Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: 103 cu.in.  (Read 15401 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Heatwave

  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1429
  • ‘10 CVO Ultra 120/127 & ‘17 CVO LTD 140/151

    • CVO1: 2017 CVO Limited (Garnet/Red) 128ci
    • CVO2: 2010 SE Ultra (Red/Slate)
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #45 on: July 07, 2010, 07:09:31 PM »

FWIW I would favor the 103 for cost per mile. A lot more reliable motor and able to top 10K easy without motor work.

I have to agree with this one. The 103 is definitely a more "proven" engine design with a far better "reliability" record and alot more miles on the road. The 110 "seems" to have gotten alot of the bugs worked out with the 2010 model but only time will tell.
Logged

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3119
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #46 on: July 07, 2010, 07:55:54 PM »

Even though I am in the business to sell upgrades I am glad the 110 is coming together. I feel bad for guys that shell out all that hard earned money and then have to work on them.
You know all things considered IMO it would have been a lot happier motor with the 103 heads and the MOCO would not have had to retool.
Logged

Heatwave

  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1429
  • ‘10 CVO Ultra 120/127 & ‘17 CVO LTD 140/151

    • CVO1: 2017 CVO Limited (Garnet/Red) 128ci
    • CVO2: 2010 SE Ultra (Red/Slate)
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #47 on: July 07, 2010, 08:14:49 PM »

Even though I am in the business to sell upgrades I am glad the 110 is coming together. I feel bad for guys that shell out all that hard earned money and then have to work on them.
You know all things considered IMO it would have been a lot happier motor with the 103 heads and the MOCO would not have had to retool.

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately it's probably not an issue with HD so much as it is with the EPA. My guess is that the 110 heads, low end 255 cam and lean fuel map combined with high exhaust heat and a catalytic converter were all necessary to meet the epa standards. In order to meet the emission certification standards and still provide the customer with a base engine of 110ci, this combination was the only one that delivered "certifiable" results.

The real shame is that HD new the CVO owner would be buying an uncomfortably "hot" engine, with little top end performance in stock form. They also probably calculated the average CVO owner would also be willing to upgrade the heads, intake, cams and catless exhaust to build the 110 engine closer to it's design capability.

It's a shame but I think the problem has more to do with our government then it does with our motorcycle manufacturer.
Logged

skyhook

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

    • CVO1: '08 fxdse2
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #48 on: July 08, 2010, 12:00:23 AM »

i quit listening to rumors

don't see a downside to the 110"...20k miles on mine and the only time i had a problem it was something i had tampered with

a 103 in a non-cvo model is a good thing...change cams, buy a tuning device, have it tuned, and ride 100k miles trouble free!
Logged
08 fxdse2, r&r heads, 257 cam, hpi 55mm t/body, supermeg

timtoolman

  • never enough torque!!!!!!!
  • Senior CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 447

    • CVO1: Hillside Stg 4 117, S&S 66 T.B. Woods 400-6, Rush 2-1 Wrath
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #49 on: July 11, 2010, 11:25:27 PM »

Hmmmm  thats why i went 107. hee hee hee,  had a 116 years ago,
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  All
 

Page created in 0.132 seconds with 24 queries.