120R 30k lifter service

[838]

Do the lifters on these need to be serviced at this point (30k). I'm thinking if they are the stock Harley lifters with 266 cams they should have been changed long ago.

Did these crates come with roller rockers?

Would a more mellow cam with different valve springs be a smart move on one of these? At 10.5:1 there are probably a plethora of plug and play cams that improve touring ride and lifespan.

Anyone with experience on one of these would be helpful.

Thanks

[kd]

Yes to the lifter cycle with the recommendation that they not be replaced with the OEM. 

No to roller rockers. 

IMO the cam replacement depends on what you are using the engine in.  I didn't use mine because I used mine in a 2011 RGU.  I don't have any personal experience with the 266 but many qualified to comment claim it to be a great cam for light bikes that use the upper half of the rpm range.  Search some 120 builds on this site ( Dyno section, General and twin Cam) and  and you will find lots of examples of cams that work well in the 120.  So you know, the seared compression for the 120 crate is not accurate and actually lower.  A cam can fix that or a little head machine work.  That said, the MVA heads are performers out of the box.  If you are riding a touring bike you will find a huge change by changing to an early torque producing cam. 

[Ohio HD]

In my opinion, heavy springs and high lift cams in an HD equals change the lifters by 25k miles. I change them even if they're high quality lifters, every 25k miles. The cost is part of owning a motor like that in my viewpoint.

Below are some sheets to look at, T-man 625, I think non 625-PS. And Red Shift 657. I seem to remember that Steve Gougeon at GMR saying that the 120r was more like 10.3:1 compression. So an earlier closing set of cams with some lift should give you a wide torque range.


https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,78680.msg872339.html#msg872339

https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,94372.msg1091908.html#msg1091908

https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,85003.msg956578.html#msg956578

https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,79943.msg889861.html#msg889861



You cannot see attachments on this board.

[kd]

As said, I agree with Ohio's lifter advise.  I was cautioned by Dan Baisley exactly that way and 30,000 was the extreme max.

Here's my Dyno thread from a few years ago. It gives you an example of what a very streetable 120 can do.  Granted it took a few extras to get it there.  It's a 2016 build daily rider. some of the comments near the end of the thread will point you to a few more examples from HTT member No Cents such as Ohio posted.  You will see that engine displacement in this class is only marginally different in power but the torque and power curves are very similar.

https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,99409.0/all.html

[838]

10.3:1 is that with an HD .045" head gasket and pistons down in the hole quite a bit?

If so a lot could be achieved by a zero deck and a .030" head gasket. Do the 120r use base gaskets?

Would a valve spring change be optimal? A set of .650" beehives?

I have some 662-1 cams i could dust off.

[838]

If it clears the TDC lift of the 657's (valve to valve) I'm guessing there's not many cams that won't bolt in to those MVA heads.

[Ohio HD]

10.3:1 is that with an HD .045" head gasket and pistons down in the hole quite a bit?

If so a lot could be achieved by a zero deck and a .030" head gasket. Do the 120r use base gaskets?

Would a valve spring change be optimal? A set of .650" beehives?

I have some 662-1 cams i could dust off.

Based on math it's 10.1:1, but I always go by what Steve had said. 120r uses base gaskets.

662-1 would be a good choice, I didn't mention it because T-Man doesn't list them any longer. Talk to someone that does headwork as to what springs they recommend.


You cannot see attachments on this board.

[838]

I'm guessing he's seeing 10.3 because Harley head castings fluctuate. But if they're a true 95cc zero decked with a .030 mls would be 10.55ish... if they're 92-93cc even a touch more... I think the 662-1 is happy at any of those levels of compression...

This one could be fun. S&S power duals with rush big Louis... I think they're the 2.25".

[838]

As said, I agree with Ohio's lifter advise.  I was cautioned by Dan Baisley exactly that way and 30,000 was the extreme max.

Here's my Dyno thread from a few years ago. It gives you an example of what a very streetable 120 can do.  Granted it took a few extras to get it there.  It's a 2016 build daily rider. some of the comments near the end of the thread will point you to a few more examples from HTT member No Cents such as Ohio posted.  You will see that engine displacement in this class is only marginally different in power but the torque and power curves are very similar.

https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,99409.0/all.html

As it sits now are you using the Dragula or the Burns?

[kd]

10.3:1 is that with an HD .045" head gasket and pistons down in the hole quite a bit?

If so a lot could be achieved by a zero deck and a .030" head gasket. Do the 120r use base gaskets?

Would a valve spring change be optimal? A set of .650" beehives?

I have some 662-1 cams i could dust off.

Yes it's a .045 head gasket.  However, my 2013 crate was .003 above deck on  both cylinders.  I used .003 linen document paper very successfully with a light film of Permatex Aviation gasket cement added to an .020 base gasket to get .000 deck.  Dan Baisley converted my OEM rockers to roller rockers (as corrected rollers) he advised strenuously to change the valve springs and I used double sets on his advise.  He said the OEM springs were overkill.

Your 662-1 cam set is close to my 660SM Tman cams that I used,  The should kick your compression up nicely.  I would go to the Big Boyz site and do the calcs for a better idea.

[kd]

As said, I agree with Ohio's lifter advise.  I was cautioned by Dan Baisley exactly that way and 30,000 was the extreme max.

Here's my Dyno thread from a few years ago. It gives you an example of what a very streetable 120 can do.  Granted it took a few extras to get it there.  It's a 2016 build daily rider. some of the comments near the end of the thread will point you to a few more examples from HTT member No Cents such as Ohio posted.  You will see that engine displacement in this class is only marginally different in power but the torque and power curves are very similar.

https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,99409.0/all.html

As it sits now are you using the Dragula or the Burns?

I am presently using the Burns.  I have a couple of reasons.  The Dragula (2.55" baffle) as you can see is a great match for this combination and the left side is heads above the burns to about 3700 rpm.  The Burns is really only about 4 tq and 4 hp consistently from 3700 on to the limiter but the pipe weighs about 1/3 (maybe less) of the Dragula.  As is the Burns is not as well suited for the street because the 3" open baffle is obnoxiously ear hurting loud when you get on it.  Especially in town.    I do a lot of that.    I recently built a stinger fixture for it using 45 4" SuperTrapp discs and a closed end cap which has toned it down to the average sound level of a typical 2/1 performance pipe. I have been experimenting with the disc count to get it to a clean burn level and get it retuned.  I am so far from a tuner I can trust it has been a problem completing the retuning .  My hope is to recapture the missing torque and not lose the top end.  No Cents was able to do it with an open endcap on his 124 with his Burns. I do have 2 separate tunes, one for each pipe. 

I can tell you that with the Dragula 2.55 baffle pipe it will light up on a heavy roll on at 2500 in 1st and lay down a road snake well into 4th gear at which point I am going too fast for my liking and let off.  Both pipes will but the Burns needs a harder hit to compensate for the lower rpm torque difference.  That makes the Burns a better pipe to control traction in the early part of a race.  I am sure there are other pipes that will perform as well as the Dragula 2 with this combination.

[838]

I noticed on Tmans description of the newer 660ps2 is the only one of his lineup that he recommends roller rockers. There were lots of 662-1 builds done with stock (non-roller) rockers.

Do you know what it is about this 660sm or ps2 that would cause that recommendation? I thought it was supposed to be a more mellow 662-2?

I like the specs of the 660ps2 but that adds another easy $1k to the bill if I need cams and roller rockers. Doesn't really seem worth it if I can run the 662-1 knowingly safe on solid rockers.

[kd]

I noticed on Tmans description of the newer 660ps2 is the only one of his lineup that he recommends roller rockers. There were lots of 662-1 builds done with stock (non-roller) rockers.

Do you know what it is about this 660sm or ps2 that would cause that recommendation? I thought it was supposed to be a more mellow 662-2?

I like the specs of the 660ps2 but that adds another easy $1k to the bill if I need cams and roller rockers. Doesn't really seem worth it if I can run the 662-1 knowingly safe on solid rockers.

I don't know.  The 660SM is very quiet and I understand the PS version is too.  Although I haven't used the 662-2 I have seen dyno comparisons and one member here described dead heats between him and his buddy (or brother?) where the guy that made a mistake lost in a race.  Their dyno sheets are on here somewhere too (as are a few 662-1 charts).  The described 660SM parking lot manners (and specs which are well suited to the 120) is why I chose that route.  I was building a daily rider and touring bike.

Call TR and ask him.  He's usually very forthcoming with his knowledge and helpful

BTW, the lift on the 662-1 cam is also in that range above .600 where rollers and corrected rockers are advisable.  They reduce side pressure and wear on the valve stems. Especially with heavy valve springs.  As I said previously, I was building a high mileage daily driver / touring bike.  Full disclosure is I was prepared to pay more for longevity and dependability.  When you get a chance, take a look at the valve stem tips.  At your stated mileage I bet you will see wear on the stems that may not be in the center.  You may also see some valve guide wear showing up from the side pressure of the wiping action and non corrected nature of the OEM rockers already.

[838]

As said, I agree with Ohio's lifter advise.  I was cautioned by Dan Baisley exactly that way and 30,000 was the extreme max.

Here's my Dyno thread from a few years ago. It gives you an example of what a very streetable 120 can do.  Granted it took a few extras to get it there.  It's a 2016 build daily rider. some of the comments near the end of the thread will point you to a few more examples from HTT member No Cents such as Ohio posted.  You will see that engine displacement in this class is only marginally different in power but the torque and power curves are very similar.

https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,99409.0/all.html

As it sits now are you using the Dragula or the Burns?

I am presently using the Burns.  I have a couple of reasons.  The Dragula (2.55" baffle) as you can see is a great match for this combination and the left side is heads above the burns to about 3700 rpm.  The Burns is really only about 4 tq and 4 hp consistently from 3700 on to the limiter but the pipe weighs about 1/3 (maybe less) of the Dragula.  As is the Burns is not as well suited for the street because the 3" open baffle is obnoxiously ear hurting loud when you get on it.  Especially in town.    I do a lot of that.    I recently built a stinger fixture for it using 45 4" SuperTrapp discs and a closed end cap which has toned it down to the average sound level of a typical 2/1 performance pipe. I have been experimenting with the disc count to get it to a clean burn level and get it retuned.  I am so far from a tuner I can trust it has been a problem completing the retuning .  My hope is to recapture the missing torque and not lose the top end.  No Cents was able to do it with an open endcap on his 124 with his Burns. I do have 2 separate tunes, one for each pipe. 

I can tell you that with the Dragula 2.55 baffle pipe it will light up on a heavy roll on at 2500 in 1st and lay down a road snake well into 4th gear at which point I am going too fast for my liking and let off.  Both pipes will but the Burns needs a harder hit to compensate for the lower rpm torque difference.  That makes the Burns a better pipe to control traction in the early part of a race.  I am sure there are other pipes that will perform as well as the Dragula 2 with this combination.

That's what I was curious about. The burns looks more keen for racing, even though I feel you have it geared well for highway cruising at the right RPMs for the burns combo too.

[kd]

As said, I agree with Ohio's lifter advise.  I was cautioned by Dan Baisley exactly that way and 30,000 was the extreme max.

Here's my Dyno thread from a few years ago. It gives you an example of what a very streetable 120 can do.  Granted it took a few extras to get it there.  It's a 2016 build daily rider. some of the comments near the end of the thread will point you to a few more examples from HTT member No Cents such as Ohio posted.  You will see that engine displacement in this class is only marginally different in power but the torque and power curves are very similar.

https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,99409.0/all.html

As it sits now are you using the Dragula or the Burns?

I am presently using the Burns.  I have a couple of reasons.  The Dragula (2.55" baffle) as you can see is a great match for this combination and the left side is heads above the burns to about 3700 rpm.  The Burns is really only about 4 tq and 4 hp consistently from 3700 on to the limiter but the pipe weighs about 1/3 (maybe less) of the Dragula.  As is the Burns is not as well suited for the street because the 3" open baffle is obnoxiously ear hurting loud when you get on it.  Especially in town.    I do a lot of that.    I recently built a stinger fixture for it using 45 4" SuperTrapp discs and a closed end cap which has toned it down to the average sound level of a typical 2/1 performance pipe. I have been experimenting with the disc count to get it to a clean burn level and get it retuned.  I am so far from a tuner I can trust it has been a problem completing the retuning .  My hope is to recapture the missing torque and not lose the top end.  No Cents was able to do it with an open endcap on his 124 with his Burns. I do have 2 separate tunes, one for each pipe. 

I can tell you that with the Dragula 2.55 baffle pipe it will light up on a heavy roll on at 2500 in 1st and lay down a road snake well into 4th gear at which point I am going too fast for my liking and let off.  Both pipes will but the Burns needs a harder hit to compensate for the lower rpm torque difference.  That makes the Burns a better pipe to control traction in the early part of a race.  I am sure there are other pipes that will perform as well as the Dragula 2 with this combination.

That's what I was curious about. The burns looks more keen for racing, even though I feel you have it geared well for highway cruising at the right RPMs for the burns combo too.

Actually I am geared at 3.15 final with a GrudgeBox transmission.  Much lower than stock but as you say well suited for highway or street sport with a touring chassis.   You never said what bike you are using the engine in?

So you know, I added a final comment to you in my last post before this one.

[838]

I got that message. I can't remember why, but head guys were running this 662-1 without rollers...

This is an ultra classic. 2-up for me and the wife. Or long hauls solo. More of a "big dumb" motor. It'll get a 30t trans pully but I won't mess with much else. It's got 33k on the 120r without a lifter swap so it's past due.

I wouldn't be doing a 120r for a 2-up... but it's already in there. Might as well make a reliable tractor to lug us around.

[kd]

I got that message. I can't remember why, but head guys were running this 662-1 without rollers...

This is an ultra classic. 2-up for me and the wife. Or long hauls solo. More of a "big dumb" motor. It'll get a 30t trans pully but I won't mess with much else. It's got 33k on the 120r without a lifter swap so it's past due.

I wouldn't be doing a 120r for a 2-up... but it's already in there. Might as well make a reliable tractor to lug us around.

Lots do run tall cams without rollers but IMO the cost is in longevity.  Side thrust as a product of non rollers uses up valve guides and the extra travel wiping action on the tip of the valve stems associated with high lift arc of the rockers wear the valve and rocker valve tip prematurely when you are aiming for long life.

A 31 tooth sprocket can be done easier because you get to use the stock belt and rear sprocket.  It's a decent change that I have used and liked.  I know you don't mean lug as in lower rpm because that's a death knoll for any engine. The 31 tooth picks the rpm up a bit into the power range when riding in most situations and reduces lugging.

One member and tuner that used to post here a lot was in on the 120 configuration before the crate engine availability.  He successfully raced it every week (ish) and rode it daily including touring trips.  It at one point was reported by him to have over 45,000 miles without any  mechanical repair intervention.  This with the 266 cam in a decker.  I don't see a problem expecting one to provide what you are looking for.  Good and regular servicing and no lugging count big in lifespan.  There's lots of 124's out there with high miles and the only difference is the 120 has a 4.060 bore instead of 4.125.