Print

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

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

Agreed. From my reading, I haven't seen anyone get 130/130+ SAE out of a natural 110. My 123/123 SAE is one of the highest although I think I've seen a few higher but they were also with a Woods 408-6cam. I'd be interested in seeing a dyno of a 110 with more than 123/123SAE with a different cam for comparison. Have you been able to build one greater than 123/123 (natural)?

I have been able to do better however the curve is odd.( all right side) . it is not going to make the big low end hit.. The 113 is just enough to get you moving in the right direction . However even with that kit its not there and again you are not looking at 130/130 really you are into the 132/132 -134/134 range. You will need a little cushion they are looking to do this several times over.. If these numbers where that easy it would have been done long ago and many times over.. 120/120 is a much more realistic goal for the 110.  On avg the Hp per cube for the newer drive train IE power to the ground is in the 1.12-1.13 range for a good build. The amount of increase is huge really.  

I feel it can be done however I feel the cost offset would not justify the final power numbers vs a mild big inch engine. The Big inch would be very tame compared to a high strung 110, as well build much more power in the process.

[joe_lyons50023]

[quote

Joe I would agree bolt on a pro charger and one of  many many cams into the engine and be done. However it not going to build the big low end tq fast enough for what they are looking for. Peak numbers sure will 

[/quote]

Aerocharger are looking pretty good with their test mule that they are bringing to the shop for testing.  The are puting out this much with a plain stock 103 with the clutch slipping like crazy.  Variable vane technology.

[Heatwave]

I have been able to do better however the curve is odd.( all right side) . it is not going to make the big low end hit.. The 113 is just enough to get you moving in the right direction . However even with that kit its not there and again you are not looking at 130/130 really you are into the 132/132 -134/134 range. You will need a little cushion they are looking to do this several times over.. If these numbers where that easy it would have been done long ago and many times over.. 120/120 is a much more realistic goal for the 110.  On avg the Hp per cube for the newer drive train IE power to the ground is in the 1.12-1.13 range for a good build. The amount of increase is huge really.  

I feel it can be done however I feel the cost offset would not justify the final power numbers vs a mild big inch engine. The Big inch would be very tame compared to a high strung 110, as well build much more power in the process.

Thanks for the summary. I agree with the conclusion that 120/120sae is a more realistic target for a solid 110 and anything higher should be consider bonus. For the record, I had my 2010 110 dynoed after breakin but exactly how it came out of the crate. It was a very sad 77hp/100ftlbs. So I consider my jump in power to 123/123sae to have been well worth the investment.

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

Aero has been messing with that for at least 2 years now.. Still waiting for real production kits.

[Fullsac Performance]

Dyno chart sent to me by the Tuner. Bone stock 120R with my X Pipe and Rineharts. 100 FT pounds by 2500 and 130 HP peak meets the OPs criteria.
Dollar per dollar spent, very hard to beat cubic inches when your throwing money at it. Bigger always works.

Now bolt on the Pro Charger!

Steve@fullsac

[GMR-PERFORMANCE]

Well the CVO  color issue  Unless you bought a 2013 then it would be fine HA HA. I have done the PC color change but rather pricey

[110tHunDer]

Agreed. From my reading, I haven't seen anyone get 130/130+ SAE out of a natural 110. My 123/123 SAE is one of the highest although I think I've seen a few higher but they were also with a Woods 408-6cam. I'd be interested in seeing a dyno of a 110 with more than 123/123SAE with a different cam for comparison. Have you been able to build one greater than 123/123 (natural)?

127HP/125TQ with the components in my signature.

[joe_lyons50023]

Aero has been messing with that for at least 2 years now.. Still waiting for real production kits.

Only problem that I seen was that  they have just a simple turn dial for cranking up the boost and I could see some people getting a little excited with that if you know what I mean.  But it looked like a good solid kit that would be pretty easy to install.  I wonder if I could fit one on my dyna?

[johnsachs]

One of a half dozen I've done with the Kury TC 24 D cams, 58 mm T-body, Crusher Powercell primaries, Crusher mellow mufflers, fix port and valve geometry. Set compression.
Consistent results on 3 different dynos. Different exhaust WILL alter the outcome.
John

[johnsachs]

In STD

[Heatwave]

127HP/125TQ with the components in my signature.

Very nice!

[barefoot3zk5]

It is what it is ... Note Woods 408 cam set .. build by DC Cycle Red Bay Alabama .. turned 26K on the clock last week .. i"m Happy Happy Happy ..

[Mountainman streetbob]

Thanks for all the replies!

1. Woods 408-6
2. TMAN 662-1
3. TMAN 625
4. WT-24

Most realistic goal is 120/120 SAE

[HILLSIDECYCLE.COM]

We have a CVO Dyna 110", bored to 113" combo, rolling around in Binghamton, N.Y., with a Wood 9F that is tapping on the 130/130 door, and may have been a tick over that. It's been a while.
I will also note that a 113"er with those numbers, are NOT news.
We were establishing in/around those numbers(and some, more) with re-worked S&S 113" carbed bikes......15 years ago.
Wood 9B's and 9F's were the go-to cams for those, then.
Scott

[prodrag1320]

Thanks for all the replies!

1. Woods 408-6
2. TMAN 662-1
3. TMAN 625
4. WT-24

Most realistic goal is 120/120 SAE

well within reach with any of those cams