Print

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

[slider3w]

Ok wish I knew what we are doing wrong, took a 2010 110 engine, had baisley do the heads, made it a 10.250 compression with the 2.10 intake valve, and other extensive rocker arm changes etc. put a red shift 357 cam, Thundermax, D & D 2 into 1 exhaust with the wrapped louvered baffle, put the 5.3 injectors with the stock 50mm throttle body Big air flow air cleaqner, and still could only get 104 HP and 117 Torque. We spoke with both Dan Baisley and Zippers before doing this engine, and everyone was shooting for the 120 HP and mid 120 Torque range, but fell way short. Not sure if the difference in the D & D regular Louverd muffler vs the Wrapped louvered muffler made any difference or ? I know if we would have gone with the 58mm throttle body we could have gotten a few more HP, but per a recent simular build by Zippers, they lost Torque using the same cams etc by doing that. Should have just gone out and purchased a Jims 131 or S & S 124, not sure why but I seem to have nothing but troubles with those dang 110 engines. What am i missing here?

[Keats]

I am not sure where you went wrong with the engine build, I would have expected more.

The one point I would make, is all of those changes and a comp over 10

my concern would be reliability with the sub par bottom end.

the crank is less than stellar and with the money you must have spent,

I think a crate motor might have worked out better.......120R?

[Heatwave]

Ok wish I knew what we are doing wrong, took a 2010 110 engine, had baisley do the heads, made it a 10.250 compression with the 2.10 intake valve, and other extensive rocker arm changes etc. put a red shift 357 cam, Thundermax, D & D 2 into 1 exhaust with the wrapped louvered baffle, put the 5.3 injectors with the stock 50mm throttle body Big air flow air cleaqner, and still could only get 104 HP and 117 Torque. We spoke with both Dan Baisley and Zippers before doing this engine, and everyone was shooting for the 120 HP and mid 120 Torque range, but fell way short. Not sure if the difference in the D & D regular Louverd muffler vs the Wrapped louvered muffler made any difference or ? I know if we would have gone with the 58mm throttle body we could have gotten a few more HP, but per a recent simular build by Zippers, they lost Torque using the same cams etc by doing that. Should have just gone out and purchased a Jims 131 or S & S 124, not sure why but I seem to have nothing but troubles with those dang 110 engines. What am i missing here?

I somewhat feel your pain. After headwork on my 2010 110", Woods 408-6cam, 58mm TB, roller rockers, 5.3 injectors, Ventilator A/C, D&D Fatcat, dealership tune with SEPST, I'm at 111hp/115tq. I was also told to expect 120/120. I have yet to see a single 2010 110" motor deliver 120/120. Would love to hear from anyone with a 2010 110" motor that was able to produce 120hp/120ftlbs. Planning to try a different tuner this winter plus PowerCommander's new PowerVision tuner to see if the HD tuning software is the issue.

[Black Diamond]

From someone that's been there done that; if your happy the way your motor is performing, shred your dyno sheet and ride. Chasing dyno numbers is expensive and not very fullfilling.

JW

[Heatwave]

From someone that's been there done that; if your happy the way your motor is performing, shred your dyno sheet and ride. Chasing dyno numbers is expensive and not very fullfilling.

JW

Except when you consider for about the same money I could have gone with a 120R, sold my stock 110 engine and probably spent less overall than the upgrade work. Numbers do matter when considering options in an engine upgrade. Had I known than spending the $ I spent would have resulted in 111/115 and the same money or less could have delivered over 120/120, only a fool would disregard the #s. #s matter when it comes to making choices and anyone suggesting otherwise isn't being transparent.

Once the investment is made, chasing #s isn't as important as maximizing the potential of the build through tuning however prior to making decisions about what engine upgrades to make, the #s are absolutely important. For those that sell an engine upgrade package that doesn't deliver on the projections used to make the sale, either they aren't being transparent before the sale or the tune/build wasn't done correctly. Either way, the bike owner has a right to find out whether the engine or the builder/tuner is the issue.

[Unbalanced]

What kind of dyno was the run done on some show a lot lower than a dynojet like a superflow?

Have you checked the engine for sumping? 

[MUFFMAN]

Had the same problem with my 07 110". Turned out I had a bent crank.

[Black Diamond]

Except when you consider for about the same money I could have gone with a 120R, sold my stock 110 engine and probably spent less overall than the upgrade work. Numbers do matter when considering options in an engine upgrade. Had I known than spending the $ I spent would have resulted in 111/115 and the same money or less could have delivered over 120/120, only a fool would disregard the #s. #s matter when it comes to making choices and anyone suggesting otherwise isn't being transparent.

Once the investment is made, chasing #s isn't as important as maximizing the potential of the build through tuning however prior to making decisions about what engine upgrades to make, the #s are absolutely important. For those that sell an engine upgrade package that doesn't deliver on the projections used to make the sale, either they aren't being transparent before the sale or the tune/build wasn't done correctly. Either way, the bike owner has a right to find out whether the engine or the builder/tuner is the issue.

I guess I misunderstood the question. I thought the question was what to do after having spent money on a 110 build. My error for being a "fool".

JW

[fresh oil and pipes]

Not so sure about the "fool" comment does not really seem to me like name calling ever does anyone any good anyway. However for the record my 103" has better numbers than those posted for a lot less money since I did not make nearly that many mods to my 103" mostly fresh oil and pipes. Hope it all works out well for you. Just sayin.

[Twolanerider]

Not so sure about the "fool" comment does not really seem to me like name calling ever does anyone any good anyway.

Unless you're backwards.

[Heatwave]

I guess I misunderstood the question. I thought the question was what to do after having spent money on a 110 build. My error for being a "fool".

JW

My apologies as the remark about "fools" was not directed or intended towards anyone in particular. It was just a general reference to ignoring dyno performance #s. In the end, there's really no other way of evaluating whether you got your money's worth when making engine upgrades other than dyno results and seat of the pants. One method is very subjective and the other is objective.

I've read many, many posts where guys suggest to others that they shouldn't worry about the #s and just be satisfied with the ride. What's the benchmark for a "satisfied ride" after spending thousands on an engine build? I think its a disservice to others that might be considering investing thousands of $s in engine upgrades to suggest they shouldn't worry about the #s and instead just enjoy the ride. That would be OK if the guys selling the engine upgrades and components were more transparent with realistic dyno #s that a buyer should expect. Unfortunately too often that honesty might result in a lost sale and therefore performance expectations get inflated by the builders.

If you spend multiple thousands of $s for an engine build as the OP obviously did, it seems reasonable that he should have an expectation to achieve the performance level that the build was sold on. Suggesting the owner of an expensive engine upgrade should just "be satisfied with the ride" doesn't seem like the kind of response he was looking for.

[slider3w]

Thanks for the input, Like it has been stated here, we were expecting a lot more, did a lot of research over a two month period, wanted to do the 120 harley engine swap, but was told i could not get a 120 engine as there was a six month back log. I just keep wondering what it is about the 110's? Seems no one can get much out of them! I had a 88 cu in that I built into a 106 that had better numbers than this? Not sure, like the bent crank comment, if there is not something else that we are over looking? And I am not happy with how it performs, yes numbers really do not matter, if you think it performs properly and to your expectations, but so far this is just a bit faster than the original anchor I started with! Just really bummed! Anyone ever checked to see if the crank sensor is actuall correctly marked on the crank? Seems almost like its off?? Still open for ideas! Thanks again for all of your input!

[slider3w]

Oops, and in the original post I see I missed a typo, the cams are Redshift 657, not 357....sorry, even if you think you typed something correctly, you sometimes do not!

[fresh oil and pipes]

Unless you're backwards.

Absolutely correct with the backwards statement but cannot do anything about that is an "Old Okie" trait but we do try and keep up. Lets get together twolane halfway?

[dejavo]

I wouldn't get to crazy about dyno results. I have witnessed substantially different dyno numbers on the same engine (different dynos). If your seat of the pants dyno is good, your numbers sure aren't bad. Yes the same brand of dyno at different shops has read surprisingly different (same tune). I also have made myself crazy. If you are a long time user of this site you will have seen wildly different numbers with the same or substantially the same builds. One guy always ants to know why.