changes work so well. The 110 heads are High flow and then done by Baisley, increased flow from there. They would be a Hot Rod torque curve right piece on the 110 and not really at home on the 103". High compression pistons would be needed just to get the compression on par, the chambers are 95cc VS 86cc.
Wouldn't be the way I would do it or recommend to a customer. Bolt the 5 in the 103 and it will work fine. Use a .030 Cometic and you will have 90/110, with a fair pipe and tune. 95/110 possible with better tune and pipe. I have done a few of these with nothing more done to the heads than a good valve job with the above results, they hit 100TQ at 2,200 and carry to 4k. With headwork that extends to 4,500 and the hp and tq go up ~5/5

[happyman]

I have converted the heads. Not an issue I have the tooling set up to do it perfectly. But the bigger issue, why do this? The stock heads with just minor changes work so well. The 110 heads are High flow and then done by Baisley, increased flow from there. They would be a Hot Rod torque curve right piece on the 110 and not really at home on the 103". High compression pistons would be needed just to get the compression on par, the chambers are 95cc VS 86cc.
Wouldn't be the way I would do it or recommend to a customer. Bolt the 5 in the 103 and it will work fine. Use a .030 Cometic and you will have 90/110, with a fair pipe and tune. 95/110 possible with better tune and pipe. I have done a few of these with nothing more done to the heads than a good valve job with the above results, they hit 100TQ at 2,200 and carry to 4k. With headwork that extends to 4,500 and the hp and tq go up ~5/5

i understand that Don.. i just mentioned i have a set of the new  110"  heads already done by Baisley and may just toss them on my 103. the have 94 cc chambers they are  a pretty good setup  from what i have seen. seen several dyno's sheets using the differant cams with the heads and they are not really giving up any thing to the  worked 96" heads. perhaps a couple hundered RPM latter hitting at best and they do carry out as far as you want to spool a motor in most instances..  The heads are the pro streets if your familar. whcih i am sure you are..i think they can be used on the 103" even though the heads are for a larger bore? is that correct??? 
thanks 

[HD Street Performance]

Great heads for a 117" + not a 103". The piston dome for the 103 to get the compression up with the 94cc chamber would have to be very large. You realize as you go up in cubic inches the swept volume increases therefore the dome required to raise the compression is decreased. Go ahead try them then you will see. Nothing really lost, you own them, well a set of pistons anyway.

Have you seen the dyno I posted on HTT with Deweys FXD? It is a 103" low compression, 104, 111 SAE Dynojet 250I latest software and calibrated by DJ this year. No porting, bigger valve added, intake, throat opened up, exhaust untouched, valves changed to Kibblewhites. Deweys own springer 07 CVO makes 100/110 and that has had an intake valve change and a .040 head cut TW32 cams. How could that be?? The big valve heads and 110 engine are beat by the TW55 motor with only a spoonful of metal removed from the intake port?? Close to the same cams and compression.

If you put those heads on without a piston change
The valves are much larger and the cast piston will need major valve relief work which could affect the strength and cause them to break right at the ring land
The compression will be about 9.0/1 static and a cam with any duration will cause it to have very low dynamic compression (not a happy motor)... sluggish especially with those ports that I am sure flow like mad.

[happyman]

Great heads for a 117" + not a 103". The piston dome for the 103 to get the compression up with the 94cc chamber would have to be very large. You realize as you go up in cubic inches the swept volume increases therefore the dome required to raise the compression is decreased. Go ahead try them then you will see. Nothing really lost, you own them, well a set of pistons anyway.

Have you seen the dyno I posted on HTT with Deweys FXD? It is a 103" low compression, 104, 111 SAE Dynojet 250I latest software and calibrated by DJ this year. No porting, bigger valve added, intake, throat opened up, exhaust untouched, valves changed to Kibblewhites. Deweys own springer 07 CVO makes 100/110 and that has had an intake valve change and a .040 head cut TW32 cams. How could that be?? The big valve heads and 110 engine are beat by the TW55 motor with only a spoonful of metal removed from the intake port?? Close to the same cams and compression.

If you put those heads on without a piston change
The valves are much larger and the cast piston will need major valve relief work which could affect the strength and cause them to break right at the ring land
The compression will be about 9.0/1 static and a cam with any duration will cause it to have very low dynamic compression (not a happy motor)... sluggish especially with those ports that I am sure flow like mad.

yupper  the heads on Deweys 110" are not  baisley  pro street either.    the point i was making  was i have them and may give  um a whirl.baisley uses the stock pistons with the pro street heads also.   no issues at all. also i could use the high compression  pistons too. just have to make sure of the compression. somehow you lost me in this translation!!