www.CVOHARLEY.com

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 16001 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lever

  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1482
  • keep the rubber side down
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2010, 01:17:24 PM »
well said heat  thank you
Logged
2010 CVO Convertible  crimson red sunglo/Autumn Haze with Metal Grind Graphics
2014 113  motor 10.8 compression
SAE smoothing #5  125.7 hp / 122.9 tq
2017 Road King M8
stage IV

Unbalanced

  • FUD Examiner
  • 5k CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6710

    • CVO1: 2011 SESG,
    • CVO2: 2004 SEEG Pumpkin,
    • CVO3: 2002 Police Roadking, Maudie and Maybelle Slayer
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2010, 01:28:12 PM »
It is not unequivocal.

there are points that make a difference.

Pistons in the hole due to new cranks
Cams with overlap that the new 255's dont have
Valve to throat values and flow as well as 1.94 vs. 2.080 valves.
5 speeds to 6 speeds and gearing changes.

Comparing apples to apples is in this case is just comparing stock to stock but not truly apples to apples.

Logged
HBRR Florida Chapter,  STILL - The Fastest Chapter - Proven yet again Bikeweek 2017

fresh oil and pipes

  • Enjoying Life More Than Ever!!!!!
  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1918
  • RedNecks, White Socks & Blue Ribbon Beer

    • CVO1: One of the Fast Green Ones
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2010, 01:59:10 PM »
Bring'em on down and lets run'em.  Just sayin.
Logged
"Let's Roll" Life is Short, Choose your Battles Wisely "Let's Roll"

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 #33 on: July 07, 2010, 02:02:10 PM »
Quote from: Unbalanced on July 07, 2010, 01:28:12 PM
It is not unequivocal.

there are points that make a difference.

Pistons in the hole due to new cranks
Cams with overlap that the new 255's dont have
Valve to throat values and flow as well as 1.94 vs. 2.080 valves.
5 speeds to 6 speeds and gearing changes.

Comparing apples to apples is in this case is just comparing stock to stock but not truly apples to apples.



I somewhat agree but apples to apples to me means stock to stock or $3000 to $3000 engine in upgrades with an equally competent tuner for both builds. Stock to stock the 110 will always outgun the 103. And I'd feel very confident in making the same claim that $3000 in engine/inatke/exhaust upgrades will also result in a higher performer engine with the 110 than it would with the 103.

Take your choice but in any case I can imagine the 110 will outgun the 103 every time when the comparison is "apples to apples". Of course you can always make an apples to orange comparison and find a "worked" 88 that will blow away a stock 110.
Logged

Fired00d

  • Global Moderator
  • 25K CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32683
  • Orange & Black SEEG... Can it get any better?
    • VA


    • CVO1: FLHTCSE
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #34 on: July 07, 2010, 02:04:29 PM »
 :zthread: Does it really matter?? :zstupid: :huepfenlol2: :huepfenlol2:

 :pumpkin:
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 :fireman:
Logged
:pumpkin: 2004 Screamin’ Eagle Electra Glide :pumpkin:
Rinehart True Duals
SE Breather
SE Race Tuner
HogTunes Speakers
Zippers 575 Gear Drive Cams
Zippers Pro-Tapered Adjustable Push Rods
Zippers Oil Pressure Bypass Shim
Feuling Oil Pump
Feuling Lifters
Zumo 550 W/Flame Caps
Lyndall Z+ Brake Pads
CVOHarley Member #1234
PGR Member #754 (Since '05)
Proud Member EBCM #2.0

04se103

  • Guest
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #35 on: July 07, 2010, 02:11:26 PM »
Quote from: Fired00d on July 07, 2010, 02:04:29 PM
:zthread: Does it really matter?? :zstupid: :huepfenlol2: :huepfenlol2:

 :pumpkin:
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 :fireman:

Gary no not really just get out and ride and enjoy them  :huepfenlol2:
Logged

Fired00d

  • Global Moderator
  • 25K CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32683
  • Orange & Black SEEG... Can it get any better?
    • VA


    • CVO1: FLHTCSE
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #36 on: July 07, 2010, 02:12:18 PM »
Quote from: 04se103 on July 07, 2010, 02:11:26 PM

Gary no not really just get out and ride and enjoy them  :huepfenlol2:
Exactly!!!! :2vrolijk_21:

 :pumpkin:
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 :fireman:
Logged
:pumpkin: 2004 Screamin’ Eagle Electra Glide :pumpkin:
Rinehart True Duals
SE Breather
SE Race Tuner
HogTunes Speakers
Zippers 575 Gear Drive Cams
Zippers Pro-Tapered Adjustable Push Rods
Zippers Oil Pressure Bypass Shim
Feuling Oil Pump
Feuling Lifters
Zumo 550 W/Flame Caps
Lyndall Z+ Brake Pads
CVOHarley Member #1234
PGR Member #754 (Since '05)
Proud Member EBCM #2.0

fresh oil and pipes

  • Enjoying Life More Than Ever!!!!!
  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1918
  • RedNecks, White Socks & Blue Ribbon Beer

    • CVO1: One of the Fast Green Ones
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #37 on: July 07, 2010, 02:15:09 PM »
You are right Gary it does not really matter one way or the other. From Heatwave's post I gather he spent $3000.00 on his upgrade to get the dyno numbers he has posted in his profile. Really nice numbers but I have also seen numbers very close (some higher/some lower) after spending the same on a 04, 05, 06 103" which is not the same engine as the 2010 and up 103". Not trying to upset anyone or cause any problems just talking about stuff but if you wann run'em come on down. The 110 equipped engines are about 100 pounds heavier then you have the riders weight to factor in, then reaction times along with fear and pucker factor of the riders. Life is great and I am having a wonderful  time.
Logged
"Let's Roll" Life is Short, Choose your Battles Wisely "Let's Roll"

RedDevil

  • 5k CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
  • EBCM #747.2 It's all good

    • CVO1: '11 FLTRUSE Gray Ghost
    • CVO2: '12 FLHXSE3 Hot Citrus/Antique Gunstock
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #38 on: July 07, 2010, 02:40:43 PM »
I agree with Gary, what difference does it make?  I could care less if your 74ci beats my 110's.  I didn't buy them to drag race, nor did I get them for bragging rights, (other than to say I have CVOs  ;) ).  I really don't care how much HP I have or TQ for that matter, as long as I enjoy riding my bike and it makes me happy....after all that's all it's really about...so who cares if a 103 is better/faster than a 110?  I sure don't.  

:devil:
Logged

2012 FLHXSE3
Hot Citrus/Antique Gunstock

grc

  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14216
  • AKA Grouchy Old Fart
    • IN


    • CVO1: 2005 SEEG2
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #39 on: July 07, 2010, 03:14:21 PM »
Quote from: Fired00d on July 07, 2010, 02:04:29 PM
:zthread: Does it really matter?? :zstupid: :huepfenlol2: :huepfenlol2:

 :pumpkin:
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 :fireman:

Exactly.  And btw, we now have three pages of responses that didn't answer the man's original question at all.  He wants to know about the 2011 factory optional 103, which has absolutely nothing to do with the old CVO103, or "built" engines, or any of that other bench racing BS.  If he buys a new 2011, should he stick with the standard TC96 or should he go with the TC103?  What are the potential benefits versus potential drawbacks?  Is the bump in displacement necessarily going to result in a proportionate bump in performance? ETC.   IMHO, it all depends on if the factory installed big bore kit is a stand alone item or part of a package like the Limited, and what kind of pricing will be involved.  If the price is less than what you would have to pay a dealer to install the same 103 big bore kit, I'd go for it.  If you have to buy a bunch of other options that you don't really want, like with a Limited package for an extra $2000-$3000, I'd pass and just spend the money on the upgrades I really want.  Reliability shouldn't be any different than with the TC96, and the increase in performance will be mild.

Anyone who actually owns a 2010 LTD with the factory 103 might want to jump in with their observations and opinions.  That would be much more helpful to Aero8 than having us discuss the old CVO103, or whether a built 103 can thrash a stock 110, or whether any Harley can keep up with a 900cc Ducati or any of about 50 different metric bikes, et al.  ;)

Quote from: aero8 on July 02, 2010, 10:40:11 AM
It seems (still a rumour?) that in 2011 MOCO will produce some Touring models( FLHR, FLHRC, etc.) with a 103 Twin Cam.

What is known about reliability and performance of this engine?
Is the performance close to the 110 or is there still a big difference?
Is the 103 a big step forward in comparison to the 96?
Is it recommended to buy anyway the 103 engine, because it is based or similar to the Police engines?

Aero8/Switzerland
Logged
Jerry - 2005 Cherry SEEG  -  Member # 1155

H-D and me  -  a classic love / hate relationship.  Current score:  love 40, hate 50, bewildered 10.

SBB

  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16404
  • Go fast or go home! EBCM member # 2.36 .01%
    • CVO2: 2011.5 SEUC
    • CVO3: 2012 SERG
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #40 on: July 07, 2010, 03:32:59 PM »



:nervous: :nervous: :nervous: It's really scary when Jerry becomes the voice of reason on this site.   :nervous: :nervous: :nervous:
 :nervous: Maybe the scales of his love/hate relationship with Harley have tilted even further.  :nervous:

SBB







But I am glad he did answer Aero8's question.    :2vrolijk_21:
Thanks Jerry!
Logged

2012      SERG  "Nu Blue"
2018      Goldwing   
2003      HD Electra Glide Classic Silver and Black, of course!                
2 2012   Suzuki Burgmans
2018      Shelby GT350, 963 crank hp, 825 rear wheel hp

grc

  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14216
  • AKA Grouchy Old Fart
    • IN


    • CVO1: 2005 SEEG2
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #41 on: July 07, 2010, 04:28:42 PM »
Quote from: SBB on July 07, 2010, 03:32:59 PM


:nervous: :nervous: :nervous: It's really scary when Jerry becomes the voice of reason on this site.   :nervous: :nervous: :nervous:
 :nervous: Maybe the scales of his love/hate relationship with Harley have tilted even further.  :nervous:

SBB



You're right Chip, it is a little scary when I become the voice of reason.  Remind me to cut it out if it happens again. ;)

And you're also right about the tilt.  It should show up in my profile starting with this post.


Jerry ;D
Logged
Jerry - 2005 Cherry SEEG  -  Member # 1155

H-D and me  -  a classic love / hate relationship.  Current score:  love 40, hate 50, bewildered 10.

SBB

  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16404
  • Go fast or go home! EBCM member # 2.36 .01%
    • CVO2: 2011.5 SEUC
    • CVO3: 2012 SERG
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #42 on: July 07, 2010, 04:50:16 PM »
Quote from: grc on July 07, 2010, 04:28:42 PM
  Remind me to cut it out if it happens again.

Jerry ;D

All kidding aside Jerry, I enjoy reading your post.
You are a cornucopia of knowledge and experience.
But I will remind you.------------------------------------------>  ;)

SBB
Logged

2012      SERG  "Nu Blue"
2018      Goldwing   
2003      HD Electra Glide Classic Silver and Black, of course!                
2 2012   Suzuki Burgmans
2018      Shelby GT350, 963 crank hp, 825 rear wheel hp

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 #43 on: July 07, 2010, 05:20:10 PM »
Quote from: cobb on July 07, 2010, 02:15:09 PM
You are right Gary it does not really matter one way or the other. From Heatwave's post I gather he spent $3000.00 on his upgrade to get the dyno numbers he has posted in his profile. Really nice numbers but I have also seen numbers very close (some higher/some lower) after spending the same on a 04, 05, 06 103" which is not the same engine as the 2010 and up 103". Not trying to upset anyone or cause any problems just talking about stuff but if you wann run'em come on down. The 110 equipped engines are about 100 pounds heavier then you have the riders weight to factor in, then reaction times along with fear and pucker factor of the riders. Life is great and I am having a wonderful  time.

Really doesn't matter. Just fodder for a "mine is bigger than your's" thread which usually have a high entertainment factor to them. But the reality is they're all great so long as they are over 2 wheels and the rider has plenty of time to wear down tire rubber.

FWIW I spent a whole heck of alot more than $3000 on upgrading my 2010 SEUC.
Logged

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3133
Re: 103 cu.in.
« Reply #44 on: July 07, 2010, 07:00:32 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All
« previous next »
 

Page created in 0.228 seconds with 21 queries.