Porting stock M8 heads v. SE CNC

[Eccool]

Picked up the January east edition of Thunder Press at the local dealer today.  There is an article in there by Kip Woodring basically stating that ported stock M8 heads cannot meet the performance level of the SE heads because the stock ports are too big.  He states that if the ported stockers even came close to the SE heads, that it would involve so much work, that the cost of the ported stockers would exceed that of the SE heads.  I know we have a lot of head porters on here, I was just wondering what you guys think.  Thank you very much!  Merry Christmas all!

[1FSTRK]

HD has learned from the Indy engine builders over the years. They were not going to supply the after market with stock cores form porting. They did the same with the throttle bodies, and 883 cylinders. Easy enough to design parts that cannot be upgraded.

[Eccool]

HD has learned from the Indy engine builders over the years. They were not going to supply the after market with stock cores form porting. They did the same with the throttle bodies, and 883 cylinders. Easy enough to design parts that cannot be upgraded.

So are you saying you agree with the article?

[1FSTRK]

Absolutely.
I have been posting that here for a year now. If you look at all the threads and guys that started out porting M-8 heads for a 107 they never posted dyno info until they put big bore kits on and then the HP/CI numbers are still running in the Twin cam range even though the heads flow tons more CFM. They are take ports that are to big and making them bigger just to say they improved the flow. Then they all try to grow the motor big enough to start to use those big ports.

[K4FXD]

Put a 3&5/8ths stroke crank in one and spin the crap out of it. 

[sbcharlie]

its interesting read his article, i see the valve guides were replaced in pictures .  i have port many stock casting with great results. you need both air flow and port velocity. you can achieve both in a stock heads. the CNC ported head work well if you want to drop $500.00 more into them to make them work. bunch of snake oil . sbc

[prodrag1320]

have to agree with SBC.done several sets of stock heads with very good results

[Don D]

The stock heads may be just right as far as cross sectional area and just need a little help with swirl. Lemons to lemonade when combined with a camshaft that is tailored to the characteristics of the pent roof head and the relatively large CSA and valve area.
I have a set I will mess with this summer. They will be getting a very different valve job then the twin cams.

[1FSTRK]

Porting them for flow bench shootouts is no problem, getting them to make and exceed the HP/CFM that we see in hi performance Twin cam set ups is something else entirely.

These 4 valve heads are supposed to be a big improvement over the two valve heads, they flow 50% more air right front the factory.

[rigidthumper]

IMO the intake to exhaust ratio could be better. 

[badcooky]

More cubes might get some port velocity .

[sbcharlie]

lets get back to basics here. here the way i approach a cylinder head. you baseline it. things to consider the valve to throat ratio. flow test to get base numbers . the most important test probe the port for port velocity. get rubber mold of port, this will give you CSA numbers. one ,these stock heads flow well and guess what they have 350 port velocity. when you port a head, most important piece of puzzle is the valve job. these head do not need much except in valve profiles and adding width to short side radius. yes we see enhanced airflow and the port velocity gains or is equal. yes the CNC se heads have smaller intake ports, but velocity is about the same. i have seen Harley do some nice work on there CNC ported heads and there other offering. The M-8 heads need a lot of work. i have redid 2 set, and customers are happy.  the one thing i have seen using 4 different valve diameters  wake these heads up.  another interesting thing on these heads using stock valves sizes are not a bad way to go.  if you heart desires the cnc heads from harley buy and enjoy sbc

[Nastytls]

Is one a better foundation for performance, or can similar results be had by both?

[sbcharlie]

i am going to make a u-tube this week and document the port velocity in a stock head, a CNC head, and a ported head to show you that there BS about port velocity. sbc

[1FSTRK]

lets get back to basics here. here the way i approach a cylinder head. you baseline it. things to consider the valve to throat ratio. flow test to get base numbers . the most important test probe the port for port velocity. get rubber mold of port, this will give you CSA numbers. one ,these stock heads flow well and guess what they have 350 port velocity. when you port a head, most important piece of puzzle is the valve job. these head do not need much except in valve profiles and adding width to short side radius. yes we see enhanced airflow and the port velocity gains or is equal. yes the CNC se heads have smaller intake ports, but velocity is about the same. i have seen Harley do some nice work on there CNC ported heads and there other offering. The M-8 heads need a lot of work. i have redid 2 set, and customers are happy.  the one thing i have seen using 4 different valve diameters  wake these heads up.  another interesting thing on these heads using stock valves sizes are not a bad way to go.  if you heart desires the cnc heads from harley buy and enjoy sbc

So where is the power?
Why does all this hype not translate to better HP and TQ/CI?

[sbcharlie]

why don't you ride one and find out.  were the twin cams great when they first came out, took some time. these M-8 are head and shoulders better than a twin cam.  and there going to keep getting a lot better

[1FSTRK]

why don't you ride one and find out.  were the twin cams great when they first came out, took some time. these M-8 are head and shoulders better than a twin cam.  and there going to keep getting a lot better

I have, they run fine but this is a Tech site and we are talking about real  Tech not just can we make a living selling new motorcycles because they are different and porting heads for a living because they flow more air regardless of any real advances in power over the other heads we made a living porting.

[sbcharlie]

you are correct it is a tech site. what wrong with giving correct technical information out so the tech type people can make think it out . again its a tech site not a platform to what ever

[1FSTRK]

you are correct it is a tech site. what wrong with giving correct technical information out so the tech type people can make think it out . again its a tech site not a platform to what ever

Simple math is I have two twin cam bikes, a 05 95" A motor makes 1.26 HP/CI and a 07 110" B motor makes 1.2 HP/CI. Both a engines are about ten years old and have been trouble free. Both are built stock Twin cam head that are ported. So where are the M-8 builds that make 1.2 HP/CI by porting the heads and adding a TB to a good stage two set up?
The testing  that has been posted for stage one and stage two M-8's runs parallel to the twin cam counter parts for HP/CI and we all know the the stock M-8 heads out flow the stock twin cam heads. So now we are marketing ported heads and where are the 1.2 HP/CI set ups?

More important where are the gains from the 4 valve heads

[badcooky]

 4V heads like revs HD's don't rev much so the theoretical gains aren't there.
With a little work the M8's are stomping Twin cams that are highly modified though.
Dyno HP is just that a static number, real world the M8's kick ass.

[1FSTRK]

4V heads like revs HD's don't rev much so the theoretical gains aren't there.
With a little work the M8's are stomping Twin cams that are highly modified though.
Dyno HP is just that a static number, real world the M8's kick ass.

Really, well maybe, but only on the internet.

Added
Actually you will find the testing with the M-8 is showing just the opposite of your claims. The short comings in HP/CI are  being explained away will graphs showing power coming in earlier there by giving more area under the curve compared to many Twin cam conbos

[BVHOG]

We have a member here doing testing and sharing the info no charge, whatever the motivation may be. Please don't piss him off, the rest of us would like to hear what he has to say.

[harleytuner]

4V heads like revs HD's don't rev much so the theoretical gains aren't there.
With a little work the M8's are stomping Twin cams that are highly modified though.
Dyno HP is just that a static number, real world the M8's kick ass.

Ever compared the gearing  between the 6 speed TC and the M8?

[krwson]

4V heads like revs HD's don't rev much so the theoretical gains aren't there.
With a little work the M8's are stomping Twin cams that are highly modified though.
Dyno HP is just that a static number, real world the M8's kick ass.

Ever compared the gearing  between the 6 speed TC and the M8?

Surely no expert, but my resurch indicates primary drive and ratios (overall) are the same TC & M8's   

[harleytuner]

4V heads like revs HD's don't rev much so the theoretical gains aren't there.
With a little work the M8's are stomping Twin cams that are highly modified though.
Dyno HP is just that a static number, real world the M8's kick ass.

Ever compared the gearing  between the 6 speed TC and the M8?

Surely no expert, but my resurch indicates primary drive and ratios (overall) are the same TC & M8's   

I started looking into it briefly awhile back and never finished researching the ratios.  On the dyno the gear graphs ate quit different for same grear runs between the 2. 

[04 SE Deuce]

We have a member here doing testing and sharing the info no charge, whatever the motivation may be. Please don't piss him off, the rest of us would like to hear what he has to say.

AMEN,   something I've posted a few times over the years.

[1FSTRK]

We have a member here doing testing and sharing the info no charge, whatever the motivation may be. Please don't piss him off, the rest of us would like to hear what he has to say.

Who are you referring to that is doing the testing?
Did you read the OP?

[badcooky]

The only crowd that don't know 4v is the HD crowd , everyone else has had them for at least 10 years,shoot the Rolls Royce Merlin(Packard Merlin) engine was a 4 valver in WW2.
Yep under the curve is awesome for torque , wait 6 months to a year and both sides will be far better for power.
Like I said the 4V engine gets better with revs, Hd's will get gains but not like something revving to 12 or 13K.

[sbcharlie]

My thoughts that flst guy cracks me up  get over it the
The twin cams are history  you stated you had on 05 that
Has great numbers.  Let's see 5 or 6 years for twin cam to
Be out. Give the m8 a few years   

[1FSTRK]

My thoughts that flst guy cracks me up  get over it the
The twin cams are history  you stated you had on 05 that
Has great numbers.  Let's see 5 or 6 years for twin cam to
Be out. Give the m8 a few years

Nothing to get over. I know you need to push this to make a living, nothing wrong with the concept of 4 valve heads the problem is these M-8 heads are not out performing anything yet. You say wait a few years, you are not waiting a few years until they are figured out and making more power to sell your porting. I am always a customer for more power, offer some actual gains in efficiency and power and I am a customer.

Show us a test with a cam and big bore kit, then pull the heads, port them and retest on the same engine and you will have something. Better yet port a set of stock castings and send them to Durwood so he can dyno them on his test bike and let him post the honest gains. Don't tell us, show us. You can prove just how wrong I am, just send him some ported stock casting that will bolt on his test bike and make 1.2-1.26 HP/CI.

[BigT]

I had a 1999 Twin Cam 117" with a Woods 51cv carburetor  Baisley hybrid heads, Tman 650 Cam @ 11.3:1. and squeezed out 134" hp/ tq with a lot of hours on the dyno trying different combinations.  Tried to use the best parts available. Fast bike at the time and wouldn't think twice about taking it on a long trip. I'm currently building an M8 117" and hopefully meet or exceed those numbers with less effort. The new M8 platform with the approved suspension and handling with less vibration is by far the best bike I've  ever ridden. I'm betting on some kick ass cams and exhaust coming out in the near future that will work with those SE heads I bought.

[Admiral Akbar]

My thoughts that flst guy cracks me up  get over it the
The twin cams are history  you stated you had on 05 that
Has great numbers.  Let's see 5 or 6 years for twin cam to
Be out. Give the m8 a few years

Nothing to get over. I know you need to push this to make a living, nothing wrong with the concept of 4 valve heads the problem is these M-8 heads are not out performing anything yet. You say wait a few years, you are not waiting a few years until they are figured out and making more power to sell your porting. I am always a customer for more power, offer some actual gains in efficiency and power and I am a customer.

Show us a test with a cam and big bore kit, then pull the heads, port them and retest on the same engine and you will have something. Better yet port a set of stock castings and send them to Durwood so he can dyno them on his test bike and let him post the honest gains. Don't tell us, show us. You can prove just how wrong I am, just send him some ported stock casting that will bolt on his test bike and make 1.2-1.26 HP/CI.

Well my last post involved anatomy, I'll try to keep it out.. You really don't have a clue..

I assume your 1.26 was done at a Dyno shoot out?  How much Disney stock do you own?

[BVHOG]

We have a member here doing testing and sharing the info no charge, whatever the motivation may be. Please don't piss him off, the rest of us would like to hear what he has to say.

Who are you referring to that is doing the testing?
Did you read the OP?

You seem pretty smart......maybe, so I don't think it's a stretch that you know exactly what I am talking about.  Anything we can learn from someone who is actually working on these heads and gives us any info should be more than welcome here. How you filter than info and what you do with it is your choice but has Charlie wronged you some way in the past?  Your replies seem a bit personal.  And anyone can talk peak dyno numbers blah blah blah I made this much power per cube etc. etc.   After tuning and riding literally hundreds of bikes and just about as many different combos I can tell you one fact and that is the dyno doesn't always transfer to the street and just about when you think you have a combo 100% figured out you will find that one exception good or bad.

[1FSTRK]

We have a member here doing testing and sharing the info no charge, whatever the motivation may be. Please don't piss him off, the rest of us would like to hear what he has to say.

Who are you referring to that is doing the testing?
Did you read the OP?

You seem pretty smart......maybe, so I don't think it's a stretch that you know exactly what I am talking about.  Anything we can learn from someone who is actually working on these heads and gives us any info should be more than welcome here. How you filter than info and what you do with it is your choice but has Charlie wronged you some way in the past?  Your replies seem a bit personal.  And anyone can talk peak dyno numbers blah blah blah I made this much power per cube etc. etc.   After tuning and riding literally hundreds of bikes and just about as many different combos I can tell you one fact and that is the dyno doesn't always transfer to the street and just about when you think you have a combo 100% figured out you will find that one exception good or bad.

The OP started this thread not Charlie, I have nothing personal either way and would like to see any real info posted that is on the subject.
A lot of hype and personal agendas here not to mention emotion. We can look at HP/CI, HP/CFM and shape of tq curves, Peak numbers. average numbers, or anything else someone has good data on. You would think I called someones baby ugly the way everyone circles the wagons when I try to talk about the actual gains or lack there of when it comes to these M-8 engines.

Picked up the January east edition of Thunder Press at the local dealer today.  There is an article in there by Kip Woodring basically stating that ported stock M8 heads cannot meet the performance level of the SE heads because the stock ports are too big.  He states that if the ported stockers even came close to the SE heads, that it would involve so much work, that the cost of the ported stockers would exceed that of the SE heads.  I know we have a lot of head porters on here, I was just wondering what you guys think.  Thank you very much!  Merry Christmas all!

[speedzter]

The only crowd that don't know 4v is the HD crowd , everyone else has had them for at least 10 years,shoot the Rolls Royce Merlin(Packard Merlin) engine was a 4 valver in WW2.

Yep, what would HD know about 4 valve heads .
Here's an M8 Harley built just a few years back.
Everything old is new again !!
http://www.harleycitycollection.com.au/?p=201
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3245618

[badcooky]

Awesome link but you know what I meant .
Dang awesome link.

[speedzter]

 

[sfmichael]

The only crowd that don't know 4v is the HD crowd , everyone else has had them for at least 10 years,shoot the Rolls Royce Merlin(Packard Merlin) engine was a 4 valver in WW2.

Yep, what would HD know about 4 valve heads .
Here's an M8 Harley built just a few years back.
Everything old is new again !!
http://www.harleycitycollection.com.au/?p=201
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3245618

beautiful bike 

[1FSTRK]

http://thunderpress.net/editorial/columnists/motorhead-memo-head-stroking/2017/12/12.htm

[DTTJGlide]

So this guy is supposed to be a know it all because he writes for Thunder Press, of course MOCO is going to say that their heads are better & the only possible way you can make power. SBC has already stated that he can make both better air flow & velocity that is equal or better than the CNC version, so what does your article prove. I've seen you rag on the M8 & 4 valve heads multiple times saying they are no better than TC heads & that there aren't any good numbers out there for the M8. How many dyno runs have we seen with ported heads & cams to support them, most of the development so far has been on Stage 2 products as that's most people are looking for. Peak airflow on the M8 heads isn't their strong point, it's the low lift airflow that creates the low end tq that everyone likes. I'm sure we'll see plenty of big HP #s once the builders start to focus on that, but that is still a very small percentage of customers and why that isn't most companies focus right now, they are looking to sell what the most people want to pay for their development costs.

[1FSTRK]

So this guy is supposed to be a know it all because he writes for Thunder Press, of course MOCO is going to say that their heads are better & the only possible way you can make power. SBC has already stated that he can make both better air flow & velocity that is equal or better than the CNC version, so what does your article prove. I've seen you rag on the M8 & 4 valve heads multiple times saying they are no better than TC heads & that there aren't any good numbers out there for the M8. How many dyno runs have we seen with ported heads & cams to support them, most of the development so far has been on Stage 2 products as that's most people are looking for. Peak airflow on the M8 heads isn't their strong point, it's the low lift airflow that creates the low end tq that everyone likes. I'm sure we'll see plenty of big HP #s once the builders start to focus on that, but that is still a very small percentage of customers and why that isn't most companies focus right now, they are looking to sell what the most people want to pay for their development costs.

I have not ragged on anything, just looking honestly at what the top guys in the porting business are posting for results. They all start with ported stock heads and quickly realized it was too big for a 107 so the test bikes all got big inch kits so the numbers would show some reasonable  improvement. Most of what has been done and is for sale supports the statements made in the article and what I have said here from the beginning. You all are not arguing with me you are arguing with simple math and the  results of the people you support.

[DTTJGlide]

Yes you must be right, look at all the people lining up to be on your side

[1FSTRK]

Yes you must be right, look at all the people lining up to be on your side

Going against the group makes you unpopular, it does not make you wrong.
http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html

[sfmichael]

So this guy is supposed to be a know it all because he writes for Thunder Press, of course MOCO is going to say that their heads are better & the only possible way you can make power. SBC has already stated that he can make both better air flow & velocity that is equal or better than the CNC version, so what does your article prove. I've seen you rag on the M8 & 4 valve heads multiple times saying they are no better than TC heads & that there aren't any good numbers out there for the M8. How many dyno runs have we seen with ported heads & cams to support them, most of the development so far has been on Stage 2 products as that's most people are looking for. Peak airflow on the M8 heads isn't their strong point, it's the low lift airflow that creates the low end tq that everyone likes. I'm sure we'll see plenty of big HP #s once the builders start to focus on that, but that is still a very small percentage of customers and why that isn't most companies focus right now, they are looking to sell what the most people want to pay for their development costs.

I have not ragged on anything, just looking honestly at what the top guys in the porting business are posting for results. They all start with ported stock heads and quickly realized it was too big for a 107 so the test bikes all got big inch kits so the numbers would show some reasonable  improvement. Most of what has been done and is for sale supports the statements made in the article and what I have said here from the beginning. You all are not arguing with me you are arguing with simple math and the  results of the people you support.

I, for one, agree with you and the Thunder Press article seems legit, but you know as well as anyone that the facts will ultimately be born out with actual testing.

I have been proven both right and wrong by combinations that looked good or bad on paper - time will tell

[PoorUB]

I have been following along enjoying the thread. I can see the M8 heads should be better. I also get a bit confused as to why the stock M8 is only a few ponies more than the last TC. When talk of the M8 first started I was imagining 120/120 out of the box, but still just a few more ponies than the previous year. I know HD has to deal with EPA, but all manufacturers do.
IMO, the 45 degree, single pin V-twin needs to die and go away.

[rigidthumper]

That's blasphemy!
Say 15 Our Foundry's and give to the poorUB fund

Our Foundry, which art in Milwaukee
Harley be thy name.
Thy V-Twin come, thine oil be done,
On Earl, as it is in Tuning.
Give us this day our daily thread,
and lead us not into politics
but deliver us to the Indys,
for thine is the rumble, and the sound, and the torque,
for ever.  Hey Man!

[Ohio HD]

That's blasphemy!
Say 15 Our Foundry's and give to the poorUB fund

Our Foundry, which art in Milwaukee
Harley be thy name.
Thy V-Twin come, thine oil be done,
On Earl, as it is in Tuning.
Give us this day our daily thread,
and lead us not into politics
but deliver us to the Indys,
for thine is the rumble, and the sound, and the torque,
for ever.  Hey Man!

        You said it brother!!     

[PoorUB]

That's blasphemy!
Say 15 Our Foundry's and give to the poorUB fund

PM me for my Paypal account!!

[SoZo]

That article is poo..... Just conjecture. Same as SBC SE heads were tested... Need further development to know but so far no gains.

They in that article stole pictures of Rick Wards CNC ported head pictures... I'm sure this guy knows more then Rick... (Rick Ward builds TOP FUEL motors...Larry McBride when he was racing and endless other pro stock racers)

I have Ricks complete engineering and machine work here almost ready to go. He has completely flow benched, engineered and machined my M8 setup from air filter to cylinders and rings, did all the boring and honing and finally exhaust specs. I'm a few weeks (waiting on custom Burns Stainless Exhaust) and you will all be saying how great the M8 is, or more accurately how great Rick is.... 

My build is:
SE cylinders board and honed torque plates 120.9ci
CP Pistons and rings end gap set by Ward
Feuling/ARP cylinder studs
Feuling/ARP stainless head bolts
Feuling/ARP rocker studs
Woods 9960 .600 lift cam
Woods Lifters
Woods valve springs titanium keepers.
Aim-Tamachi clutch pressure plate
HD SE clutch plates
7.08 grm/sec injectors

Rick Ward CNC heads with oversized valves Flowing
390cfm intake
266cfm exhaust
Rick Ward CNC SE 64mm intake flowing 350cfm front and rear cylinder.
TMan loss air cleaner (Velocity Stack reworked by Rick)
Feuling Oil Pump on order
Burns NHB Exhaust on order

John

[1FSTRK]

Well John I am sure that combo will be a performer and it maybe that Rick has figured the engines out ( he is more than capable) but at this point your post is conjecture. Once you have the graphs and maybe some time slips it will then become fact. I also notice you have grown the engine to 120.9 CI to better the match the size of the ports and valves of the stock heads.

Great looking combo I for one hope it is the key unlocking true power gains from the 4 valve heads on a Harley.

[BVHOG]

That article is poo..... Just conjecture. Same as SBC SE heads were tested... Need further development to know but so far no gains.

They in that article stole pictures of Rick Wards CNC ported head pictures... I'm sure this guy knows more then Rick... (Rick Ward builds TOP FUEL motors...Larry McBride when he was racing and endless other pro stock racers)

I have Ricks complete engineering and machine work here almost ready to go. He has completely flow benched, engineered and machined my M8 setup from air filter to cylinders and rings, did all the boring and honing and finally exhaust specs. I'm a few weeks (waiting on custom Burns Stainless Exhaust) and you will all be saying how great the M8 is, or more accurately how great Rick is.... 

My build is:
SE cylinders board and honed torque plates 120.9ci
CP Pistons and rings end gap set by Ward
Feuling/ARP cylinder studs
Feuling/ARP stainless head bolts
Feuling/ARP rocker studs
Woods 9960 .600 lift cam
Woods Lifters
Woods valve springs titanium keepers.
Aim-Tamachi clutch pressure plate
HD SE clutch plates
7.08 grm/sec injectors

Rick Ward CNC heads with oversized valves Flowing
390cfm intake
266cfm exhaust
Rick Ward CNC SE 64mm intake flowing 350cfm front and rear cylinder.
TMan loss air cleaner (Velocity Stack reworked by Rick)
Feuling Oil Pump on order
Burns NHB Exhaust on order

John

So what are your plans for making the bottom end strong enough to hold all that potential power?

[SoZo]

Well John I am sure that combo will be a performer and it maybe that Rick has figured the engines out ( he is more than capable) but at this point your post is conjecture. Once you have the graphs and maybe some time slips it will then become fact. I also notice you have grown the engine to 120.9 CI to better the match the size of the ports and valves of the stock heads.

Great looking combo I for one hope it is the key unlocking true power gains from the 4 valve heads on a Harley.

Thanks.... yea notice I didn't post a number we will have to wait and see but not totally conjecture. I have seen a setup with very similar but not as much head or intake work produce 147 torque and 144 hp 120 torque @ 2250 rpm

[harleytuner]

That article is poo..... Just conjecture. Same as SBC SE heads were tested... Need further development to know but so far no gains.

They in that article stole pictures of Rick Wards CNC ported head pictures... I'm sure this guy knows more then Rick... (Rick Ward builds TOP FUEL motors...Larry McBride when he was racing and endless other pro stock racers)

I have Ricks complete engineering and machine work here almost ready to go. He has completely flow benched, engineered and machined my M8 setup from air filter to cylinders and rings, did all the boring and honing and finally exhaust specs. I'm a few weeks (waiting on custom Burns Stainless Exhaust) and you will all be saying how great the M8 is, or more accurately how great Rick is.... 

My build is:
SE cylinders board and honed torque plates 120.9ci
CP Pistons and rings end gap set by Ward
Feuling/ARP cylinder studs
Feuling/ARP stainless head bolts
Feuling/ARP rocker studs
Woods 9960 .600 lift cam
Woods Lifters
Woods valve springs titanium keepers.
Aim-Tamachi clutch pressure plate
HD SE clutch plates
7.08 grm/sec injectors

Rick Ward CNC heads with oversized valves Flowing
390cfm intake
266cfm exhaust
Rick Ward CNC SE 64mm intake flowing 350cfm front and rear cylinder.
TMan loss air cleaner (Velocity Stack reworked by Rick)
Feuling Oil Pump on order
Burns NHB Exhaust on order

John

So what are your plans for making the bottom end strong enough to hold all that potential power?

Have you seen that Frank Drago and P3R are working on a 5 piece crankshaft and are patenting a Timken bearing setup for the M8?  Should be able to hold but I'm sure it'll come with a cost.

[1FSTRK]

Well John I am sure that combo will be a performer and it maybe that Rick has figured the engines out ( he is more than capable) but at this point your post is conjecture. Once you have the graphs and maybe some time slips it will then become fact. I also notice you have grown the engine to 120.9 CI to better the match the size of the ports and valves of the stock heads.

Great looking combo I for one hope it is the key unlocking true power gains from the 4 valve heads on a Harley.

Thanks.... yea notice I didn't post a number we will have to wait and see but not totally conjecture. I have seen a setup with very similar but not as much head or intake work produce 147 torque and 144 hp 120 torque @ 2250 rpm

Looking forward to seeing your graph, most Indy built 2 valve Ward head HD engines I have seen are making 1.17-1.25 hp/ci. That makes the hp target for your 120.9 CI M8 engine 141.45- 151.12 hp to be in the 2 valve head range.

We have had big bore 2 valve engines in the dyno section here in that range with heads from Baisley, Don's, Vance, R&R, WFO, Williams, and Ward just to name a few. Some people get these high end street engines confused with Dyno shoot out engines but they could not be farther from the truth. 2 valve head Dyno shootout engines have been in the 1.4-1.7 hp/ci range for over 10 years.

[SoZo]

Well John I am sure that combo will be a performer and it maybe that Rick has figured the engines out ( he is more than capable) but at this point your post is conjecture. Once you have the graphs and maybe some time slips it will then become fact. I also notice you have grown the engine to 120.9 CI to better the match the size of the ports and valves of the stock heads.

Great looking combo I for one hope it is the key unlocking true power gains from the 4 valve heads on a Harley.

Thanks.... yea notice I didn't post a number we will have to wait and see but not totally conjecture. I have seen a setup with very similar but not as much head or intake work produce 147 torque and 144 hp 120 torque @ 2250 rpm

Looking forward to seeing your graph, most Indy built 2 valve Ward head HD engines I have seen are making 1.17-1.25 hp/ci. That makes the hp target for your 120.9 CI M8 engine 141.45- 151.12 hp to be in the 2 valve head range.

We have had big bore 2 valve engines in the dyno section here in that range with heads from Baisley, Don's, Vance, R&R, WFO, Williams, and Ward just to name a few. Some people get these high end street engines confused with Dyno shoot out engines but they could not be farther from the truth. 2 valve head Dyno shootout engines have been in the 1.4-1.7 hp/ci range for over 10 years.

Yup will have to wait and see.... went to almost all the aforementioned head guys I do think they are good too but Rick is maybe a bit more organized currently and completely flowed everything and I feel confident with the math. Again we will see !

[wfolarry]

With his experience with the 4 valve heads he is definitely a jump ahead of others [including me] but in time I think you'll see a lot of good things happening with this motor as the aftermarket catches up.

[wfolarry]

Have you seen that Frank Drago and P3R are working on a 5 piece crankshaft and are patenting a Timken bearing setup for the M8?  Should be able to hold but I'm sure it'll come with a cost.



I seen that but I'm not a big fan of the 5 piece crank. Others have tried & failed with the TC. It's a wait & see thing.

[Nastytls]

Any ideas on why they would go for a 5 on the M8 vs. 3 that they already make for the twin cam?

[wfolarry]

It's easier to make. Getting those flywheel forgings ain't easy.

[1FSTRK]

0)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95898.msg1114231#msg1114231

1)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95948.msg1145151#msg1145151

2)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=96323.msg1119982#msg1119982

3)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=101043.msg1187249#msg1187249




While this is not a back to back scientific test it does include runs from reputable dynos and no Twin cam numbers.

[Nastytls]

Is it at all possible that in the rush to release product, the design of these aftermarket M8 cams simply aren't working well relative to how the 4valve heads work? Maybe all the people designing them have been working with two valve heads forever and simply don't understand how they work.

[happyman]

4V heads like revs HD's don't rev much so the theoretical gains aren't there.
With a little work the M8's are stomping Twin cams that are highly modified though.
Dyno HP is just that a static number, real world the M8's kick ass.

Ever compared the gearing  between the 6 speed TC and the M8?

Surely no expert, but my resurch indicates primary drive and ratios (overall) are the same TC & M8's   

I started looking into it briefly awhile back and never finished researching the ratios.  On the dyno the gear graphs ate quit different for same grear runs between the 2. 

one thing I see that has changed a lot, is  the fact there used to be more very, very happy dynos out there. that is one of the reasons some of the numbers are to outrageous. and were tuff to believe

[harleytuner]

4V heads like revs HD's don't rev much so the theoretical gains aren't there.
With a little work the M8's are stomping Twin cams that are highly modified though.
Dyno HP is just that a static number, real world the M8's kick ass.

Ever compared the gearing  between the 6 speed TC and the M8?

Surely no expert, but my resurch indicates primary drive and ratios (overall) are the same TC & M8's   

I started looking into it briefly awhile back and never finished researching the ratios.  On the dyno the gear graphs ate quit different for same grear runs between the 2. 

one thing I see that has changed a lot, is  the fact there used to be more very, very happy dynos out there. that is one of the reasons some of the numbers are to outrageous. and were tuff to believe

They're still out there.  That's the reason I do a baseline run whenever possible.

[1FSTRK]

Is it at all possible that in the rush to release product, the design of these aftermarket M8 cams simply aren't working well relative to how the 4valve heads work? Maybe all the people designing them have been working with two valve heads forever and simply don't understand how they work.

That is one good point, on the other hand the SE numbers are not much better and you can bet they spent time and money on development.
The article referred to in the op points out some of what is going on also and you need to develop cams to work with good heads if you want good efficiency.

The stay in denial and blame the dyno game it still out there but is getting old and losing traction thanks to the quality of tuners that regularly post here and the number of different builds we now have from them. The problem is if the truth is explained away by blaming the dyno the real research and any chance of advancement stops. Just like in life the first step is admitting you have the problem.

[TorQuePimp]

what most dont know and ive seen nobody else elude to is this

the SE heads have the same valve job as the standard heads

Look at where the seat angle is placed on the valve

Just doing a performance valve job and sticking a better valve in the CNC heads they pick up a bunch

with next to no work

so far the airflow champ is a manley exhaust valve and the kibblewhite intake

[1FSTRK]

what most dont know and ive seen nobody else elude to is this

the SE heads have the same valve job as the standard heads

Look at where the seat angle is placed on the valve

Just doing a performance valve job and sticking a better valve in the CNC heads they pick up a bunch

with next to no work

so far the airflow champ is a manley exhaust valve and the kibblewhite intake

But again my question is what kind of HP gains will come from that additional flow?
We see over and over that the flow gains on this engine do not correspond to the HP gains like in previous engine designs.

[BVHOG]

what most dont know and ive seen nobody else elude to is this

the SE heads have the same valve job as the standard heads

Look at where the seat angle is placed on the valve

Just doing a performance valve job and sticking a better valve in the CNC heads they pick up a bunch

with next to no work

so far the airflow champ is a manley exhaust valve and the kibblewhite intake

Good info, and for the previous post, nothing wrong with a "happy" dyno as the truth is none of them are truly accurate from their inception and that is the reason for baseline runs. The problem lies when they are used to sell product.  The sad part is the general public just doesn't seem to catch on and it continues to happen.

[1FSTRK]

Good news, we will ignore the subject and op to make it about the dyno, like that has not been done to death every time someone has nothing constructive to add.

Added
On a constructive note the people porting and selling these M-8 heads do not appear to be using inflated dyno numbers. We know the best runs make it to the market place and these are the very runs that we are seeing.   

[Durwood]

0)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95898.msg1114231#msg1114231

1)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95948.msg1145151#msg1145151

2)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=96323.msg1119982#msg1119982

3)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=101043.msg1187249#msg1187249




While this is not a back to back scientific test it does include runs from reputable dynos and no Twin cam numbers.

Looking at these together opens the eyes a bit. The Stage 3 114" with all other stock components wins the torque battle both at 2500 and peak, and is so close on the peak horsepower that the money spent on the heads and throttle body was a waste. More than likely a set of injectors were purchased as well.

A good stage 2 is hard to beat on the bang for the buck.

[BVHOG]

Good news, we will ignore the subject and op to make it about the dyno, like that has not been done to death every time someone has nothing constructive to add.

Added
On a constructive note the people porting and selling these M-8 heads do not appear to be using inflated dyno numbers. We know the best runs make it to the market place and these are the very runs that we are seeing.

Well excuse me for Christ's sake, I realize this is the first time we have seen any thread drift on this forum. You want valid results than stop the constant belittling bullshit you spew and start treating the rest of the forum with even a small bit of respect.  If you don't like the results you are seeing from flow numbers then do what I did and purchase a bike for the sole purpose of testing, call up John and have a set of heads done, dyno it with a few different cams, intakes, exhausts  etc and then post up your results and hope some random keyboard mechanic doesn't come around and crap all over it like do to every other thread here.

[HD/Wrench]

Head flow or dyno .. Ok   so lets look at this in another way .

I have a 120 drop on kit ( bored 114 cylinders to 120 CI ) so stock heads stock t/b and cam that to me in just one more piece of data to look at . I have done the 117 with this cam it shows X now the 120 with be just one more chunk of data to extrapolate into the new formula.

Once we see this data on stock heads , and then the ported heads fall into the mix it will show us what really is going on .  It is no different than the T/C we can just about put a stake into the ground and tell you what the engine will make for power within +/- 2-3 with a given parts kit .. The M8 is getting there as well . 

So heads on the flow bench are showing that there is flow to be had with some simple work ok . Then its on to the drum lets see what really shakes out .


I do agree its easy for any one to write something .. Hell I had guys telling me the 117 testing was flawed  it should have been done differently .. Well to that I say  jump in and do it lets see the results. I had 3 days in that testing alone , not to mention the parts .   

I do not see anyone stepping up to send me money for that testing .. It very costly and time consuming . There are a few of us that I feel are producing valid solid data .

[No Cents]

   you guys just keep on with doing the testing on these M8's.    I applaud you!
Myself personally...I look forward to seeing the results of all the different combinations as they progress along.
  It takes time and money to do this kind of testing...and I for one appreciate the effort you guys are putting forth into it. It looks like the learning curve on the M8 is going to take some time to see results we want to see.
   I think in a few more years I'll eventually break down and buy one...but only after you guys get them all figured out.

[sfmichael]

  you guys just keep on with doing the testing on these M8's.    I applaud you!
Myself personally...I look forward to seeing the results of all the different combinations as they progress along.
  It takes time and money to do this kind of testing...and I for one appreciate the effort you guys are putting forth into it. It looks like the learning curve on the M8 is going to take some time to see results we want to see.
   I think in a few more years I'll eventually break down and buy one...but only after you guys get them all figured out.

Amen 

[1workinman]

   you guys just keep on with doing the testing on these M8's.    I applaud you!
Myself personally...I look forward to seeing the results of all the different combinations as they progress along.
  It takes time and money to do this kind of testing...and I for one appreciate the effort you guys are putting forth into it. It looks like the learning curve on the M8 is going to take some time to see results we want to see.
   I think in a few more years I'll eventually break down and buy one...but only after you guys get them all figured out.

[happyman]

0)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95898.msg1114231#msg1114231

1)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95948.msg1145151#msg1145151

2)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=96323.msg1119982#msg1119982

3)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=101043.msg1187249#msg1187249




While this is not a back to back scientific test it does include runs from reputable dynos and no Twin cam numbers.

Looking at these together opens the eyes a bit. The Stage 3 114" with all other stock components wins the torque battle both at 2500 and peak, and is so close on the peak horsepower that the money spent on the heads and throttle body was a waste. More than likely a set of injectors were purchased as well.

A good stage 2 is hard to beat on the bang for the buck.

what cams do the stage 3 have is it the 498, 515 or otherwise

[1FSTRK]

what cams do the stage 3 have is it the 498, 515 or otherwise

SE-498

[happyman]

what cams do the stage 3 have is it the 498, 515 or otherwise

SE-498

thanks

[badcooky]

Good news, we will ignore the subject and op to make it about the dyno, like that has not been done to death every time someone has nothing constructive to add.

Added
On a constructive note the people porting and selling these M-8 heads do not appear to be using inflated dyno numbers. We know the best runs make it to the market place and these are the very runs that we are seeing.

Well excuse me for Christ's sake, I realize this is the first time we have seen any thread drift on this forum. You want valid results than stop the constant belittling bullshit you spew and start treating the rest of the forum with even a small bit of respect.  If you don't like the results you are seeing from flow numbers then do what I did and purchase a bike for the sole purpose of testing, call up John and have a set of heads done, dyno it with a few different cams, intakes, exhausts  etc and then post up your results and hope some random keyboard mechanic doesn't come around and crap all over it like do to every other thread here.

[1FSTRK]

0)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95898.msg1114231#msg1114231

1)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95948.msg1145151#msg1145151

2)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=96323.msg1119982#msg1119982

3)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=101043.msg1187249#msg1187249




While this is not a back to back scientific test it does include runs from reputable dynos and no Twin cam numbers.

Looking at these together opens the eyes a bit. The Stage 3 114" with all other stock components wins the torque battle both at 2500 and peak, and is so close on the peak horsepower that the money spent on the heads and throttle body was a waste. More than likely a set of injectors were purchased as well.

A good stage 2 is hard to beat on the bang for the buck.

Some of the companies sell the ported heads with the big bored kit so prices can be over $3500 for kits. Is this because they know the majority of power is coming from the other components?

I have not challenged their flow numbers, dyno sheets, workmanship, or equipment. I just look at the info they provide to see what makes the gains? With all the info posted on the flow of the stock M-8 head and the level of tech posted on porting, staggered valve sizes, cnc work, flow bench testing, dyno testing, by many names in the business why do they only talk about flow gains? Does anyone spend money because they want the highest flowing heads or are the heads just another component that is purchased to increase the power and efficiency of the engine? I did not compare the M-8 engine to engine designs from the 80's, 90's, and last decade. I did not use any data other then what is on open forums and advertised by the people selling the products and there is still either offence taken or denial . I will continue to watching this from a technical viewpoint to find what works and how well, as to the question of what is worth the money or a waste it is up to each person to decide once they are given the information beyond the advertising.   

[Don D]

It would be fun to build a 4.5 bore 3/8 stroke (~140")m8 with just a little port clean up and better valve job plus one of the cams similar to the cr460 or that cam and about 10:1 cr

[Durwood]

0)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95898.msg1114231#msg1114231

1)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95948.msg1145151#msg1145151

2)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=96323.msg1119982#msg1119982

3)
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=101043.msg1187249#msg1187249




While this is not a back to back scientific test it does include runs from reputable dynos and no Twin cam numbers.

Looking at these together opens the eyes a bit. The Stage 3 114" with all other stock components wins the torque battle both at 2500 and peak, and is so close on the peak horsepower that the money spent on the heads and throttle body was a waste. More than likely a set of injectors were purchased as well.

A good stage 2 is hard to beat on the bang for the buck.

Don't forget to add for the 64mm TB. Some of the companies sell the ported heads with the big bored kit so prices can be over $3500 for kits. Is this because they know the majority of power is coming from the other components?

I have not challenged their flow numbers, dyno sheets, workmanship, or equipment. I just look at the info they provide to see what makes the gains? With all the info posted on the flow of the stock M-8 head and the level of tech posted on porting, staggered valve sizes, cnc work, flow bench testing, dyno testing, by many names in the business why do they only talk about flow gains? Does anyone spend money because they want the highest flowing heads or are the heads just another component that is purchased to increase the power and efficiency of the engine? I did not compare the M-8 engine to engine designs from the 80's, 90's, and last decade. I did not use any data other then what is on open forums and advertised by the people selling the products and there is still either offence taken or denial . I will continue to watching this from a technical viewpoint to find what works and how well, as to the question of what is worth the money or a waste it is up to each person to decide once there given the information beyond the advertising.

I did include the throttle body, and also see your point on the money aspect, if a guy has it to spend, it's his decision to make. For me I would have a hard time dropping an additional $2k for nearly identical results.

We all knew when the Milwaukee Eight came out that it was a different animal, and a whole new learning curve. I personally am really enjoying the journey as we discover the nuances of the platform.

It would be fun to build a 4.5 bore 3/8 stroke (~140")m8 with just a little port clean up and better valve job plus one of the cams similar to the cr460 or that cam and about 10:1 cr

Now you're talking, build a torque beast!

[1FSTRK]

It would be fun to build a 4.5 bore 3/8 stroke (~140")m8 with just a little port clean up and better valve job plus one of the cams similar to the cr460 or that cam and about 10:1 cr

Don have you had the chance to flow or work with any of these Stock M-8 castings?

Do you think it is just a matter of growing a big enough engine to utilize the flow and design of these heads?

[HD/Wrench]

well lets see how the 130+ Ci in works on stock heads    Look forward to that build and testing . Larger bore is working great thus far on the stock head . But piston dome design is also being used to increase power as well.. It  nothing new in the world just not the HD world.

[1FSTRK]

well lets see how the 130+ Ci in works on stock heads    Look forward to that build and testing . Larger bore is working great thus far on the stock head . But piston dome design is also being used to increase power as well.. It  nothing new in the world just not the HD world.

Who is building and testing 130" with stock castings?

[HD/Wrench]

 

[1FSTRK]

I look forward to seeing the results.

Added
Looks like Jamie has some data along the same lines.
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=102219.msg1204657#msg1204657

[1FSTRK]

I have updated this sheet with two addition runs.

0-A http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95948.msg1124917#msg1124917

4 http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=102219.msg1204657#msg1204657



Notice the displacement increases are yielding good gains in HP/CI. One other thing to notewhen comparing the ported stock head engine is that runs 1 and 2 with stock heads are using cams that promote TQ over HP. Also note that the ported head is the only engine that makes less TQ than HP. This is just data and not lab perfect but there is some treads to it. Now reread the OP and just maybe the theory should not be instantly dismissed as crazy. 

Picked up the January east edition of Thunder Press at the local dealer today.  There is an article in there by Kip Woodring basically stating that ported stock M8 heads cannot meet the performance level of the SE heads because the stock ports are too big.  He states that if the ported stockers even came close to the SE heads, that it would involve so much work, that the cost of the ported stockers would exceed that of the SE heads.  I know we have a lot of head porters on here, I was just wondering what you guys think.  Thank you very much!  Merry Christmas all!

[Templer]

I run a TC with CNC/ported standard  (SV) 07 heads,58mm Tb and yes even 4.9 injectors. I have been on top with what the Techs here have to say. I have yet to see a  M8 from idle to say 5,800 that will give the same l SEAT of the pants ride as my 124. They do exist but I'v not ridden one or been next to one!!!! Sometime MORE can be to MUCH!!! Thanks SBC and the rest. M8s are in a league of there own with how smooth they are BUT Just cant get into there MUSH TATERS sound     When I see post about Woof Gang and others pulling those shoot out with a M8 Ill get a 143 and be BACK!!!!   

[1FSTRK]

At this point it really is just about the M-8 and trying to get the HP/CI and HP/CFM numbers up to levels that are reasonable expectations for a performance street HD.

[jsachs1]

I think you'll find that ported stock heads on a large displacement M-8 will work very well.
From what I hear the larger ports on the stock castings had to be to pass EPA emissions regulations. SE M-8 heads are sold as aftermarket accessories not installed at the factory. 
John

[1FSTRK]

I think you'll find that ported stock heads on a large displacement M-8 will work very well.
From what I hear the larger ports on the stock castings had to be to pass EPA emissions regulations. SE M-8 heads are sold as aftermarket accessories not installed at the factory. 
John

I respect and appreciate your input and extend that to anyone you would use to source this information. It's not like you have 24,000 posts, you are one of the people that don't say much here but when you do we listen. 
I have said all along that the bigger you grow the engine the better the larger castings will work , the sheet I compiled shows that. If the engine is made big enough they may even show gains with porting but just because the numbers improve does not mean the casting will ever be optimum it just means it is working better than it did on a 107ci. If we get to the point of making the same hp/cfm that guys like you have show us from other HD engine designs then they will have something.

[1FSTRK]

Staying with the OP subject and the thoughts it referenced I added the 3-A dyno info from the HTT dyno section.

3-A)  http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=102380.msg1207214#msg1207214

I also added the CFM and HP/CFM columns to the sheet. The CFM flow numbers are directly from threads here on HTT and are all from the same bench and trusted flow tester. The flow numbers are not from the actual heads used on the engines in the dyno graphs but posted by the flow tester as representative of what he got from the OEM production head, out of the box SE-CNC head, and a high quality high tech ported OEM 107 head.



Look at the HP/CI trends and the HP/CFM trends then read the op about port sizes and why he says what he says.

[HD/Wrench]

good info numbers wise that you are put together.. But I see a HUGE flaw .. you are comparing these based on different dyno.. My opinion  is you that you have some over and under achievers in there . Also your first ... bone stock is the same as the stage 1 . so improved stock tune is ? I never did that on a 107 ,,,,,  on the 114, 117 i have

[1FSTRK]

good info numbers wise that you are put together.. But I see a HUGE flaw .. you are comparing these based on different dyno.. My opinion  is you that you have some over and under achievers in there . Also your first ... bone stock is the same as the stage 1 . so improved stock tune is ? I never did that on a 107 ,,,,,  on the 114, 117 i have

Well all the dyno sheets are from this site and anyone can look up the details for themselves. We can talk dyno variation until we are blue in the face yet everyone uses dyno sheets to sell and we all post them and look at the posts from others. As time goes by we will have more graphs from more dynos and a trend will appear, throw out the low and high and look only at the middle if you like. We also have graphs from people sell their products (not to often using low ball numbers and dynos) and sheets from people that are just testing as well as people that already spent their own money so as smart as the member here are I think we will be just fine with the graphs giving a respective sample. Look at your own testing and postings, I study these closely and when all you guys did your base stock runs on the M-8's it was pretty easy to see where the dynos stand for numbers. The head ports are selling, the cams guys are selling, the dyno tuners are selling so who is posting the low ball numbers? Everyone posts with an agenda, all I am doing is placing it on a spread sheet so we can see where it takes us. I do not see how taking the graph numbers and arranging them on the spread sheet is a flaw unless you do not like what you see.

As for the stock and stage one numbers, every number is from a graph here and there is a link to ever graph so you can see who did what.

[1FSTRK]

Once again this is not not meant to be absolute proof but it is as good as someone posting that all dynos differ and you can not learn anything from comparing the data from different dynos.

107-1
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=102329.msg1210241#msg1210241

107-2
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95948.msg1154362#msg1154362

107-3
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=102329.msg1210241#msg1210241

107-4
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=102495.msg1208854#msg1208854



Sure we can cherry pick runs to prove what ever we want, data and testing can always be manipulated if that is your purpose, but here are three dynos with three different operators, three different bikes, three different exhaust systems and yet they are this close. If we look at larger samples we get larger variance but it is still on scale and the trends are still visible.

 

[Nastytls]

Guess that shoots to hell the myth that FM inflates their dyno #'s.

[1FSTRK]

Guess that shoots to hell the myth that FM inflates their dyno #'s.

It really does not prove anything, this is my comparison that was taken at random so nobody was pushing anything in particular. I think at the stage two level when tuning for the customer or back to back testing is the goal the numbers are pretty solid.

One thing that never gets brought up when the dyno trashing starts is the fact each dyno has an operator and how they run the machine and how well they understand the tuning process is a far larger variable than the dyno machine will ever be. In over 20 years of studying dynos and graphs I have watch patterns emerge and one of them is when you have three tuners of this caliber involved you will see comparable numbers like this or there will be very good explanations for any differences.

[1FSTRK]

107-5
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=102977.msg1215878#msg1215878

114-1
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=103062.msg1217036#msg1217036

[1FSTRK]

And back to the OP subject we have another set of SE heads out performing the ported bigger flow heads with yet another brand cam.

3-B
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=102988.msg1215993#msg1215993

[sfmichael]

great info and analysis 

[1FSTRK]

Another cam for the sheet.
Keep in mind the number of variables that exist, different people tuning, different air cleaners, and different exhaust (the biggest player particularly where in the rpm the peaks are) yet we still have numbers this close.

107-6
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=102329.msg1210241#msg1210241

107-7
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95948.msg1216003#msg1216003

[SoZo]

Well John I am sure that combo will be a performer and it maybe that Rick has figured the engines out ( he is more than capable) but at this point your post is conjecture. Once you have the graphs and maybe some time slips it will then become fact. I also notice you have grown the engine to 120.9 CI to better the match the size of the ports and valves of the stock heads.

Great looking combo I for one hope it is the key unlocking true power gains from the 4 valve heads on a Harley.

Thanks.... yea notice I didn't post a number we will have to wait and see but not totally conjecture. I have seen a setup with very similar but not as much head or intake work produce 147 torque and 144 hp 120 torque @ 2250 rpm

Looking forward to seeing your graph, most Indy built 2 valve Ward head HD engines I have seen are making 1.17-1.25 hp/ci. That makes the hp target for your 120.9 CI M8 engine 141.45- 151.12 hp to be in the 2 valve head range.

We have had big bore 2 valve engines in the dyno section here in that range with heads from Baisley, Don's, Vance, R&R, WFO, Williams, and Ward just to name a few. Some people get these high end street engines confused with Dyno shoot out engines but they could not be farther from the truth. 2 valve head Dyno shootout engines have been in the 1.4-1.7 hp/ci range for over 10 years.

Yup will have to wait and see.... went to almost all the aforementioned head guys I do think they are good too but Rick is maybe a bit more organized currently and completely flowed everything and I feel confident with the math. Again we will see !

1 hour VE table work, no effective tune and a 4th gear run so lots more HP left.

[1FSTRK]

Well John I am sure that combo will be a performer and it maybe that Rick has figured the engines out ( he is more than capable) but at this point your post is conjecture. Once you have the graphs and maybe some time slips it will then become fact. I also notice you have grown the engine to 120.9 CI to better the match the size of the ports and valves of the stock heads.

Great looking combo I for one hope it is the key unlocking true power gains from the 4 valve heads on a Harley.

Thanks.... yea notice I didn't post a number we will have to wait and see but not totally conjecture. I have seen a setup with very similar but not as much head or intake work produce 147 torque and 144 hp 120 torque @ 2250 rpm

Looking forward to seeing your graph, most Indy built 2 valve Ward head HD engines I have seen are making 1.17-1.25 hp/ci. That makes the hp target for your 120.9 CI M8 engine 141.45- 151.12 hp to be in the 2 valve head range.

We have had big bore 2 valve engines in the dyno section here in that range with heads from Baisley, Don's, Vance, R&R, WFO, Williams, and Ward just to name a few. Some people get these high end street engines confused with Dyno shoot out engines but they could not be farther from the truth. 2 valve head Dyno shootout engines have been in the 1.4-1.7 hp/ci range for over 10 years.

Yup will have to wait and see.... went to almost all the aforementioned head guys I do think they are good too but Rick is maybe a bit more organized currently and completely flowed everything and I feel confident with the math. Again we will see !

1 hour VE table work, no effective tune and a 4th gear run so lots more HP left.

Thank you for posting this.
Great progress, looks like we starting to see the HP/CI numbers we expect from performance Harleys. I am lazy so if you would get us a SAE graph when you finish the tune so it will be easily compared to all the other data I save. As i said, there was no doubt this would be representative of a top notch effort of what these M-8 are capable of at this point.

[SoZo]

will do as soon as it's done, just wanted a base tune... riding right now for bike week  LOL

[1FSTRK]

will do as soon as it's done, just wanted a base tune... riding right now for bike week  LOL

Just saw the date on the dyno sheet, thanks for getting that to us so quick.If your dyno guy will do it give us one 6th gear run in SAE please.
It must feel like it pulls forever, it is definitely cammed and ported for the right side of the graph. If the balance shaft and crank will take it that graph shows a shift point of about 6800-7400 rpm would work nicely.

[1FSTRK]

Here is more "different dyno" information. A quick look at the graphs in the links will show a big range in hp on these stage one bikes. Here on the internet this is often called "happy dyno" but if we look beyond the peak hp or tq number we can see the graphs give much more information.  These being stage one bikes they are mass produce engines so they will vary a little but before we blame the dyno let us look at the differences in exhaust systems and air cleaners. We know exhaust systems have big effects on the tq curve and if we take the entire graph into account we see the that rather than a dyno difference we may just have some combinations that favor one side of the graph more than the other.

107-10
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=93982.msg1086370#msg1086370

107-11
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=101452.msg1192162#msg1192162

107-12
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95948.msg1124917#msg1124917

107-13
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=100984.msg1185116#msg1185116



Here is how they look on the sheet.
The last column is the average of the 4 power readings, both tq and hp in the range we are targeting.

[1FSTRK]

Thanks to new member $tonecold we have some more data on the dyno compare sheet.
Here we see that the exhaust used played a far bigger roll than the dyno used. Once again I will also bring up the different people tuning, different bike, and different tuner brand. With all that taken into account we still find another quality dyno facility giving more quality comparable numbers.

You can once again see that the combination of parts is key, some think there are no perfect storms but I think if you look at enough data we can agree it is all about the proper combination of parts. We may want to start picking the cams and exhaust together when going for a particular tq curve.

The $tonecold test info was taken from the individual run graphs posted on the internet. The mass overlay  is in a vendor section here on HTT for reference.

the links to the Sheffer Performance and FM tests are here

107-8
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=102329.msg1210241#msg1210241

107-9
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=95948.msg1216062#msg1216062

[1FSTRK]

will do as soon as it's done, just wanted a base tune... riding right now for bike week  LOL

Any news?

We have a comparable 117ci Ward head build posted now in the dyno section.
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103431.0;attach=86621;image

[SoZo]

redoing some things....

[Nastytls]

Looks like some serious scuffing on that cylinder in addition to the crack.

[BVHOG]

redoing some things....

That sucks!!, what is the entire story on that cylinder, bore, stroke, piston etc.

[mike jesse]

Why the huge sharp chamfer?

Is it a stock liner?

[1FSTRK]

I have Ricks complete engineering and machine work here almost ready to go. He has completely flow benched, engineered and machined my M8 setup from air filter to cylinders and rings, did all the boring and honing and finally exhaust specs. I'm a few weeks (waiting on custom Burns Stainless Exhaust) and you will all be saying how great the M8 is, or more accurately how great Rick is.... 

My build is:
SE cylinders board and honed torque plates 120.9ci
CP Pistons and rings end gap set by Ward
Feuling/ARP cylinder studs
Feuling/ARP stainless head bolts
Feuling/ARP rocker studs
Woods 9960 .600 lift cam
Woods Lifters
Woods valve springs titanium keepers.
Aim-Tamachi clutch pressure plate
HD SE clutch plates
7.08 grm/sec injectors

Rick Ward CNC heads with oversized valves Flowing
390cfm intake
266cfm exhaust
Rick Ward CNC SE 64mm intake flowing 350cfm front and rear cylinder.
TMan loss air cleaner (Velocity Stack reworked by Rick)
Feuling Oil Pump on order
Burns NHB Exhaust on order

John

[sfmichael]

 

[Nastytls]

I thought that I read somewhere that boring the SE cylinders still left more meat than a 107" TC had. Is that true? If so, than how did such a catastrophic failure happen?

[VDeuce]

Would like to see pics of the pistons. Wonder if they made contact with each other at bottom. Seen it happen before. Don't ask lol...

[SoZo]

redoing some things....

To be perfectly clear I have NO idea why it happened......
I do not know the root cause, crank seized, oil sprayers, just crap in the engine the stock lifters were wearing bad and defacing the stock cam. I do not know what caused this. It may of just been crap material on the SE cylinders. They had plenty of cylinder wall thickness so I just cant and wont speculate. I will be doing a complete evaluation and hope, I said i really hope to find the problem before I rebuild. I hope my pocket saves yours.

[VDeuce]

redoing some things....

To be perfectly clear I have NO idea why it happened......
I do not know the root cause, crank seized, oil sprayers, just crap in the engine the stock lifters were wearing bad and defacing the stock cam. I do not know what caused this. It may of just been crap material on the SE cylinders. They had plenty of cylinder wall thickness so I just cant and wont speculate. I will be doing a complete evaluation and hope, I said i really hope to find the problem before I rebuild. I hope my pocket saves yours.

Feel for you man.

I would examine the piston skirts for any indication they touched at the bottom of their stroke - there would be witness marks. I had this happen on a 124" build with CP pistons that were provided to me with no warning or instructions to check. Not saying it happened in your case, just that the crack in my case likely was caused by it.

[BVHOG]

redoing some things....

To be perfectly clear I have NO idea why it happened......
I do not know the root cause, crank seized, oil sprayers, just crap in the engine the stock lifters were wearing bad and defacing the stock cam. I do not know what caused this. It may of just been crap material on the SE cylinders. They had plenty of cylinder wall thickness so I just cant and wont speculate. I will be doing a complete evaluation and hope, I said i really hope to find the problem before I rebuild. I hope my pocket saves yours.

In all likelyhood the crack started at the taper, no big surprise there. Finding out if it was the chicken or the egg first will likely be impossible. The best of luck to you on the rebuild. I can only imagine the $ you have already spent and the disappointment.

[BVHOG]

I pulled a new set of cylinders out of the box today to check out this taper at the bottom, it's pretty clear to me now what the problem is. After boring the cylinders it makes the taper, which originally has a flat end on it into a knife edge and a stress riser. I believe this could be cured by cutting that flat back into the bottom.

[jimlibo]

"I pulled a new set of cylinders out of the box today to check out this taper at the bottom, it's pretty clear to me now what the problem is. After boring the cylinders it makes the taper, which originally has a flat end on it into a knife edge and a stress riser. I believe this could be cured by cutting that flat back into the bottom."

[mike jesse]

Yeah, I'd want that sharp edge gone if it were mine.

[sfmichael]

I pulled a new set of cylinders out of the box today to check out this taper at the bottom, it's pretty clear to me now what the problem is. After boring the cylinders it makes the taper, which originally has a flat end on it into a knife edge and a stress riser. I believe this could be cured by cutting that flat back into the bottom.

those were my thoughts...can't believe they let them go out like that

[1FSTRK]

I pulled a new set of cylinders out of the box today to check out this taper at the bottom, it's pretty clear to me now what the problem is. After boring the cylinders it makes the taper, which originally has a flat end on it into a knife edge and a stress riser. I believe this could be cured by cutting that flat back into the bottom.

Yeah, I'd want that sharp edge gone if it were mine.

When cutting a new flat on the bottom, how wide should it be?

[Nastytls]

Wonder how many of these 121" kits are out there with the knife edge cylinders cut...

SoZo, am I understanding your post correctly that your crank, lifters and cam got wiped out at the same time??

[SoZo]

Just to be explicitly clear...

1. I do not want to name names but ALL yes ALL builders are having problems with the SE cylinders with a 4.180 bore....
2. I am sticking up for the machinist (who only did my heads actually) because he is not at fault.
3. TC 107 kit is even thinner then my skirt and they do not have problems.
4. The decision on the cylinder falls on me...

John

[1FSTRK]

Just to be explicitly clear...

1. I do not want to name names but ALL yes ALL builders are having problems with the SE cylinders with a 4.180 bore....
2. I am sticking up for the machinist (who only did my heads actually) because he is not at fault.
3. TC 107 kit is even thinner then my skirt and they do not have problems.

John

I have not seen any other postings about the SE cylinders, where did you see this?

I see nothing to blame anything on at this point, there was a post asking about the other damage in your engine, is the crank still good?

[HD/Wrench]

Look around you will see on this very site where a cylinder was cracked . it was a re-post but it was here. On others a few pics have been posted as well .

[1FSTRK]

Look around you will see on this very site where a cylinder was cracked . it was a re-post but it was here. On others a few pics have been posted as well .

What, where, when, links?

Added
I did find this thread it is about the 107 cylinders not the SE cylinders.
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=100529.msg1178556#msg1178556

There may be a learning curve for the aftermarket on these M-8 when trying to do things that worked on the twin cam. Has anyone checked the case deck height to wristpin height at BDC and compared that to a twin cam? Looks like the M-8 is pulling the entire piston into the spigot except for the ring pack. This may not allow running spigots as thin as we have seen on other engines.

While I agree I would not want a sharp point on the bottom of the spigot, I think that is a red herring as to the cause of the cracking.

[Nastytls]

I wasn't trying to cast blame on anyone, I didn't think it came off that way.  I just don't understand the order in which your problems happened.

Your first post listed all the upgrades you made, including cams and lifters. You then posted later along with a picture of a cracked cylinder that your crank seized and the "stock lifters and cams" went bad. Was it a new crank in the 121" build or was it the original? When did it seize?

[Dave I.]

http://headhoggersllc.com/m8-issue-update/

You guys ever see this?

[Ohio HD]

Yep

http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=100529.msg1178556#msg1178556

[1FSTRK]

And back to the OP subject we have another set of SE heads out performing the ported bigger flow heads with yet another brand cam.

3-B
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=102988.msg1215993#msg1215993

After reading about a 148 S&S engine in the dyno section I did some research on the 143ci crate engines which took me back to part of the OP here about the size and flow of the OEM casting and the need to enlarge them and add flow to feed M-8 engines.

At the time of the OP we were looking at stock and test M8's ranging from 107ci to 120ci and most dyno test engines were 114ci kits. Most that are cnc porting the OEM casting are reporting numbers from 380-395 cfm as delivered to the customer. The S&S T143 is delivering 162-172hp depending on intake, exhaust, and tune from it's cnc heads flowing 358 cfm which is .466 hp/cfm this is what brings me right back to the OP here.

How much air can a 107 - 114 M8 use? How fast would you have to spin it to pump that air if it could? You can see the math here makes little sense.

[jbroski]

While sitting on the toilet. I solved the broken sleeve problem

[sfmichael]

well done sir 

[Eccool]

Dan Baisley said that the SE heads hardly flow any better than the stock heads.

[1FSTRK]

Dan Baisley said that the SE heads hardly flow any better than the stock heads.

But hardly better is still better and through smaller ports means not just better, faster.

[Don D]

I hear what you are saying and get the point. But at the end of the day even on the small (relatively) 107 there is no shortage of torque with the proper cam choice. And with all of the jockying of flow numbers there doesn't seem to be any big shifts in horsepower or torque from what I have observed.  Eric you follow these dynos close and would be able to see the trends better than I however. So the thread was about the SE heads being worthwhile?  Have we proven or is there any data to answer this?

[Eccool]

Dan Baisley said that the SE heads hardly flow any better than the stock heads.

I understand the importance of velocity, but for $1,400 (full retail on the SE CNC heads), I want more than a little improvement in flow.

[Don D]

I hear you!
But what does this improvement in flow buy when the flow potential exceeds the demand?
I am in development now on the heads so no public comments at this time until I get some testing done but based on what I am seeing there are still a lot of questions to be answered.

"Most of us being engine guys knows that an open barn door will move tremendous amounts of atmosphere but will not make horsepower. The same goes for drawing air through heads. The head must be correctly sized for the job with the straightest possible path to the back of the valve from the beginning of the intake tract.  I feel that providing approximate power figures and rpm range is a good indicator of potential."
From Greg Dahl

[1FSTRK]

I hear what you are saying and get the point. But at the end of the day even on the small (relatively) 107 there is no shortage of torque with the proper cam choice. And with all of the jockying of flow numbers there doesn't seem to be any big shifts in horsepower or torque from what I have observed.  Eric you follow these dynos close and would be able to see the trends better than I however. So the thread was about the SE heads being worthwhile?  Have we proven or is there any data to answer this?

I read the OP as being about if ported stock heads were meeting or exceeding the power level of the SE head and if it ever could, would it be at a cost that made it worth it.

Either way there is nowhere near enough quality data from either side to be definitive. Nobody has put any real effort into making power with the SE heads, most testing is being done by those hoping to market their porting skills but even with the one sided efforts the available numbers have shown no power/efficiency advantage to porting the stock castings and that in a way is a trend. The engine will soon enter it's third year of production and with the tech equipment owned and operated by the aftermarket at an all time high this is the longest development period for any HD head improvements by the aftermarket.

[1FSTRK]

Dan Baisley said that the SE heads hardly flow any better than the stock heads.

But hardly better is still better and through smaller ports means not just better, faster.

I understand the importance of velocity, but for $1,400 (full retail on the SE CNC heads), I want more than a little improvement in flow.

But do you really, what if it meant more power over a longer rpm range even if there were no no cfm increase. We have seen that huge increases in cfm alone with these heads returned little to no increases in power. Are you buying more flow or do you want more power?

[BVHOG]

Argue all you want but my flow bench has a drum and an eddy current brake.

[1FSTRK]

Argue all you want but my flow bench has a drum and an eddy current brake.

No argument here, two sides presenting information on their theories and findings.
What has your drum and brake shown you on the subject?

[BVHOG]

Argue all you want but my flow bench has a drum and an eddy current brake.

No argument here, two sides presenting information on their theories and findings.
What has your drum and brake shown you on the subject?

Well over time it has shown me that flow is only "Potential" and that the Mil 8 bikes do not return as much dollar for dollar with headwork but I feel that will change with time.   The drum only shows "reality" of an entire combination however flawed that may be.    So to explain it I will tell you the story of a young boy asking his dad the difference between potential and reality. He first asked his wife if she would sleep with Trump for a million dollars and she said "of course"  he then asked his daughter if she would sleep with Trump for a million dollars and she said " hell yeah"  So he explained to his son that "Potentially" we are sitting on two million bucks, "Reality" is we are living with a couple of whores.

[KTA600]

Argue all you want but my flow bench has a drum and an eddy current brake.

No argument here, two sides presenting information on their theories and findings.
What has your drum and brake shown you on the subject?

Well over time it has shown me that flow is only "Potential" and that the Mil 8 bikes do not return as much dollar for dollar with headwork but I feel that will change with time.   The drum only shows "reality" of an entire combination however flawed that may be.    So to explain it I will tell you the story of a young boy asking his dad the difference between potential and reality. He first asked his wife if she would sleep with Trump for a million dollars and she said "of course"  he then asked his daughter if she would sleep with Trump for a million dollars and she said " hell yeah"  So he explained to his son that "Potentially" we are sitting on two million bucks, "Reality" is we are living with a couple of whores.

Lmfao....

[Rusty Steel]

"Well over time it has shown me that flow is only "Potential" and that the Mil 8 bikes do not return as much dollar for dollar with headwork but I feel that will change with time.   The drum only shows "reality" of an entire combination however flawed that may be.    So to explain it I will tell you the story of a young boy asking his dad the difference between potential and reality. He first asked his wife if she would sleep with Trump for a million dollars and she said "of course"  he then asked his daughter if she would sleep with Trump for a million dollars and she said " hell yeah"  So he explained to his son that "Potentially" we are sitting on two million bucks, "Reality" is we are living with a couple of whores."

Now that is funny... Made my day. Happy Friday the 13th!

[whtrthanu]

Gonna throw in my 2 cents here. Being im a new guy ill make it short.
  From what I have seen so far is this. The factory head keeps the valve size ratio smaller the ideal. What I see from that is the cd stays way up and port velocity as well. I would stay with stock size valve and adjust the seat id to cheat it. I would be the dyno that the hp numbers on the dyno would be close to a big valve head or less but the stock valve head would crush it on the road or track