111 transplant

[Lucky Pete]

Just trying to do some sums. Have a very nice 98 FXDWG arriving shortly with 5000 miles on it. Have started adding up the price of carb, cam, ignition etc as stock wont cut it and at the same time looking at the price of a S&S V111 motor with a view of perhaps just going the whole hog from the start. IF I was to do that, what additional parts would I need to budget for on top of the install cost of the engine? Thanks.

[Deye76]

A clutch upgrade for starters. If the starter and alternator only has 5000 miles, they should be good. A pipe and tuning, you should be good to go. Best wishes on your project.

[JamesButler]

Just trying to do some sums. Have a very nice 98 FXDWG arriving shortly with 5000 miles on it. Have started adding up the price of carb, cam, ignition etc as stock wont cut it and at the same time looking at the price of a S&S V111 motor with a view of perhaps just going the whole hog from the start. IF I was to do that, what additional parts would I need to budget for on top of the install cost of the engine? Thanks.

A clutch upgrade for starters. If the starter and alternator only has 5000 miles, they should be good. A pipe and tuning, you should be good to go. Best wishes on your project.

Deye76 pretty much has it covered.  With the 111, definitely do the clutch upgrade.  I would upgrade to a new stronger starter sooner than later.

Depending on the deal you get on  the 111, you can sell the 5K-mile Evo, stock carb, clutch, etc. and your delta could be close to zero when you factor in the stage 4 parts and labor costs to modify the Evo...

[david lee]

Just trying to do some sums. Have a very nice 98 FXDWG arriving shortly with 5000 miles on it. Have started adding up the price of carb, cam, ignition etc as stock wont cut it and at the same time looking at the price of a S&S V111 motor with a view of perhaps just going the whole hog from the start. IF I was to do that, what additional parts would I need to budget for on top of the install cost of the engine? Thanks.

A clutch upgrade for starters. If the starter and alternator only has 5000 miles, they should be good. A pipe and tuning, you should be good to go. Best wishes on your project.

Deye76 pretty much has it covered.  With the 111, definitely do the clutch upgrade.  I would upgrade to a new stronger starter sooner than later.

Depending on the deal you get on  the 111, you can sell the 5K-mile Evo, stock carb, clutch, etc. and your delta could be close to zero when you factor in the stage 4 parts and labor costs to modify the Evo...

why do a clutch update.just wondering,thanks

[Mark222]

OEM will likely slip with your new found TQ / HP from the 111.

Factory HP was what, 55 for that era evo?

V111 is right at double that for TQ / HP

I went with the Barnett scorpion in my '91 Bagger, it has never missed a beat....

Mark

[Hossamania]

Just trying to do some sums. Have a very nice 98 FXDWG arriving shortly with 5000 miles on it. Have started adding up the price of carb, cam, ignition etc as stock wont cut it and at the same time looking at the price of a S&S V111 motor with a view of perhaps just going the whole hog from the start. IF I was to do that, what additional parts would I need to budget for on top of the install cost of the engine? Thanks.

A clutch upgrade for starters. If the starter and alternator only has 5000 miles, they should be good. A pipe and tuning, you should be good to go. Best wishes on your project.

Deye76 pretty much has it covered.  With the 111, definitely do the clutch upgrade.  I would upgrade to a new stronger starter sooner than later.

Depending on the deal you get on  the 111, you can sell the 5K-mile Evo, stock carb, clutch, etc. and your delta could be close to zero when you factor in the stage 4 parts and labor costs to modify the Evo...

why do a clutch update.just wondering,thanks

A 111 cubic inch motor is adding close to 50% more horsepower and torque, maybe more. A stock clutch will not last long with that much more power being put to it.
Mark beat me to it.

[Lucky Pete]

A clutch upgrade for starters. If the starter and alternator only has 5000 miles, they should be good. A pipe and tuning, you should be good to go. Best wishes on your project.

Thanks much! Any advice on which clutch please?

Depending on the deal you get on  the 111, you can sell the 5K-mile Evo, stock carb, clutch, etc. and your delta could be close to zero when you factor in the stage 4 parts and labor costs to modify the Evo...

Exactly my line of thought.

Any suggestions of good vendors for the 111? Im living in Japan and have a shipper in Cali. Just want to deal with someone reputable.

[Hossamania]

As far as the clutch goes, a lot of the guys here like the Bandit clutch, you can do a search here.
For a vendor, talk to California Phil, he may be able to set you up. If so, he is a great guy to deal with.

[Deye76]

Bandit is very good but pricey. Not sure of your riding style, but you might get by with a Energy One or Barnett extra plate clutch pack, and a heavier spring.

[Ohio HD]

Bandit is very good but pricey. Not sure of your riding style, but you might get by with a Energy One or Barnett extra plate clutch pack, and a heavier spring.

    ^^^^^
      This

You may not need a $550 dollar clutch. For some riding styles, a better than OEM set of clutch plates and a heavier clutch spring can work. 

[harpwrench]

I've been running an extra plate and Barnett spring for 30k+ in a 90 Ultra with a V111. You might look into 3:37 gearing. I'd also recommend using a G instead of E carb.

[BKACHE]

When I put an Ultima 113" in my '96 dyna, the stock clutch was fine.
Well I did go with the 15% stronger spring, and yes the 'spring plate' was replaced with 2 stock steels and a stock friction (or was it 2 frictions and a steel? can't remember) a long time ago. That clutch has 209K on it now with 12K or so from the ultima engine. The 3 finger '82 shovel clutch wasn't a fair fight. It now has a 'pro clutch'.   

[Hybredhog]

   I've done a bunch of Ultima 113 in that era bikes, and a Barnett extra plate kit is all you'll need clutch wise, & the S&S is equivalent. I'd stay with the smaller bore carb to keep the low end snap, you'll have plenty up top left.

[Lucky Pete]

Thanks all, appreciate all the input!

[JamesButler]

I've been running an extra plate and Barnett spring for 30k+ in a 90 Ultra with a V111. You might look into 3:37 gearing. I'd also recommend using a G instead of E carb.

As someone who has been experimenting and searching for the optimal gearing ratio, I'm curious why you recommend 3.37: 1 with the S&S 111. 

I realize for many that gearing is based on personal preference, and "feel".  Likewise, riding style has a lot to do with gearing ratio choice.  For example, interstate riders prefer taller gearing (lower rpm) b/c they mostly ride at 75+ mph, while local road riders prefer shorter gearing to get that low-end power.

But there is also mechanical knowledge involved in gearing choice, and sadly this is where my knowledge falls short.  So, I examine and weigh in other factors such as fuel consumption, oil consumption (heat and rpm), comfort (vibration) and matching gearing to coincide with the sweet spot rpm range of the motor.  While I've tended to lean towards the shorter end of the gearing ratio spectrum, the law of diminishing returns begins to take effect at some point.  The question then has always been, how short is too short?

I've also tried looking at gearing through a historical MoCo perspective.  Sometime in the late Shovelhead era early (82?) and into the Evo era thru 1993, the MoCo's stock 5-speed gearing ratio was 3.37:1.  Then, in '94 because of increasing and ever changing government emissions standards, and coupled with the increased national speed limit from 55mph to 65mph and now higher in some states, the MoCo was compelled to lengthen the stock gearing to 3.15:1 (a 6.5% change).  It went as low as 2.925: 1 with the Softail models (and as an afterthought for the CVO FXRs) for a stretch later in the Evo era, which imho was waaaayy to tall for the stock Evo, no matter which model. 

3.15: 1 overall ratio was accomplished by changing the primary ratio from 1.54:1 to 1.44:1 as the 37T clutch was changed to a 36T clutch, and the 24T engine sprocket was changed to 25T.  Furthermore, the MoCo cites a main reason for the primary change was to "improve the hard starting" issues associated with the 37 / 24 primary.  2.925: 1 overall ratio was accomplished by swapping in the 65T rear pulley instead of the 70T rear pulley. 

Along those lines the international HD models used a 61-T rear pulley in conjunction with the much higher international speed limits which lengthened those overall ratios to 2.75: 1.

Fast forward to today.  The current MoCo motor is nearing 110 c.i. and is combined with the stock 2.79: 1 final drive ratio of the direct drive 6-speed transmission.  Therefore, motors have gotten bigger and gearing has gotten taller.  While many would agree that 2.79 is too tall, it would seem that 3.37:1 gearing ratio paired with the S&S 111 would be too short.

Over the years I've experimented with different gearing ratios.  I've always leaned toward shorter gearing ratio, but I found when touring at speeds above 70mph, for consecutive 500+ mile days at a time, then 3.37:1 is just too short.  Factor in my ever increasing age, and I just can't tolerate the increased vibration the way I once could. 

Recently for several years after I swapped the S&S V111 and Baker DD6 into  my FXR daily rider, I lengthened the overall gearing for from 3.37: 1 to 3.19+ : 1.  Then, for the past two years I've finally settled (hopefully), on a lengthened / taller overall gearing ratio of 3.08: 1.

Although not based on any hard mechanical advantage science, I've found that this ratio (or anywhere between 3.08 and 3.19) works best with my riding style, which is a mix of interstate touring, local backroad, neighborhood commuting as well as two-lane highway riding.  Coincidentally, 3.08 is smack dab in the center of the 2.79 to 3.37 spectrum. 

Take it a step further and look at the S&S's published dyno chart of its 111 motor.  Torque begins to climb from 112 ft lbs at @3,000 rpm and maxes out at 122ft lbs or so @ 3,900 rpm.  Thus, this rpm range would appear to be the sweet spot of the motor.  Match this range with your riding style, vibration tolerance, oil and fuel consumption and whatever else factors you weigh in to help dial in your gearing ratio preference.  For me 3.08:1 is as tall as I want to go and 3.19+: 1 is as short as I would tolerate.

   



 

[harpwrench]

I was thinking the 98 had the way tall gearing but could be wrong. 3:37 puts mine in its sweet spot for how I ride but all day on interstates might get old. I have a primary gearing question and will start a thread.

[JamesButler]

I was thinking the 98 had the way tall gearing but could be wrong. 3:37 puts mine in its sweet spot for how I ride but all day on interstates might get old. I have a primary gearing question and will start a thread.

Not sure either, but I think the '98 Dyna models came stock with 3.15: 1. 

The heavier touring models definitely benefit most from 3.37: 1 gearing compared to the other Evo models.  IIRC, the MoCo provided an add-on kit with a 23T comp sprocket and larger primary chain, at some point in the Evo generation, in order to give the touring models more grunt off the line.

There is also benefits with running shorter gearing with hopped-up motors with increased compression, as shorter gearing helps spool off higher comp ratios and avoid the dreaded ping, all else being equal...

[Mark222]

After implanting a V111 in my 91 FLHTCU belt drive I opted for the 34 tooth front trans sprocket since first gear was so short and the added power moves it off the line quick effortlessly.

Now cruising revs are about 300 less and the old 5 speed acts more like an OD, lol.


Mark

[JamesButler]

After implanting a V111 in my 91 FLHTCU belt drive I opted for the 34 tooth front trans sprocket since first gear was so short and the added power moves it off the line quick effortlessly.

Now cruising revs are about 300 less and the old 5 speed acts more like an OD, lol.


Mark

Yes, swapping out the 32 trans pulley in favor of the 34-T Andrews trans pulley is a popular and economically prudent choice.  It lengthens your stock '91 Evo gearing at 3.17: 1 instead of 3.37: 1. (6% rpm decrease).  Baker offers a taller 2.94 overall gearing option for 1st gear with its DD6.  I took advantage of that option when I matched up the Baker DD6 with the S&S V111.

[Deye76]

Good info James.

[JamesButler]

After implanting a V111 in my 91 FLHTCU belt drive I opted for the 34 tooth front trans sprocket since first gear was so short and the added power moves it off the line quick effortlessly.

Now cruising revs are about 300 less and the old 5 speed acts more like an OD, lol.


Mark

Yes, swapping out the 32 trans pulley in favor of the 34-T Andrews trans pulley is a popular and economically prudent choice.  It lengthens your stock '91 Evo gearing at 3.17: 1 instead of 3.37: 1. (6% rpm decrease).  Baker offers a taller 2.94 overall gearing option for 1st gear with its DD6.  I took advantage of that option when I matched up the Baker DD6 with the S&S V111.

Good info James.

Thanks Deye 

An alternate route would be to keep the 32-T trans pulley and instead swap in a 65-T rear pulley.  But you'd also need to swap in a lesser 133 tooth drive belt instead of the stock 136 tooth belt. It would put you at 3.13: 1 instead of 3.17: 1 ; pretty much the same effect, except that labor time is more, and instead of paying@  $100+ for a trans pulley, you'd pay at least twice as much for the cost of the pre-owned 65-T rear pulley and a new 133-T belt.

OR,

Retain the 70-T rear pulley and the 32-T trans and swap in the next generation primary ('94+), i.e., the 36-T clutch / 25-T engine sprocket, which would put you at 3.15:1.  Again, the effect is nearly identical except the co$t of the primary is more (check out MoCo new prices or pre-owned on ebay) than the other two options, although labor time might be a little less compared to the option of swapping in the trans pulley.  The additional benefit is that starting would be easier with the new generation primary.

[shovelbill]

I've been running an extra plate and Barnett spring for 30k+ in a 90 Ultra with a V111. You might look into 3:37 gearing. I'd also recommend using a G instead of E carb.

As someone who has been experimenting and searching for the optimal gearing ratio, I'm curious why you recommend 3.37: 1 with the S&S 111. 

I realize for many that gearing is based on personal preference, and "feel".  Likewise, riding style has a lot to do with gearing ratio choice.  For example, interstate riders prefer taller gearing (lower rpm) b/c they mostly ride at 75+ mph, while local road riders prefer shorter gearing to get that low-end power.

But there is also mechanical knowledge involved in gearing choice, and sadly this is where my knowledge falls short.  So, I examine and weigh in other factors such as fuel consumption, oil consumption (heat and rpm), comfort (vibration) and matching gearing to coincide with the sweet spot rpm range of the motor.  While I've tended to lean towards the shorter end of the gearing ratio spectrum, the law of diminishing returns begins to take effect at some point.  The question then has always been, how short is too short?

I've also tried looking at gearing through a historical MoCo perspective.  Sometime in the late Shovelhead era early (82?) and into the Evo era thru 1993, the MoCo's stock 5-speed gearing ratio was 3.37:1.  Then, in '94 because of increasing and ever changing government emissions standards, and coupled with the increased national speed limit from 55mph to 65mph and now higher in some states, the MoCo was compelled to lengthen the stock gearing to 3.15:1 (a 6.5% change).  It went as low as 2.925: 1 with the Softail models (and as an afterthought for the CVO FXRs) for a stretch later in the Evo era, which imho was waaaayy to tall for the stock Evo, no matter which model. 

3.15: 1 overall ratio was accomplished by changing the primary ratio from 1.54:1 to 1.44:1 as the 37T clutch was changed to a 36T clutch, and the 24T engine sprocket was changed to 25T.  Furthermore, the MoCo cites a main reason for the primary change was to "improve the hard starting" issues associated with the 37 / 24 primary.  2.925: 1 overall ratio was accomplished by swapping in the 65T rear pulley instead of the 70T rear pulley. 

Along those lines the international HD models used a 61-T rear pulley in conjunction with the much higher international speed limits which lengthened those overall ratios to 2.75: 1.

Fast forward to today.  The current MoCo motor is nearing 110 c.i. and is combined with the stock 2.79: 1 final drive ratio of the direct drive 6-speed transmission.  Therefore, motors have gotten bigger and gearing has gotten taller.  While many would agree that 2.79 is too tall, it would seem that 3.37:1 gearing ratio paired with the S&S 111 would be too short.

Over the years I've experimented with different gearing ratios.  I've always leaned toward shorter gearing ratio, but I found when touring at speeds above 70mph, for consecutive 500+ mile days at a time, then 3.37:1 is just too short.  Factor in my ever increasing age, and I just can't tolerate the increased vibration the way I once could. 

Recently for several years after I swapped the S&S V111 and Baker DD6 into  my FXR daily rider, I lengthened the overall gearing for from 3.37: 1 to 3.19+ : 1.  Then, for the past two years I've finally settled (hopefully), on a lengthened / taller overall gearing ratio of 3.08: 1.

Although not based on any hard mechanical advantage science, I've found that this ratio (or anywhere between 3.08 and 3.19) works best with my riding style, which is a mix of interstate touring, local backroad, neighborhood commuting as well as two-lane highway riding.  Coincidentally, 3.08 is smack dab in the center of the 2.79 to 3.37 spectrum. 

Take it a step further and look at the S&S's published dyno chart of its 111 motor.  Torque begins to climb from 112 ft lbs at @3,000 rpm and maxes out at 122ft lbs or so @ 3,900 rpm.  Thus, this rpm range would appear to be the sweet spot of the motor.  Match this range with your riding style, vibration tolerance, oil and fuel consumption and whatever else factors you weigh in to help dial in your gearing ratio preference.  For me 3.08:1 is as tall as I want to go and 3.19+: 1 is as short as I would tolerate.

   

fantastic post......

[HD/Wrench]

Having installed a fair amount of the 111 Evo version . Clutch as already stated . A 6 speed for two reason .. One the 5th gear main is a weak point and have seen many of them fail and break clean . Second the gear ratio in that is rather steep and with the new tq on tap no need for it . Most that do the engine come back in less than a year for the trans upgrade .  Good luck you will like the build its a great smooth running power plant

[1FSTRK]

Having installed a fair amount of the 111 Evo version . Clutch as already stated . A 6 speed for two reason .. One the 5th gear main is a weak point and have seen many of them fail and break clean . Second the gear ratio in that is rather steep and with the new tq on tap no need for it . Most that do the engine come back in less than a year for the trans upgrade .  Good luck you will like the build its a great smooth running power plant

Steve what gear ratios do you recommend for this set up?

[HD/Wrench]

That bike being much lighter than a bagger can handle more gear with the amount of tq it will produce . Once might just opt for a .86 OD gear and leave the rest as is .   Riding style intended use would dictate how I would approach the gearing .  One might use the short 1st gear ratio if the guy likes a little bit of hot rod type launch and run the taller gear on the big end or swap a rear pulley . The options ( with I like) are many .. I did one here maybe a year ago and it had some very tall gearing 65 rear pulley and  a 33 on the front pulley . Being that much of our roads are 75 and most drive 80 that put that bike at about 2450 ish if I recall at 80 in 6th gear. It had the 2.82 1st gear .

Does the guy want to shift often or not as much . Being that most of these riders came off a bike that made maybe 60 hp 70 tq  tuned . So give that guy 115-120 tq and they love it .. Is it the perfect ratio ... well that is not for me to say   


Overall the stock gearing can work well and just swap out the rear pulley if only talking about ratio .. I have seen too many failures on the stock 5th gear though .  One might just replace it and use the 65  pulley based on budget .

This is a free program that i found years ago and works very well for looking at the big picture . i hope that others can open this  txt file if not I can try it another way

[Deye76]

Opens fine, thanks GMR.