Stock late model CVO heads

[1FSTRK]

A Friend picked up a 2014 CVO Softail and is looking to do some bolt on upgrades.
Does anyone have flow numbers for these late model stock CVO heads?
What is the most horsepower and tq you have seen with stock or big bore using Stock CVO heads?
I looked around the dyno section but not much is there with stock CVO heads. Any owners, tuners, or dyno sheets would be appreciated.

[Hilly13]

This probably won't be all that helpfully but it might get some discussion going, an engine builder slash tuner over here by the forum name of Dynoharley did some flow testing on those heads stock, he posted the sheets on the Aussie forum, I did copy the sheets because I was surprised at how well they did, I can't find the sheet but from memory the peak numbers were over 300, I don't remember exactly at what lift that was but I think it was around .55-.6.
Anecdotally because of core shift they can be good or bad so you can't just blanket assume anything, I believe the set I have are decent, room for improvement for sure but I'm comparing it to my last 103 which was a 116/116 dynoed Dyna running more compression than my current 110 and the 110 feels much stronger, it has not been dynoed, I street tuned it and I know what you think of that so as I said, not a lot of help but there it is.

[1FSTRK]

This probably won't be all that helpfully but it might get some discussion going, an engine builder slash tuner over here by the forum name of Dynoharley did some flow testing on those heads stock, he posted the sheets on the Aussie forum, I did copy the sheets because I was surprised at how well they did, I can't find the sheet but from memory the peak numbers were over 300, I don't remember exactly at what lift that was but I think it was around .55-.6.
Anecdotally because of core shift they can be good or bad so you can't just blanket assume anything, I believe the set I have are decent, room for improvement for sure but I'm comparing it to my last 103 which was a 116/116 dynoed Dyna running more compression than my current 110 and the 110 feels much stronger, it has not been dynoed, I street tuned it and I know what you think of that so as I said, not a lot of help but there it is.

Thanks for the info and your time. If you happen on the rest of the flow data or a link please let me know.

[Hilly13]

Had a bit of a search around and found the pics. I don't think he will mind me sharing them as they are already in the public domain.
The first one is a stock 110 head, as it came off a bike.
[attach=0,msg1271693]
The second is after he had put a 2.100" intake valve in and done a 4 angle cut on the original seat and two on the new valve.
[attach=1,msg1271693]
The third is with the modded intake valve but with intake manifold and air cleaner fitted to the head and flowed. Don't know for sure if it's the stock intake but I believe it was.
[attach=2,msg1271693]
The last pic is his test rig, means not a lot to me but may to others.
[attach=3,msg1271693]

[1FSTRK]

Thanks for taking the time to look that all up and post it. It would have been interesting to see a 4th test with the SE 58mm TB for comparison. I found this Stock head 117"combo in the dyno section here that is running the SE58mm TB and it has a pretty good curve.

http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=92061.msg1060863#msg1060863

[attach=0,msg1060863]

[1FSTRK]

This 110" tuned by Steve at GMR actually has a run with the stock TB and a run with the SE58 TB.

http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=90763.msg1045415#msg1045415

[Hilly13]

1FSTRK I don't have dyno data to share on the difference between 50 and 58, I can say it makes a difference, my street tuning showed significant VE changes with my current bike, no other changes, if you want to talk about it give me a call, 61439071965.

[Don D]

No disrespect but has this bench been calibrated with test plates and with the head mounted was the setup tested for leakage. Reason I ask is the initial test seems very high from what I and others typically see. If I have time I will have to dig around for some of the baselines I have or snap another. IIRC they were in the 270cfm range stock, head tested with a 45mm x 51mm velocity stack mounted. With stock valve ported they go a bit over 300 single digits, same test method, and with a 2.120 up to ~335. My bench is calibrated monthly with tractorsport.com plates. Years ago I had issues with calibration.

[dsvracer]

i agree with Don that their is something up with those flow numbers.  best i ever seen for a stock head but i wonder why the flow pressure is so low ??   these numbers are not anything i see on a regular basis.  just curious.  dsv

[Hilly13]

I have no idea on the leak checks or methods that were used in the tests. All my previous dealings with the man convinced me he is a straight shooter and very knowledgeable, he builds and tunes turbocharged Harley engines as well as naturally aspirated ones, can tune with just about any brand of tuning interface, does his own headporting etc. Maybe he had a bad day?
What does a typical stock head test sheet look like?
Don and Dan, would either of you be willing to post a sheet or two as a benchmark if you could spare the time?
I do know the 110 heads can vary quite a bit in stock state because of one thing or another but that is due to the characteristics of the actual head being tested assuming the testing is being done correctly.

[Barrett]

Here's a few numbers to compare.

[Ohio HD]

Not knocking the info the guy created on his bench, as I have no idea as to the conditions he tested under. I tend to agree with Dan and Don about 110 stock being less. I have sheets from a guy I trust, 110 stock, 110+ stock, and MVA stock. The only numbers in that range are the MVA stock, they're slightly more. The 110 heads are about 270'ish and the 110+ are less than that. 

[1FSTRK]

Not knocking the info the guy created on his bench, as I have no idea as to the conditions he tested under. I tend to agree with Dan and Don about 110 stock being less. I have sheets from a guy I trust, 110 stock, 110+ stock, and MVA stock. The only numbers in that range are the MVA stock, they're slightly more. The 110 heads are about 270'ish and the 110+ are less than that.

What are the differences between those two heads?

What head comes on the 2014 CVO from the factory, are they a different head from the 110 stock and the 110+?

[Ohio HD]

The factory 110 head comes on all 110 motors.


http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=90639.0;all

[motolocopat]

Id do a drop on 117", cam it, tune it, ride it.

[TorQuePimp]

I have yet to see a stock 110 head break 270cfm@28"
Most CNC ported mva heads go high 280 to low 290's@28"
Always worth it to do a valve job and grind the valves
The jinked up factory valve job wreaks havoc on the exhaust seat and the exhaust valve

[1FSTRK]

Thank to all for the head info.

Just to keep this from become a  flow bench thread (it  is winter here), what are the best dyno numbers you have seen from the factory CVO heads?

It looks like the bigger the displacement the more efficient they become, much like the M-8 heads.

[Don D]

Not knocking the info the guy created on his bench, as I have no idea as to the conditions he tested under. I tend to agree with Dan and Don about 110 stock being less. I have sheets from a guy I trust, 110 stock, 110+ stock, and MVA stock. The only numbers in that range are the MVA stock, they're slightly more. The 110 heads are about 270'ish and the 110+ are less than that.

What are the differences between those two heads?

What head comes on the 2014 CVO from the factory, are they a different head from the 110 stock and the 110+?

The 110+, an over the counter SE head, has a 2.12 intake VS a 2.08 CVO stock, head is milled .025, the port geometry is very different. The 110+ head is the base casting for the MVA and IMO to reduce run time has some areas larger and some smaller to allow for core shift and a clean cut. Again IMO HD just got the wise idea it would be something they could market. The CVO head is a good start to port. The later castings are more consistent and there is not the undercut intake seats we saw in the earlier years.

[1FSTRK]

Not knocking the info the guy created on his bench, as I have no idea as to the conditions he tested under. I tend to agree with Dan and Don about 110 stock being less. I have sheets from a guy I trust, 110 stock, 110+ stock, and MVA stock. The only numbers in that range are the MVA stock, they're slightly more. The 110 heads are about 270'ish and the 110+ are less than that.

What are the differences between those two heads?

What head comes on the 2014 CVO from the factory, are they a different head from the 110 stock and the 110+?

The 110+, an over the counter SE head, has a 2.12 intake VS a 2.08 CVO stock, head is milled .025, the port geometry is very different. The 110+ head is the base casting for the MVA and IMO to reduce run time has some areas larger and some smaller to allow for core shift and a clean cut. Again IMO HD just got the wise idea it would be something they could market. The CVO head is a good start to port. The later castings are more consistent and there is not the undercut intake seats we saw in the earlier years.

Thanks for that info Don. I had a set of the very early 110 heads on the Softail 10 years ago and the core shift was horrible.
I had heard that the later production CVO heads were better but the engine builder I always used got better results with other castings so I have no actual test data, flow or dyno, on the late castings that is why I started this thread.

[Don D]

The hidden advantage is the valve angles change by minus one degree on all of the CVO based castings which allows much larger valves and no need to sink them so much. As displacement (and bore) grow these heads become a better choice. Just like the other heads they have their pluses and minuses and need a different treatment that the OEM head to address the issues.

[1FSTRK]

The hidden advantage is the valve angles change by minus one degree on all of the CVO based castings which allows much larger valves and no need to sink them so much. As displacement (and bore) grow these heads become a better choice. Just like the other heads they have their pluses and minuses and need a different treatment that the OEM head to address the issues.

Yes he had shown me they were an easy way to get some power when guys build a bigger engine and do not want the expense of a highly modified head.

At the risk of derailing my own thread it is looking like the late CVO heads were too big in stock form for the 110" engine they came on. This is the first time I have researched any data on them but they appear to act like the 107 M-8 head where if you leave them alone, add CI's, a better cam, and TB they become more efficient.

[Don D]

I see your line of thought and agree.

[1FSTRK]

I see your line of thought and agree.

Following this new line of thought I just found this interesting comparison by searching the dyno section.

107 to 117" with Red Shift 472, T-Max, D&D Billet Cat.  CP 4.125" flat tops, stock heads, HPI 62mm throttle body, 7.1 injectors [Edit] This engine started life as a factory 107" (3.937" x 4.375"), is now 117" by boring the stock cylinders from 3.937" to 4.125". ~JK
[attach=0,msg1244088]

2016 FLHXSE, SE 117 race kit, Suburban Speed Shop Mahle 10.6:1 pistons, 259E, 58mm, Boarzilla w/quiet baffle, stock CVO heads.  Very happy with the results.

[attach=0,msg1060863]

If the trend continues with each head, the advantage of the M-8 is it can grow to 124" with drop on cylinders where the CVO Twin cam is all done at 117". I am not sure I would even bother with a Twin cam 124" without doing head work, by the time you split the cases, to change the crank it is a not just a bolt on project anymore. This would be the first clear cut advantage I have seen for the M-8. The ability to easily grow the engine to the point the heads start working.

[Hossamania]

If I'm paying for a 124", those heads are getting touched, whether Twin Cam or M8. Why wouldn't I?

[Ohio HD]

For reference, an out of the crate, bone stock CVO 110 put on the dyno puts down 100 TQ and 84 HP SAE. Know the guy who did this and believe him. This is only to compare to the later improvements.

[Don D]

Hoss
I would agree partially, Have to be careful not to increase the cross sectional area but work on valve job, better guides and seals.  A little cleanup is not out of line. Got to keep eye on the ball, the stock heads are big, flow well, and can become too big in a hurry.

Gmr posted one, a 107 to 124" pretty impressive torque production, just a top end job. At 124" it wouldn't be hard to make a real sleeper with mild near stock cam and quiet exhaust. Would still have a killer torque curve and make 120/130 or better. Thing I like and I don't think is fully exploited yet is the octane tolerance of the pent roof head design. Look at what the Ducatis are doing with a similar head chamber design for compression, 12:1 is common street legal motor, albeit after the chamber the whole valvetrain, electronics, and variable cam timing is in another league than a Harley.

The CVO based head can work well too even at 110" and up but the LSA that works best and cam timing is not exactly the same as with the OEM head. This is why I get a little worked up when guys say a "good cam". A "good cam" for the application I can buy.

[Hossamania]

For reference, an out of the crate, bone stock CVO 110 put on the dyno puts down 100 TQ and 84 HP SAE. Know the guy who did this and believe him. This is only to compare to the later improvements.

No wonder those guys would get so pissed when I passed them right up with my little 95"!

[Hossamania]

Hoss
I would agree partially, Have to be careful not to increase the cross sectional area but work on valve job, better guides and seals.  A little cleanup is not out of line. Got to keep eye on the ball, the stock heads are big, flow well, and can become too big in a hurry.

Gmr posted one, a 107 to 124" pretty impressive torque production, just a top end job. At 124" it wouldn't be hard to make a real sleeper with mild near stock cam and quiet exhaust. Would still have a killer torque curve and make 120/130 or better. Thing I like and I don't think is fully exploited yet is the octane tolerance of the pent roof head design. Look at what the Ducatis are doing with a similar head chamber design for compression, 12:1 is common street legal motor, albeit after the chamber the whole valvetrain, electronics, and variable cam timing is in another league than a Harley.

The CVO based head can work well too even at 110" and up but the LSA that works best and cam timing is not exactly the same as with the OEM head. This is why I get a little worked up when guys say a "good cam". A "good cam" for the application I can buy.

I hear what you are saying. I'm not talking about a full on horsepower build. I was thinking more along the Twin Cam line, I see what good headwork does for those. The M8 heads really seem to work well in stock form. I'm just thinking that if I'm going to the trouble of a 124", I'd want the right cam for my goals, and to have the heads touched up for some improvement by a knowledgeable porter, not just "make them flow!"
After all, if one of my friends bolts on a 124", I still need to beat him....

[1FSTRK]

For reference, an out of the crate, bone stock CVO 110 put on the dyno puts down 100 TQ and 84 HP SAE. Know the guy who did this and believe him. This is only to compare to the later improvements.

Those numbers are also model specific.
I have found a few stock, stage one, and stage two dyno sheets so there is data available.
These all show the stock CVO head to be inefficient as far as HP/CFM and HP/CI just like the M-8. It is not until you increase the engine size that we see this improve. This was not so true with the stock Twin cam heads, early or late versions which trended the other way   

[PoorUB]

For reference, an out of the crate, bone stock CVO 110 put on the dyno puts down 100 TQ and 84 HP SAE. Know the guy who did this and believe him. This is only to compare to the later improvements.

Was that a bone stock, but tuned CVO 110". I don't think they did that well out of the factory.

[Hilly13]

Had a quick look in the dyno section but could not find it but if my memory is right there was a sheet of a 110 with stock heads, cam swap, high comp pistons, 58tb with a decent exhaust that made respectable numbers, I understand displacement increases change the way the heads perform but is that also true of compression?

[1FSTRK]

Had a quick look in the dyno section but could not find it but if my memory is right there was a sheet of a 110 with stock heads, cam swap, high comp pistons, 58tb with a decent exhaust that made respectable numbers, I understand displacement increases change the way the heads perform but is that also true of compression?

Technically the compression will not change the basic head flow but it will change the hp and tq so it shows up in the HP/CFM and HP/CI numbers. We have to keep things like that in mind when looking at this. It is the reason to compare the stock to stock, stage one to stage one, and so on. It is also the reason you want as large a data sample as you can find. When look at heads I look for the top examples, poor example can show less power but the top is the best the head can do so far as we know.

[Barrett]

The Zippers 110 Muscle Extreme kit makes about 150HP. That's a good example.. Here's the flow chart.

[1FSTRK]

The Zippers 110 Muscle Extreme kit makes about 150HP. That's a good example.. Here's the flow chart.

For the sake of this thread I am looking at Stock untouched CVO heads.
Thank you

[Don D]

Those are what heads? They are either an OEM head with a little warm over or a set of CVO heads stock assuming their test pressure was 28"

[Durwood]

A Friend picked up a 2014 CVO Softail and is looking to do some bolt on upgrades.
Does anyone have flow numbers for these late model stock CVO heads?
What is the most horsepower and tq you have seen with stock or big bore using Stock CVO heads?
I looked around the dyno section but not much is there with stock CVO heads. Any owners, tuners, or dyno sheets would be appreciated.

Here's one Stroker tuned a few years ago.
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=73869.0

[1FSTRK]

Nice thread. I know Jim liked the 110 heads on the 103's as well.
Thanks for posting that Durwood.

I just got an email with the base runs from the bike.
2014 CVO all stock except Ventilator air cleaner and slip on mufflers.

Turns out this had XiEDs on it. Here is the base run.
  [attach=0,msg1271962]

Here the XiEDs were removed and the power went up.
[attach=1,msg1271962]

Here is the PV base tune, not a complete tune but the peak numbers would not change much.
[attach=2,msg1271962] 

[Hilly13]

Classic example of why to tune a stock bike right there.

[1FSTRK]

Classic example of why to tune a stock bike right there.

I have been saying stock because the engine is all stock but I guess this is really a stage one, it has slip-on mufflers and an air cleaner. It isn't even totally tuned, the right side of the graph needs a little work but they only wanted some type of close base line before the build. The bike was purchased used with about a thousand miles on it, neither the owner or the invoices from the dealer said anything about the XiEDs. The bike ran hot and a little rough, once it was on the dyno they could see the O2's acting strange and found them.

Back to the heads and build. At 95.86hp we are at .87 hp/ci. It looks like we need to gain 25 hp at 4750 rpm and about 35 hp at 5500 rpm to be any where near the numbers from strokerjlk's 110" graph and 1.09 hp/ci.

The 117" that ImBroke posted has 15 lbs more tq and 45 more hp above 5500 rpm.
That puts it over the 1.1 hp/ci range and the hp/cfm it is up as well so adding cubic inches did not just make it bigger, it is using the head more efficiently.

Neither example is giving up much in the 2000-2500 rpm range compared to my base line so they are not just shift the curve to the right and giving up low end TQ for HP. 

[Hilly13]

Yes that is a fair point on the stage 1.
Jim's graph does indicate the stock110 heads can work ok on a 110 given the right support even though that engine is a component or two past your brief.
Have you reached a point where you are comfortable to make a call on how to proceed?

[1FSTRK]

Yes that is a fair point on the stage 1.
Jim's graph does indicate the stock110 heads can work ok on a 110 given the right support even though that engine is a component or two past your brief.
Have you reached a point where you are comfortable to make a call on how to proceed?

No, I just did a search in the dyno section for "CVO head" and got 3 pages of graphs. A lot of them have head work but many are stock CVO heads. Looks like 110", 113", and 117" mostly.
I have little doubt that a bigger TB is first on the list, any cam will have the compression optimized but that is just common sense with any engine or head combo. It does look that in every example the heads like the bigger displacement.

This 117" had the heads milled so they are not 100% stock but it set the compression and saved buying different pistons, for my purpose they count.
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=90075.msg1033769#msg1033769

[Hilly13]

110-120/124 versus 117-126/127, it depends what you want to get to at the end of the day I suppose. Good luck with whatever you decide to do, be interested to see how it turns out.

[1FSTRK]

110-120/124 versus 117-126/127, it depends what you want to get to at the end of the day I suppose. Good luck with whatever you decide to do, be interested to see how it turns out.

Talked to him today and went over much of this post. Unless the run out is crazy the bottom end stays in the bike, has less than 2000 original miles on it. Looks like the 117 drop-in is as big as it can get so we will research the best cam, intake, compression combo available. One thing that had been overlooked by me was the exhaust system, this is a Softail CVO and has Bags.

[Hilly13]

In case you are unaware Suburban Speed do a 117" with more comp than the Harley offering, exhaust, well there are good choices and not so good choices, pretty sure you know the difference there 

[1FSTRK]

If I have time I will have to dig around for some of the baselines I have or snap another. IIRC they were in the 270cfm range stock, head tested with a 45mm x 51mm velocity stack mounted.

i agree with Don that their is something up with those flow numbers.  best i ever seen for a stock head but i wonder why the flow pressure is so low ??   these numbers are not anything i see on a regular basis.  just curious.  dsv

I have yet to see a stock 110 head break 270cfm@28"

If any of you could reply, I am looking for a set of flow numbers for the average set of late model stock CVO castings.
I want to run some software calculations for this guys engine.
Any help from the you guys that do it everyday would be greatly appreciated.

I appreciate Hilly's post and the effort by him to share it here with us but with only one example it is too small a sample base.

[No Cents]

If I have time I will have to dig around for some of the baselines I have or snap another. IIRC they were in the 270cfm range stock, head tested with a 45mm x 51mm velocity stack mounted.

i agree with Don that their is something up with those flow numbers.  best i ever seen for a stock head but i wonder why the flow pressure is so low ??   these numbers are not anything i see on a regular basis.  just curious.  dsv

I have yet to see a stock 110 head break 270cfm@28"

If any of you could reply, I am looking for a set of flow numbers for the average set of late model stock CVO castings.
I want to run some software calculations for this guys engine.
Any help from the you guys that do it everyday would be greatly appreciated.

I appreciate Hilly's post and the effort by him to share it here with us but with only one example it is too small a sample base.

   pm wfolarry.
I'm sure he knows the answers your looking for.

[mike jesse]

I don't know if my dyno sheet is still up in that section.

14 CVO RK.

97 HP / 112 TQ.

Following mods.

GMR 577's, Crusher Mellows.

Tuned with TTS by Russel.

I then pulled the 110 heads off and zero decked the cylinders, added a pair of Baisley worked TC heads set to 86 CC, and a .030 HG.

Had Russel retune it and the outcome is  110 HP / 116 TQ.

My opinion is for a mild 110 such as this the standard TC head is the better option.

[1FSTRK]

I don't know if my dyno sheet is still up in that section.

14 CVO RK.

97 HP / 112 TQ.

Following mods.

GMR 577's, Crusher Mellows.

Tuned with TTS by Russel.

I then pulled the 110 heads off and zero decked the cylinders, added a pair of Baisley worked TC heads set to 86 CC, and a .030 HG.

Had Russel retune it and the outcome is  110 HP / 116 TQ.

My opinion is for a mild 110 such as this the standard TC head is the better option.

Mike, I agree but not just for mild builds. The guy that did both my bikes, 95" and 110" engines, used  oem 96" head castings.

The owner here knows all of this but would like to get all he can from his original stock CVO heads, that means he can use his budget on a much bigger engine and all that goes with it. We had hoped the a 117" would be big enough to get the CVO heads working but it now looks like it will fall a little short and he just doesn't want to go into the bottom end at this point. If I use the 270cfm number referred to earlier in the thread the best 117" stock CVO head engine I have seen is still coming in about .481 HP/CFM and I would like to at least break the .500 mark.

[mike jesse]

Understand. That could be a tall order but not impossible.

Might consider the Mahle 113 piston from Suburban Speed. 9 cc dome. Use the existing 110 cylinders.

Leaving coin on the table for quality head work.

Just another option.

Don't know the working budget.

[1FSTRK]

Understand. That could be a tall order but not impossible.

Might consider the Mahle 113 piston from Suburban Speed. 9 cc dome. Use the existing 110 cylinders.

Leaving coin on the table for quality head work.

Just another option.

Don't know the working budget.

The thing is to get the engine big enough to draw air through the massive ports. We can go 117" drop-in with Suburban's pistons. I personally would build from the inside out staring with a 124" crank and cylinders and his stock 110 CVO heads. With a solid bottom end the heads are easily changed anytime. He is clear that is not going to happen and I respect that so the limit will be 117 Drop-in and the bottom end stays in the frame.

[ndmp40]

Understand. That could be a tall order but not impossible.

Might consider the Mahle 113 piston from Suburban Speed. 9 cc dome. Use the existing 110 cylinders.

Leaving coin on the table for quality head work.

Just another option.

Don't know the working budget.

Send your heads to Rick Ward, his port work with the stock valves is a real power maker.  As for the 110 heads having too big ports, my mild SE build 113 makes 130 square through the MCR ports, which are much larger and have even bigger valves.

Rick made me a set of 110 heads with bigger ports than the MCR heads, and these are going on a mild 117.

The typical TC motor is intake restricted, and people leave power and TQ on the table by making the heads and intake too small.

Give Rick Ward a call, his portwork is exceptional and big power makers.

[1FSTRK]

Understand. That could be a tall order but not impossible.

Might consider the Mahle 113 piston from Suburban Speed. 9 cc dome. Use the existing 110 cylinders.

Leaving coin on the table for quality head work.

Just another option.

Don't know the working budget.

Send your heads to Rick Ward, his port work with the stock valves is a real power maker.  As for the 110 heads having too big ports, my mild SE build 113 makes 130 square through the MCR ports, which are much larger and have even bigger valves.

Rick made me a set of 110 heads with bigger ports than the MCR heads, and these are going on a mild 117.

The typical TC motor is intake restricted, and people leave power and TQ on the table by making the heads and intake too small.

Give Rick Ward a call, his portwork is exceptional and big power makers.

Were these 130/130 heads ported by Rick?
What do your heads flow?

[Hilly13]

I posted the sheets I had seen, can't see any others?

[98fxstc]

I have flow sheets for mine showing before and after porting but not sure it is appropriate to post them without Head Porter's ok.
These guys have an opportunity to post them here but then the internet experts jump all over them.

[Hilly13]

Yeah I guess you are right 98, I'm just trying to get an idea of the norm, one stock sheet does not make a benchmark, average of 10 might though.

[ndmp40]

Understand. That could be a tall order but not impossible.

Might consider the Mahle 113 piston from Suburban Speed. 9 cc dome. Use the existing 110 cylinders.

Leaving coin on the table for quality head work.

Just another option.

Don't know the working budget.

Send your heads to Rick Ward, his port work with the stock valves is a real power maker.  As for the 110 heads having too big ports, my mild SE build 113 makes 130 square through the MCR ports, which are much larger and have even bigger valves.

Rick made me a set of 110 heads with bigger ports than the MCR heads, and these are going on a mild 117.

The typical TC motor is intake restricted, and people leave power and TQ on the table by making the heads and intake too small.

Give Rick Ward a call, his portwork is exceptional and big power makers.

Were these 130/130 heads ported by Rick?
What do your heads flow?

SE 113 kit with SE MVA heads out of the box. 
I dont have flow sheets handy, but at one time they were listed in the SE catalog.

[1FSTRK]

Thanks, I have seen those numbers for MVA heads. For this project he is sticking with the stock CVO castings.

[1FSTRK]

I have flow sheets for mine showing before and after porting but not sure it is appropriate to post them without Head Porter's ok.
These guys have an opportunity to post them here but then the internet experts jump all over them.

Yeah I guess you are right 98, I'm just trying to get an idea of the norm, one stock sheet does not make a benchmark, average of 10 might though.

I am thinking the average of three tests from the tree guys that already posted here would be great. They have the numbers because they questioned the numbers you posted instantly. I'd bet they are all within 1-2 percent and we are not talking about anything top secret, or even what they have when they are done porting, just the base number from the stock casting.

[wfolarry]

From the SE catalog

[1FSTRK]

From the SE catalog

Thank you Larry, unfortunately that lists nothing for the stock CNO head.

[1FSTRK]

From the SE catalog

Thank you Larry, unfortunately that lists nothing for the stock CNO CVO head flow.

[Hilly13]

1FSTRK help me understand, the comparison you make between the 110 and 117 with stock heads does show in favour of the 117 but if the 110 has its compression ratio raised to match the 117 it's only single digit gains in TQ and HP, I would of put that down to 7 cubic inches of displacement, what am I not understanding here? Go easy I'm a bit slow.

[1FSTRK]

1FSTRK help me understand, the comparison you make between the 110 and 117 with stock heads does show in favour of the 117 but if the 110 has its compression ratio raised to match the 117 it's only single digit gains in TQ and HP, I would of put that down to 7 cubic inches of displacement, what am I not understanding here? Go easy I'm a bit slow.

I have always found it best to compare ccp or corrected compression. The stock CVO cranks 210-215, a 117" with a .030 gasket and zero deck running a 259 cam would have a calculated ccp under 200. Most of the posted 117" stock CVO head examples I have found have corrected or ccp numbers less than or equal to stock CVO or stage two CVO engines. For this reason I see the comparisons as apples to apples. As far as HP numbers I always work in HP/CI or TQ/CI for power and HP/CFM for comparing efficiency.

[yobtaf103]

For a little light reading on every 117" bolt on combo etc , go over and take a look at the CVO forum!

[1FSTRK]

For a little light reading on every 117" bolt on combo etc , go over and take a look at the CVO forum!

I am not a member of other forums, I have not found one that offers near the information of HTT.
Is there specific data missing here that I should be looking for on other sites?

[98fxstc]

I am not a member of other forums, I have not found one that offers near the information of HTT.
Is there specific data missing here that I should be looking for on other sites?

I have a CVO Fatbob
I joined over there quite a few years back
They have been talking about 110's and upgrades over there for yonks with a fair bit of discussion about the 110 heads.
There are a few threads here about the 110 heads but the talk about 110 engines  and upgrades has really only stepped up since the advent of the new liners.

[1FSTRK]

I am not a member of other forums, I have not found one that offers near the information of HTT.
Is there specific data missing here that I should be looking for on other sites?

I have a CVO Fatbob
I joined over there quite a few years back
They have been talking about 110's and upgrades over there for yonks with a fair bit of discussion about the 110 heads.
There are a few threads here about the 110 heads but the talk about 110 engines  and upgrades has really only stepped up since the advent of the new liners.

I spent some time  searching there today and I see a lot of talk and opinion, it runs great, love it, posting but little data. I may be looking in the wrong places but after reading a 5 minute paragraph that started with " I am not going to go down the whole dyno graph road because I know where that leads" and ending with him typing his detailed description of the dyno graph, rather than posting the picture for all to see I decided to call the game.

If  you have a specific thread or spot that has real info in mind I would appreciate any help in locating it. I believe in data and the more the better so I am open to all sources and discussions when it comes to accurate information.
Thanks

[98fxstc]

The CVO guys are not into tech stuff and specifics so there are are very few tech type threads.
They get ideas from the forum and then go off to see their local engine builder.
Their is some discussion about different types of upgrade and their merits.
You will find many before and after dynos, some with head porting, some with stock heads but they are scattered.
Not a concentrated source of data for you to examine but there is a fair bit there.

[yobtaf103]

I am not a member of other forums, I have not found one that offers near the information of HTT.
Is there specific data missing here that I should be looking for on other sites?

I have a CVO Fatbob
I joined over there quite a few years back
They have been talking about 110's and upgrades over there for yonks with a fair bit of discussion about the 110 heads.
There are a few threads here about the 110 heads but the talk about 110 engines  and upgrades has really only stepped up since the advent of the new liners.

I spent some time  searching there today and I see a lot of talk and opinion, it runs great, love it, posting but little data. I may be looking in the wrong places but after reading a 5 minute paragraph that started with " I am not going to go down the whole dyno graph road because I know where that leads" and ending with him typing his detailed description of the dyno graph, rather than posting the picture for all to see I decided to call the game.

If  you have a specific thread or spot that has real info in mind I would appreciate any help in locating it. I believe in data and the more the better so I am open to all sources and discussions when it comes to accurate information.
Thanks

Yep thats forums was a 80 plus page thread on the 117"  thats fallen back with countless new threads started on the same/similar subject !

Data/ accurate info to a degree is in the eye of the beholder, went thro a lot of searching info before i went with my 117 upgrade, posted ib dyno here & that's all i can vouch for tbh
("imbroke's" nice chart, never seen that repeated tho he did use the hi comp SE mahle not the kit flat tops)

Is your friends cvo bone stock now, budget limit, riding style?

Zippers bolt-in 587/ Fat cat, 101.76/114.78 chart on their vendor page HTT

[KB]

I have yet to see a stock 110 head break 270cfm@28"
Most CNC ported mva heads go high 280 to low 290's@28"
Always worth it to do a valve job and grind the valves
The jinked up factory valve job wreaks havoc on the exhaust seat and the exhaust valve

Is it possible to work backwards?

I have an 2008 110 SE with a PV tune that tells me a VE and from the table I can calculate the RPM x the VE percentage = CI of air. Converted back would be CFM. It may not be as accurate but it is real world. From that I've worked out at 5500 rpm and .88 VE with 100% throttle that the head must be flowing 307CFM. Or does it not work that way?

[KB]

I have yet to see a stock 110 head break 270cfm@28"
Most CNC ported mva heads go high 280 to low 290's@28"
Always worth it to do a valve job and grind the valves
The jinked up factory valve job wreaks havoc on the exhaust seat and the exhaust valve

Is it possible to work backwards?

I have an 2008 110 SE with a PV tune that tells me a VE and from the table I can calculate the RPM x the VE percentage = CI of air. Converted back would be CFM. It may not be as accurate but it is real world. From that I've worked out at 5500 rpm and .88 VE with 100% throttle that the head must be flowing 307CFM. Or does it not work that way?

never mind I found a calculator that works it out. Have to correct for air density and other factors. DOH.

[1FSTRK]

I have yet to see a stock 110 head break 270cfm@28"
Most CNC ported mva heads go high 280 to low 290's@28"
Always worth it to do a valve job and grind the valves
The jinked up factory valve job wreaks havoc on the exhaust seat and the exhaust valve

Is it possible to work backwards?

I have an 2008 110 SE with a PV tune that tells me a VE and from the table I can calculate the RPM x the VE percentage = CI of air. Converted back would be CFM. It may not be as accurate but it is real world. From that I've worked out at 5500 rpm and .88 VE with 100% throttle that the head must be flowing 307CFM. Or does it not work that way?

never mind I found a calculator that works it out. Have to correct for air density and other factors. DOH.

You can't calculate actual air flow from a VE table in the EFI map. Those numbers are random based and it is my understanding they top out at 127 because of the computer limits at the time they were developed,

[wfolarry]

The reality is unless you flow the heads that are on the bike the rest is just a guessing game.

[1FSTRK]

At this point we really don't care what CFM the stock CVO head flows. We can simply go on without the numbers and that saves all the experts from arguing over what number is correct. We know there is a range on stock production parts and I will just use the value STOCK1 to represent that flow.