Author Topic: Milwaukee Eight testing.  (Read 36254 times)

ferrari99 and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FloridaJim5

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 496
  • Country: us
  • 2013 Ember Red Ultra
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2017, 04:41:32 PM »
Yup, good looking bike. Bummer about the fairing..........

   :pop: 

Offline sfmichael

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5672
  • Country: us
  • Hoping to build the next mighty 'mouse'
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2017, 09:47:29 PM »
Yup, good looking bike. Bummer about the fairing..........

    :SM:
Colorado Springs, CO.

Offline Durwood

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4261
  • Country: us
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2017, 04:14:28 AM »
Darn good torque, Good looking bike too. Fullsac next?
If I go aftermarket, I will use Fuel Moto's 2-1-2.
Yup, good looking bike. Bummer about the fairing..........
Hoss, I didn't like them before I rode my last bike, the ability to go around big trucks at 80 mph without even a wiggle is what sold me.

She may be ugly, but she works. Function over form. :teeth:

Offline jbexeter

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 757
  • Country: gb
    • Exeter Laser
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2017, 05:15:41 AM »
At the risk of de-railing the thread...

I see it's cold and humid which is good for charge and power, but will admit I was surprised after all the M8 hype at how little the ****STOCK**** improvement is over my old twinkie/cv40.

The assumption therefore is that HD is yet again selling in effect a "crippled" product that the owner can then spend $$ on to release the ponies?

I'd ask the OP, dyno's are a lovely way of measuring and verifying and getting numbers, but every pukka dyno operator I know can read more into those numbers, and the seat of the pants feel from being on hand when the run was done, than the numbers alone will ever express, so does the OP think the M8 is as "tunable" as the twinkie or more so, in relative terms, and is that tuning process likely to change the characteristics of the motor in the same way as the twinkie?

Not asking for any trade secrets here, just now that someone actually has one to dyno and mess with, was all the sucking of teeth justified or did HD knock one out of the grounds with the M8?

Offline rigidthumper

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4526
  • Country: us
  • Buying a scalpel, don't make you a surgeon.
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2017, 05:34:45 AM »
At the risk of de-railing the thread...

I see it's cold and humid which is good for charge and power, but will admit I was surprised after all the M8 hype at how little the ****STOCK**** improvement is over my old twinkie/cv40.

The assumption therefore is that HD is yet again selling in effect a "crippled" product that the owner can then spend $$ on to release the ponies?

I'd ask the OP, dyno's are a lovely way of measuring and verifying and getting numbers, but every pukka dyno operator I know can read more into those numbers, and the seat of the pants feel from being on hand when the run was done, than the numbers alone will ever express, so does the OP think the M8 is as "tunable" as the twinkie or more so, in relative terms, and is that tuning process likely to change the characteristics of the motor in the same way as the twinkie?

Not asking for any trade secrets here, just now that someone actually has one to dyno and mess with, was all the sucking of teeth justified or did HD knock one out of the grounds with the M8?

I am curious: are you saying your stock TC with a CV40 carb made 100 TQ at 2000 RPM? Or was that after modifying?

Offline Durwood

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4261
  • Country: us
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2017, 06:10:34 AM »
At the risk of de-railing the thread...

I see it's cold and humid which is good for charge and power, but will admit I was surprised after all the M8 hype at how little the ****STOCK**** improvement is over my old twinkie/cv40.

The assumption therefore is that HD is yet again selling in effect a "crippled" product that the owner can then spend $$ on to release the ponies?

I'd ask the OP, dyno's are a lovely way of measuring and verifying and getting numbers, but every pukka dyno operator I know can read more into those numbers, and the seat of the pants feel from being on hand when the run was done, than the numbers alone will ever express, so does the OP think the M8 is as "tunable" as the twinkie or more so, in relative terms, and is that tuning process likely to change the characteristics of the motor in the same way as the twinkie?

Not asking for any trade secrets here, just now that someone actually has one to dyno and mess with, was all the sucking of teeth justified or did HD knock one out of the grounds with the M8?
Yes, the M8 platform is solid.

 I put 75 miles on it yesterday, it is smooth everywhere, and very responsive in it's current state, with only a set of mufflers, an air cleaner and a good tune.

It will be a bit, but my next move is the head pipe, I want to see for myself if there are any gains to be had there before I start testing cams.

Here is my M8 as it is now, vs a 2016 air cooled 103 I tuned, that had a head pipe change, note the torque increase right in the sweet spot where most guys ride.

Added: Robin, we were typing at the same time. :teeth:
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Offline jbexeter

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 757
  • Country: gb
    • Exeter Laser
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2017, 07:04:10 AM »

I am curious: are you saying your stock TC with a CV40 carb made 100 TQ at 2000 RPM? Or was that after modifying?


http://harleytechtalk.com/index.php/topic,92474.msg1066688.html#msg1066688

72 rwbhp @ 4,700 (81 ft/lb)
100 ft/lb @ 3,000 (57 bhp)

at 2,000 it was about 35 bhp and 92 ft/lb

I would not call it stock, 88 to 103 stageiv kit from original owner, so yes it's modified, but it isn't exactly wild either

I understand it's not a "fair" comparison with the HD marketing policy of selling crippled bikes to compare a staged twinkie to a stock m8

edit / added - shouldn't be a surprise really, at 2/3k rpm a 40 mm throat cv carb is going to shine
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 07:06:25 AM by jbexeter »

Offline 1FSTRK

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 8029
  • Country: 00
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2017, 02:32:27 PM »
At the risk of de-railing the thread...

I see it's cold and humid which is good for charge and power, but will admit I was surprised after all the M8 hype at how little the ****STOCK**** improvement is over my old twinkie/cv40.

The assumption therefore is that HD is yet again selling in effect a "crippled" product that the owner can then spend $$ on to release the ponies?

I'd ask the OP, dyno's are a lovely way of measuring and verifying and getting numbers, but every pukka dyno operator I know can read more into those numbers, and the seat of the pants feel from being on hand when the run was done, than the numbers alone will ever express, so does the OP think the M8 is as "tunable" as the twinkie or more so, in relative terms, and is that tuning process likely to change the characteristics of the motor in the same way as the twinkie?

Not asking for any trade secrets here, just now that someone actually has one to dyno and mess with, was all the sucking of teeth justified or did HD knock one out of the grounds with the M8?
Yes, the M8 platform is solid.

 I put 75 miles on it yesterday, it is smooth everywhere, and very responsive in it's current state, with only a set of mufflers, an air cleaner and a good tune.

It will be a bit, but my next move is the head pipe, I want to see for myself if there are any gains to be had there before I start testing cams.

Here is my M8 as it is now, vs a 2016 air cooled 103 I tuned, that had a head pipe change, note the torque increase right in the sweet spot where most guys ride.

Added: Robin, we were typing at the same time. :teeth:
(Attachment Link)

Great graph right there, thanks for posting it.
The TC would have come in a little earlier and had less hp with a little different exhaust but it does show how little is gained from the 4 valve heads in stage 1 configuration.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the removal of the Cat.
Thanks again for time you put into testing and posting these all this.

Added
If it is not asking to much, would you do a warm Cylinder Cranking Pressure test for us?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 03:00:13 PM by 1FSTRK »
"Never hang on to a mistake just because you spent time or money making it."

Offline DTTJGlide

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 582
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2017, 03:40:32 PM »
I'd say a 10-12 ft/lb tq increase right where most people ride is significant, & that is with a lot poorer exhaust system. I've ridden both the 107 & 114 & no they're not as strong as my 103 TC, but it has a non HD stage 4. It just seems like everyone wants to say it's not much better than a TC, stock vs stock I think it's a good improvement & probably even more so if they had to try to make a TC meet the new EPA standards. I also think the potential for gains per $$ spent is better.

Offline 1FSTRK

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 8029
  • Country: 00
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2017, 04:15:49 PM »
I'd say a 10-12 ft/lb tq increase right where most people ride is significant, & that is with a lot poorer exhaust system. I've ridden both the 107 & 114 & no they're not as strong as my 103 TC, but it has a non HD stage 4. It just seems like everyone wants to say it's not much better than a TC, stock vs stock I think it's a good improvement & probably even more so if they had to try to make a TC meet the new EPA standards. I also think the potential for gains per $$ spent is better.

The tq you speak of is the product of a package that HD targeted and it is a good starting point but more a observation of curve not output.   
If we take the emotion out of this and deal with the math the engine is bigger, has more compression, a larger, better stock exhaust, 50% better flowing heads and much more. All I am saying is all these improvements and in stage one form they yield a very small loss in hp/ci and a small increase in tq/ci.

103Ho stage one       88.55hp   .859 hp/ci        104.59tq    1.015 hp/ci
107 M-8 stage one    87.19hp   .814 hp/ci        109.38tq    1.022 hp/ci

These engines will make many happy just by being the latest from HD but to those that are here for the Tech in HTT, in stage one form they are not technologically advanced in their performance at this point when compared to the engine they will replace.

 
 
"Never hang on to a mistake just because you spent time or money making it."

Offline rich1

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 322
  • Country: us
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #35 on: January 18, 2017, 04:26:34 PM »
Thanks for the info Durwood. Just so I understand about the vent hoses when you changed air cleaners. There was no oil drip from them? Do you think we can get away without venting them to atmosphere?

Offline Durwood

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4261
  • Country: us
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #36 on: January 18, 2017, 05:02:51 PM »
Thanks for the info Durwood. Just so I understand about the vent hoses when you changed air cleaners. There was no oil drip from them? Do you think we can get away without venting them to atmosphere?
Yes, the new breather design is not letting oil pass through, at least not on mine, and I have ran it hard.

 Mine is vented because I prepped the backing plate for installation way ahead of even heat cycling the engine, had I known what I know now I would not have done it.

All I get is a little moisture when it's cold, absolutely no oil.

You guys are more than welcome, I really enjoy what we are doing and look forward to the next test, the pipe.

Offline DTTJGlide

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 582
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #37 on: January 18, 2017, 05:24:09 PM »
I'd say a 10-12 ft/lb tq increase right where most people ride is significant, & that is with a lot poorer exhaust system. I've ridden both the 107 & 114 & no they're not as strong as my 103 TC, but it has a non HD stage 4. It just seems like everyone wants to say it's not much better than a TC, stock vs stock I think it's a good improvement & probably even more so if they had to try to make a TC meet the new EPA standards. I also think the potential for gains per $$ spent is better.

The tq you speak of is the product of a package that HD targeted and it is a good starting point but more a observation of curve not output.   
If we take the emotion out of this and deal with the math the engine is bigger, has more compression, a larger, better stock exhaust, 50% better flowing heads and much more. All I am saying is all these improvements and in stage one form they yield a very small loss in hp/ci and a small increase in tq/ci.

103Ho stage one       88.55hp   .859 hp/ci        104.59tq    1.015 hp/ci
107 M-8 stage one    87.19hp   .814 hp/ci        109.38tq    1.022 hp/ci

These engines will make many happy just by being the latest from HD but to those that are here for the Tech in HTT, in stage one form they are not technologically advanced in their performance at this point when compared to the engine they will replace.
We'll see what the #s are with a full stage one exhaust, the 103 you're using for comparison has one of the best stage one exhausts available, I'm not saying it's "fantastic" but the comparison earlier was that it's no better than a TC. I've yet to see an apples to apples comparison as far as mods & $$ spent. It seems as though everyone is offended that it might be better than their TC, I love my TC but I don't think it's as good out of the box as the M8.

Offline 1FSTRK

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 8029
  • Country: 00
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #38 on: January 18, 2017, 06:15:03 PM »
I'd say a 10-12 ft/lb tq increase right where most people ride is significant, & that is with a lot poorer exhaust system. I've ridden both the 107 & 114 & no they're not as strong as my 103 TC, but it has a non HD stage 4. It just seems like everyone wants to say it's not much better than a TC, stock vs stock I think it's a good improvement & probably even more so if they had to try to make a TC meet the new EPA standards. I also think the potential for gains per $$ spent is better.

The tq you speak of is the product of a package that HD targeted and it is a good starting point but more a observation of curve not output.   
If we take the emotion out of this and deal with the math the engine is bigger, has more compression, a larger, better stock exhaust, 50% better flowing heads and much more. All I am saying is all these improvements and in stage one form they yield a very small loss in hp/ci and a small increase in tq/ci.

103Ho stage one       88.55hp   .859 hp/ci        104.59tq    1.015 hp/ci
107 M-8 stage one    87.19hp   .814 hp/ci        109.38tq    1.022 hp/ci

These engines will make many happy just by being the latest from HD but to those that are here for the Tech in HTT, in stage one form they are not technologically advanced in their performance at this point when compared to the engine they will replace.
We'll see what the #s are with a full stage one exhaust, the 103 you're using for comparison has one of the best stage one exhausts available, I'm not saying it's "fantastic" but the comparison earlier was that it's no better than a TC. I've yet to see an apples to apples comparison as far as mods & $$ spent. It seems as though everyone is offended that it might be better than their TC, I love my TC but I don't think it's as good out of the box as the M8.

I am not among the offended, as I said I like numbers, leave the emotion out of it.
From what I have seen the stock pipe is much better on the M-8, and the difference between a good pipe and a great pipe is not that big a player on any stage one.
 
The stage two has started in the dyno section and they also run parallel to the TC counter parts. Just like with the drop-in TC kits people are warm and fuzzy over the numbers until you do the math and see it nothing new, no replacement for displacement.
"Never hang on to a mistake just because you spent time or money making it."

Offline psyshack

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Country: us
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #39 on: January 18, 2017, 07:19:31 PM »
I'm hoping I can get my 2017 RK on my dealers dyno for it's base pulls and see how he's doing this Saturday. I should have 500 miles on it by then. I have my Eliminator 400's and FP3 here now. I have a V&H naked A/C on order. And supposedly I will have a S&S Stealth A/C kit here tomorrow. J & P swears it's S&S new A/C for the M8 but a dingle ball who claims to be with S&S says they don't make one for the M8 yet. And as of yesterday I have not seen one on the S&S website. So who knows. If the S&S unit is a failure fit wise I will return it to J & P and wait on the V&H unit to get here.

Offline Hossamania

  • K1600 Owner in Training
  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15911
  • Country: us
  • No. No RoadGlides
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #40 on: January 18, 2017, 08:04:03 PM »
I'm hoping I can get my 2017 RK on my dealers dyno for it's base pulls and see how he's doing this Saturday. I should have 500 miles on it by then. I have my Eliminator 400's and FP3 here now. I have a V&H naked A/C on order. And supposedly I will have a S&S Stealth A/C kit here tomorrow. J & P swears it's S&S new A/C for the M8 but a dingle ball who claims to be with S&S says they don't make one for the M8 yet. And as of yesterday I have not seen one on the S&S website. So who knows. If the S&S unit is a failure fit wise I will return it to J & P and wait on the V&H unit to get here.


The real dingleball might be the one at J&P....
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Offline psyshack

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Country: us
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #41 on: January 19, 2017, 04:53:47 AM »
Agreed,,, Dingle balls everywhere.  :SM:

Offline tomcat64

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2733
  • Country: 00
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2017, 07:59:07 AM »
can you explain the TM further , and what tuner are you using to shut it off?

Offline Durwood

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4261
  • Country: us
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #43 on: January 21, 2017, 07:39:45 PM »
Went on an 80 mile, 2 up ride today, one thing for sure is the new suspension for 2017 is a huge improvement over my 2011, it feels like it's on rails.

This basic stage one will be good enough for most, nice smooth low end grunt as my previous 2011 RGU displayed, but I surely miss the mid-upper rpm torque I had in my '11 stage 2, 103.

It will be a bit before I can continue as I have too much work at the moment to play, but will post the results of a full stage one with Fuel Moto's Jackpot head pipe, then the cam testing begins.

Offline guydoc77

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 506
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #44 on: January 21, 2017, 09:42:39 PM »
Must be nice to be able to ride in January! Enjoy! Doubt I will be able to go here until at least March.  :emoGroan:

Offline IRONMIKE113

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
  • Country: us
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #45 on: January 22, 2017, 02:45:16 AM »
Must be nice to be able to ride in January! Enjoy! Doubt I will be able to go here until at least March.  :emoGroan:
j


EXACTLY,,,, temp's have been okay, But the slop(salt/Calcium Chloride) on the road is NOT  :SM:
2 Bikes and 2 Beemers, that's what I have been told 😳

Offline 1FSTRK

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 8029
  • Country: 00
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #46 on: January 22, 2017, 02:50:01 PM »
Went on an 80 mile, 2 up ride today, one thing for sure is the new suspension for 2017 is a huge improvement over my 2011, it feels like it's on rails.

This basic stage one will be good enough for most, nice smooth low end grunt as my previous 2011 RGU displayed, but I surely miss the mid-upper rpm torque I had in my '11 stage 2, 103.

It will be a bit before I can continue as I have too much work at the moment to play, but will post the results of a full stage one with Fuel Moto's Jackpot head pipe, then the cam testing begins.

So we get to set inside with nothing good to read or discuss because your too busy making money and riding motorcycle to entertain us with testing.   :banghead:

Good for you, you earned it.  :up: :up:
"Never hang on to a mistake just because you spent time or money making it."

Offline Durwood

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4261
  • Country: us
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #47 on: February 13, 2017, 12:26:43 PM »
I got a small window today to test a set of mufflers.

I warmed the bike and dyno and did pulls with the Street Cannon's, then swapped over to the Kerker's, they sound much better than the Cannon's, IMO, the SE offering is just too quiet for me.

Next test will be head pipes, but I have a feeling we won't see any huge improvement until we put a cam in it.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]


Offline 1FSTRK

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 8029
  • Country: 00
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #48 on: February 13, 2017, 08:07:24 PM »
 :up: :up: great post, thanks for sharing it.
I will wait to see if it is the head pipe or cams that are in control at this stage.
"Never hang on to a mistake just because you spent time or money making it."

Offline Durwood

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4261
  • Country: us
Re: Milwaukee Eight testing.
« Reply #49 on: February 18, 2017, 10:33:57 AM »
Took some time today with the shop being closed and tried a de-catted stock head pipe.
Here where we came from and where we are now. The bike sounds much better.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]