Best bang for the buck, 113, 117,120, 124

[planemech]

Ive been noticing that there are not a lot of 113s or 117s being built or at least talked about. What is the reason behind this? Is the 120 or 124 that much better and is there much difference with throttle response with the longer stroke? Maybe the S&S crate motors are the better way to go? I am looking at a bike trip in Europe with hopes that I can sell mine while Im over there so I can come back and build another one. Currently I have a 113 built by Star Racing, 130hp 138tq so if I build another I want it to be a little more that what I have, that's only natural I think  . I saw the 117 that No Cents built which I thought was impressive but it was shortly followed up by a 124. I liked the concept of the smaller cam set up that his 117 had, should have been really quiet and from what I read it was really responsive. I would be using it for touring mainly. Anyway, I just wanted to find out what the general consciences was to give me something to think about in the mean time.

[KingofCubes]

Many more 117's here than 120's or 124's. Not a huge gain having a few more cubic inches, better bang from head work, exhaust and cams to bring about a better torque curve.

[Barrett]

 "Not a huge gain having a few more cubic inches" KingofCubes..
Something just doesn't look right there

[jmorton10]

I have an 07 RK that I bought from a long time friend of mine who was strapped for cash.

He bought the bike brand new & drove it directly from the Harley dealer to Hillside & had them install Axtell barrels/pistons etc. making it a 117" motor.  They built the motor & then took it directly to Joes Cycle & had it dyno tuned.

The heads where flowed & Wood 6 cams installed & the bike was a TQ monster with awesome throttle response (S&S FI setup running open loop with a Thundermax module).

The bike had been in storage for 7 years & only had 1700 miles on it.  Unfortunately at just under 2000 miles the flywheels shifted breaking the oil pump & trashing the motor.

At that point, I installed a 124" HC S&S crate motor and put the broken motor on the shelf for now.  After running both motors for around 2000 miles, I can state that the S&S motor is better in every way.   The 124"  with the S&S 640 cams is a beast (& there is no lifter clatter like the Woods cams).  Money wise, I think the crate motors are a much better deal than any other option & even have a 1 year warranty.





~John

[Nowhereman]

Nothin beats cubic inches... ever.
Weird that a Hillside build would do something like a shifted crank with only a few miles on it.
Maybe they never split the cases to tweak the crank during the build.

[lisab]

Nothin beats cubic inches... ever.
Weird that a Hillside build would do something like a shifted crank with only a few miles on it.
Maybe they never split the cases to tweak the crank during the build.

There is no way to get over 107" without splitting the cases on a 07 and above motor or any Twin Cam for that matter.  Biggest w/o cases being split on 99~06 except 06 Dyna is 98" if the stroke is stock at 4.000". 06 Dyna can yield 107" w/o splitting cases.

[Ohio HD]

"Not a huge gain having a few more cubic inches" KingofCubes..
Something just doesn't look right there

   He's just being honest. Now if you want a big motor, he can do it! 

[Ohio HD]

Nothin beats cubic inches... ever.
Weird that a Hillside build would do something like a shifted crank with only a few miles on it.
Maybe they never split the cases to tweak the crank during the build.

There is no way to get over 107" without splitting the cases on a 07 and above motor or any Twin Cam for that matter.  Biggest w/o cases being split on 99~06 except 06 Dyna is 98" if the stroke is stock at 4.000". 06 Dyna can yield 107" w/o splitting cases.

MOCO has the 110 cylinders now without splitting the cases. Too new to know how they will hold up.

[Buffalo]

 From my point of view, the S&S T124 is the only way to go if you want reliable power. My 124 was installed in Aug/07, now has 70K on it. Total repair costs to date (8yrs) on he motor = $300.
No broken oil pumps, no valves or guides, no twisted cranks. I had to replace 0 rings in the oil supply lines once, $12. I also have replaced the electronic compression releases once. These CR are no longer used on any S&S motor, they come with Easy Start cams, so even that problem has gone away.
At 70K it uses less than a pint of oil for 5000klms, and still reaches 6150rpm in 5th gear on my 2.88/1 geared chain drive Dyna. That my friends is a touch over 150 mph! It also delivers 47 mpg at 75-80 mph on its G carb. At 126.5 hp/ 134t it does everything I need it to do. The old style V&H Propipe is likely holding her back a little, but I'll keep it just the way it is.
The EK chain and sprockets need replacing now. Master link failed, probably because I didn't get enough lube in it when installed, the rest of the chain is fine.
Even the LC 124 makes an honest 130 square in FI bikes, the HC can do slightly better with good tunes. fwiw  Buffalo

[BUBBIE]

Some GOOD points there Buffalo... Makes me Want that 124 even more...

Master Link? Was it the Clip spring type? Put on the correct direction? Just  here...

signed....BUBBIE

[jmorton10]

Weird that a Hillside build would do something like a shifted crank with only a few miles on it.
Maybe they never split the cases to tweak the crank during the build.

The cases where definitely split, to bore them out for the 117" Axtell barrels.

~John

[TorQuePimp]

Ive been noticing that there are not a lot of 113s or 117s being built or at least talked about. What is the reason behind this? Is the 120 or 124 that much better and is there much difference with throttle response with the longer stroke? Maybe the S&S crate motors are the better way to go? I am looking at a bike trip in Europe with hopes that I can sell mine while Im over there so I can come back and build another one. Currently I have a 113 built by Star Racing, 130hp 138tq so if I build another I want it to be a little more that what I have, that's only natural I think  . I saw the 117 that No Cents built which I thought was impressive but it was shortly followed up by a 124. I liked the concept of the smaller cam set up that his 117 had, should have been really quiet and from what I read it was really responsive. I would be using it for touring mainly. Anyway, I just wanted to find out what the general consciences was to give me something to think about in the mean time.

  113-117 MIGHT be a wash

  Bang for the buck 120R with an S&S crank

[planemech]

Thanks for all the replies fellas and keep them coming. Hopefully things will work out and I'll get to start planning a new build next fall

[Azgunner]

It also delivers 47 mpg at 75-80 mph on its G carb. At 126.5 hp/ 134t it does everything I need it to do. The old style V&H Propipe is likely holding her back a little, but I'll keep it just the way it is.

Buffalo: I'm always amazed at the MPG you're getting. Is your odometer calibrated for your gear change? I run a 5th gear ratio of 2.965 & can't seem to get better than 33-35 mpg from a 45mm Mikuni. I think part of my problem is a heavy wrist & seeming inability to ride under 80 mph for very long. I had to buy a speedo calibrator to correct for the gearing change.

[Nowhereman]

It also delivers 47 mpg at 75-80 mph on its G carb. At 126.5 hp/ 134t it does everything I need it to do. The old style V&H Propipe is likely holding her back a little, but I'll keep it just the way it is.

Buffalo: I'm always amazed at the MPG you're getting. Is your odometer calibrated for your gear change? I run a 5th gear ratio of 2.965 & can't seem to get better than 33-35 mpg from a 45mm Mikuni. I think part of my problem is a heavy wrist & seeming inability to ride under 80 mph for very long. I had to buy a speedo calibrator to correct for the gearing change.

I also run a well jetted 45 on my 127 w/ 6 speed trans.
I went to chain final but kept the ratio the same.
It will give me 40 with no headwind on level highway if I stay under 80 mph.
your 33 - 35 is realistic for "realtime" extended romps.

[Buffalo]

Some GOOD points there Buffalo... Makes me Want that 124 even more...

Master Link? Was it the Clip spring type? Put on the correct direction? Just  here...

signed....BUBBIE  The chain used the provided staked link, no clip. EK provides specific lube and special inserts for setup. The pin itself is worn very little, the bushing it rode on wore thru only on one side, so I'm assuming Didn't pay enough attention to packing it full of lube. Still, at that it lasted 70K.
If I hadn't thrown out the extra links I cut off I could likely just take out 2-3 links, use 2 staked masters and ride on as the sprockets, and chain appear to have little wear are still completely usable. Buffalo

[Buffalo]

It also delivers 47 mpg at 75-80 mph on its G carb. At 126.5 hp/ 134t it does everything I need it to do. The old style V&H Propipe is likely holding her back a little, but I'll keep it just the way it is.

Buffalo: I'm always amazed at the MPG you're getting. Is your odometer calibrated for your gear change? I run a 5th gear ratio of 2.965 & can't seem to get better than 33-35 mpg from a 45mm Mikuni. I think part of my problem is a heavy wrist & seeming inability to ride under 80 mph for very long. I had to buy a speedo calibrator to correct for the gearing change.

I had to buy a Thunderheart adjustable speed sensor and add 11% to get the speedo to match several other HD stock bikes, checked at 100klm/hr, and 160klms/hr . Motor turns 2850rpm at 80 mph with seemingly no load while cruising. Initially, I got 42mpg, I spent some time fine tuning the accelerator pump, and jetting at cruise is 13.9- 14.1. I have the S&S dual intake runner/air filter assembly, not sure if the long intake helps, but it doesn't hurt.  Buffalo

[tommy g]

47 mpg Canuckian is about 39 mpg US if I ain't mistaken, hence the disparity in comparisons.

[HD/Wrench]

There is no best..  But looking at bore to stroke, quality of parts I feel the 113 is a extremely nice build. Power wise tq curve wise, longevity, ease of build , o ring base when used with a 110 cylinder, less case material removed.

  A basic 113 will produce mid 120 hp and at of over 130 tq with no issues and be a great touring engine.  You have tq curves that look like a crate S&S 124 LC engine out the crate they make 125/135 on avg.  Without the long rod short piston.

What is the final use going to be about.   

Having a 124 and telling some one I have 140+ hp sounds great.   Here is a sheet with two nice builds. if I showed them apart guys love the 124. But over lap the two and then you can see where a smaller engine can be more fun for everyday riding.. 

We build a large number of Big CI engine each year but the 113 is becoming increasingly  popular

[Grof]

There is no best..  But looking at bore to stroke, quality of parts I feel the 113 is a extremely nice build. Power wise tq curve wise, longevity, ease of build , o ring base when used with a 110 cylinder, less case material removed.

  A basic 113 will produce mid 120 hp and at of over 130 tq with no issues and be a great touring engine.  You have tq curves that look like a crate S&S 124 LC engine out the crate they make 125/135 on avg.  Without the long rod short piston.

What is the final use going to be about.   

Having a 124 and telling some one I have 140+ hp sounds great.   Here is a sheet with two nice builds. if I showed them apart guys love the 124. But over lap the two and then you can see where a smaller engine can be more fun for everyday riding.. 

We build a large number of Big CI engine each year but the 113 is becoming increasingly  popular

Steve just curious what would be final result if you had your cam 600 in that 113'' ...tnx

[Don D]

The largest motor you can afford..
And hopefully at a modest HP level so the state of tune is mild and the bike is then enjoyable to ride, runs cool, and is not extremely octane sensitive.

[No Cents]

The largest motor you can afford..
And hopefully at a modest HP level so the state of tune is mild and the bike is then enjoyable to ride, runs cool, and is not extremely octane sensitive.

  with Don...go as big as you can afford!
I'm not afraid to ride my 124 anywhere. It's close to 12.1 compression and it's very docile with the 640 cams. Twist it up to 4K and shift and you better be holding on tight and pointing it straight. My bike runs right at 200- 205* with synthetic oil in it when it's up to full operating temp. It's way more fun than one man should have.
Steve...what would that 124/113 graph comparisons look like with say a 635HO cam in that 124? I think you would see that bottom end tq/hp line come in way sooner that what the 640's show in your graph...and I'd bet it would still pull out higher on the top end than the 113. 

Ray

[HD/Wrench]

The point was to show a crate engine 124 640 hc engine vs a mild 113 build. I am not interested in a theory of what some other cam may or may not do.

A build that will handle heat, what ever pump gas you can get.. and really have no issues

[prodrag1320]

124" would be the best way to go,if your going to be really touring on it,build it on the mild side.my personal bike has a VERY mild 124" (probably a little too mild)10.0-1,S&S .570 cams with 110 heads.its at 129/136 which is fine for me on my street bike that can be ridden anywhere,

[Don D]

As the state of tune goes up pms goes up exponentially horsepower and torque marginally.
Dollars spent in the same proportions.