HarleyTechTalk

let me know what I missed 

Quote from: hdrider on November 25, 2018, 08:35:18 PM

Quote from: Jamie Long on November 20, 2018, 11:53:51 AM
2017 CVO Street Glide; FM 124 big bore kit with factory bored cylinders, Wood WM8-408 cam, SE64mm TB with CNC ported manifold. He's running the Jackpot 2/1/2 head pipe, Street Outlaw mufflers, and we tuned it with Dynojet Power Vision. We used the stock heads with Wood valve springs in this build.


Based on this and your earlier chart of a 124 with your FM CNC heads, it looks like your CNC heads aren't any better than stock (and maybe worse).  I'd like to hear your theory on what's the deal with that.  At this point it certainly doesn't look like porting the heads really offers anything.

These motors certainly do respond well to headwork. You are comparing completely different engine builds; different compression, different cam, different exhaust, one is a Softail one is a Touring etc.

Quote from: sfmichael on November 26, 2018, 07:38:18 AM
let me know what I missed 

Yes they added ported heads but just as important they replaced the poorly designed intake with a ported intake and bigger throttle body. A good test would be to take the 124"with the stock heads, intake, and TB that was posted and just swap in the ported intake, bigger TB and re-run it.
Anyways there is no back to back that I have seen where just heads were swapped out with ported heads.

It is more apples to oranges but if you want to compare heads take a look at post #68 compared to post #66

The #68 is stock heads making 11.47 more tq with a broader curve over the ported heads in #66 while only giving up 2.73 hp above 5500 rpm.  Both have the ported manifold and bigger TB but the cams and exhaust are different. This tells me the stock head are doing fine, remember how much they actually flow right from the factory.

You are again comparing completely different 124 builds, the only thing that is the same is the displacement. Different compression, cam, completely different exhaust systems, and one is a Softail one is a Touring. When we get thru our Cyber Week sale and get caught up i'll share some testing we did last year with stock vs ported heads back to back. To make things interesting here is a combo we built recently with a 4.375 stroke, one of our dealers also just built a similar combo with a slightly different cam with same exhaust that went 155 square

Quote from: sfmichael on November 26, 2018, 07:38:18 AM
let me know what I missed 

"Apples to oranges, two different bikes, different cams, unknown CCP,  different exhaust systems, the only thing that appears they have in common is the 124 ci displacement.
This thread has changed from testing, to examples of different build combinations. Still some good info but easily misunderstood."


now I realize not only heads were changed, but the chances of getting the additional 15 hp from merely porting the intake and increasing T/B size are very slim

Quote from: sfmichael on November 27, 2018, 12:09:33 AM

Quote from: sfmichael on November 26, 2018, 07:38:18 AM
let me know what I missed 

"Apples to oranges, two different bikes, different cams, unknown CCP,  different exhaust systems, the only thing that appears they have in common is the 124 ci displacement.
This thread has changed from testing, to examples of different build combinations. Still some good info but easily misunderstood."


now I realize not only heads were changed, but the chances of getting the additional 15 hp from merely porting the intake and increasing T/B size are very slim

What is your statement based on, have you seen flow data or dyno testing from these two manifolds and tb's. Are you saying they don't make a difference, why are so many spending time and money to change them?

We do have flow numbers on the stock heads and they flow more than enough cfm to support the HP numbers so something must be holding them back. As I pointed out, post 68 shows stock heads do flow enough air to make 142.26 hp and 149.61 tq with a great curve when the rest of the combo is right so we now actually know the head is capable of at least that much.

I am not saying all the HP came from the manifold and tb, but without testing no one really knows what made how much difference. All the later graphs are good build examples but without back to back that is what they are, examples.

Quote from: 1FSTRK on November 27, 2018, 04:10:45 AM
"without testing no one really knows what made how much difference"

We very much know the difference and how each component affects power output, this is why we do the testing. We have a few thousand dyno runs between our M8 test bikes including extensive cylinder head testing with 2 cylinder head guys at the top of their game. I will however agree the stock heads are damn good for many applications; we use them in builds frequently. The primary objective for our Level A head was not airflow specifically, it was valve seat correction (and replacement if necessary), valve springs, and mild port correction.   

Quote from: Jamie Long on November 27, 2018, 08:27:44 AM

Quote from: 1FSTRK on November 27, 2018, 04:10:45 AM
"without testing no one really knows what made how much difference"

We very much know the difference and how each component affects power output, this is why we do the testing. We have a few thousand dyno runs between our M8 test bikes including extensive cylinder head testing with 2 cylinder head guys at the top of their game. I will however agree the stock heads are damn good for many applications; we use them in builds frequently. The primary objective for our Level A head was not airflow specifically, it was valve seat correction (and replacement if necessary), valve springs, and mild port correction.

My statement was in the context of the conversation between sfmichael and myself. I do not insinuate what you and your team know or do not know. The term "no one really knows" referred to "no one" here on the forum base on the information posted here and that is still true. When examples are posted with only some of the test data each one is left to draw some conclusions that may be right or wrong. 

I appreciate all that you share with us here and hope that you will continue posting graphs and information. Should you choose to post the graphs you have of the back to back testing between stock heads and any other head or any back to back manifold/TB testing I am sure it will help in clearing up some of the confusion for those of us discussing those subjects.

Thanks again for your devotion to all this development and for freely sharing it here.

   I will 2nd that Jamie - we appreciate what everyone shares here but especially you and Daren test and share extensively and freely and, although I know you're a businessman first, you also go above and beyond to be helpful and generous with your R&D. Most of us don't have unlimited dyno access and we all know that is where the proof is when it comes to high performance.

Some hold those cards close to the vest and who could blame them? It costs a lot of time and money to learn what works, not on paper, but in the real world. I have spent a lifetime learning my craft and I'm more generous with my knowledge now, but when I was younger I wanted people to pay for what I had worked so hard to learn.

I've since learned I can do quite well while still helping others and if feels good to share my experience and maybe save someone from making an expensive mistake or just save them money by teaching them to repair something they thought was beyond their capabilities.

I've learned so much here and guys like you make that possible. You and many others 

Quote from: sfmichael on November 27, 2018, 12:09:33 AM

Quote from: sfmichael on November 26, 2018, 07:38:18 AM
let me know what I missed 

"Apples to oranges, two different bikes, different cams, unknown CCP,  different exhaust systems, the only thing that appears they have in common is the 124 ci displacement.
This thread has changed from testing, to examples of different build combinations. Still some good info but easily misunderstood."


TOO funny just had a customer cal me on this and rave about the great gains . But looking at #62 it made more power than its showing in the over lay Same bike same kit only change was heads and t/b . So we take away power to show a better kit that sells for more money NO increase in TQ at all but we gain some HP .  


now I realize not only heads were changed, but the chances of getting the additional 15 hp from merely porting the intake and increasing T/B size are very slim

For those interested here are a couple M8 examples we built last week.

2018 Fat Bob: FM 124" Stage III big bore kit w/ factory bored cylinders @ 10.8 comp, stock heads, D&D Fatcat 2/1, SE 64mm ported TB, and we used the Wood WM8-22X cam that he already installed & was already running. This was a factory 114" bike.





2018 CVO Road Glide: FM 128" big bore kit, FM Level A CNC heads, Wood WM8-408 cam, SE ported 64mm TB, AIM SDR clutch, Jackpot XXX head pipe & Hi Roller mufflers, and tuned it with Dynojet Power Vision.

You've been busy!
Thanks for keeping us updated with the progress.

Another M8 build

looks awesome 

Glad to see these numbers coming from M8s. The new design is proving to be very efficient and powerful for touring needs/wants.

Jamie, thanks for doing all the work on these bikes. It really is helpful for making decisions on performance issues.

Did you by any chance degree the cams? Do you have any specs as to duration, lift, etc?

Seems the mfgs are keeping things close to their vests lol

found it. nevermind lol

The following dyno chart represents a combo we've been working on. This setup is not about peak numbers it's about big, early torque with a broad curve. It does not have anywhere near the peak horsepower potential as some of our other M8 kit's, however it has the huge emphasis on low RPM torque that some riders are looking for. It's is a FM 124" M8 big bore kit with stock cylinder heads, our standard Jackpot M8 2/1/2 and Street Outlaw mufflers, it has a SE 64mm TB with Ward ported manifold, and a special cam combination (we're working with Bobby Wood) that we're not quite ready to disclose. We're going to test this kit in a couple more engines and it should be ready to release by the end of April. Key points of this dyno chart are this motor makes 130Tq @ 2250 RPM, 140Tq @ 2650 RPM, and it carries 130+Tq from 2250-5000 RPM's. Most notably, we cannot stress enough how picky these M8 motors are on individual components, while this example uses all off the shelf parts, this is a culmination of months of testing to get to the end results. Don't expect anywhere near these same results with a big open exhaust or the wrong cam etc.. We're not trying to hurt feelings; we're simply sharing facts & data, not opinion. More info to come.

I would take that all day any day.

Not exactly 107 cam testing anymore in this 107 cam testing thread. Not complaining, just observing.

We've been noting the importance of using properly baffled mufflers for many years, and with the Milwaukee-8 engines we've found they are even more exhaust sensitive than the Twin Cam design. We spend a large amount of the day going over these differences so we wanted to put an easy to understand test together that may help choose the proper components for your application. Muffler choice can make or break the entire combination and the current trend of large, open baffles is unfortunately the opposite of what these motors want with most configurations, especially when you go to an aftermarket cam. We've seen as much as 30+ Tq loss in the lower RPM's and these excessively large baffles contribute to poor response and tunability. If you have mufflers with these excessively large baffles, big tapered, or stepped cores they are costing you considerable performance, you cannot bend the laws of physics. Reversion is effectively reducing velocity that is essential to low-mid RPM performance & response. For info on exhaust theory & design some of the best written resources are the tech articles from Burns Stainless.

The following testing is going to document the specific differences in performance between a muffler with an overly large baffled muffler (were calling it muffler "ABC") versus a properly baffled muffler for this application (conventional core with removable secondary inserts in place; muffler "123"). The test vehicle in these tests is a 2018 H-D FLHTK Ultra Limited. All testing was done on the same day in the Fuel Moto Dynojet test cell and each combination was fully tuned with Dynojet Power Vision. We tested the following combinations:

• Stock headpipe, Muffler "ABC", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune
  
• Stock headpipe, Muffler "123", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune
  
• Jackpot 2/1/2 headpipe, Muffler "ABC", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune
  
• Jackpot 2/1/2 headpipe, Muffler "123", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune
  
• Wood WM8-22x cam, Jackpot 2/1/2 headpipe, Muffler "ABC", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune
  
• Wood WM8-22x cam, Jackpot 2/1/2 headpipe, Muffler "123", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune
  

Test 1) Stock headpipe, Muffler "ABC", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune



Test 2) Stock headpipe, Muffler "123", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune





Note the difference below comparing the two mufflers with the stock head pipe. The larger baffled mufflers are making measurably less torque than the conventional baffled mufflers but performance could be considered reasonable in this application.





Test 3) Jackpot 2/1/2 headpipe, Muffler "ABC", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune





Test 4) Jackpot 2/1/2 headpipe, Muffler "123", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune



Note the difference below between the two mufflers when you replace the head pipe with the non catalyst pipe. Numbers increase slightly but there is a more defined dip with the larger baffles. The merge collector in the 2/1/2 head pipe is helping the deficiencies. Throttle response is noticeably different between the two setups as well, the larger baffles combination feels lack response.





Test 5) Wood WM8-22x cam, Jackpot 2/1/2 headpipe, Muffler "ABC", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune



Test 6) Wood WM8-22x cam, Jackpot 2/1/2 headpipe, Muffler "123", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune



They made the same torque! but wait a minute this is where the testing gets really interesting. When you add the aftermarket Wood WM8-22x cam to the mix it really separates the two mufflers. There is now a huge defined loss in low RPM power; the motor is simply not happy and does not respond with the large baffled mufflers in the lower RPM's. Your looking at a difference as much as 20Tq in the lower RPM's, throttle response is also poor. Riding the bike seat of the pants difference is night and day; mufflers are the only difference.

Consider the WM8-22x is one of the strongest low-mid RPM cams on the market. If you were using another cam that is not quite as strong on the bottom or a different pipe without a properly designed merge collector; the results of the larger baffles would be even worse. The mufflers we tested were not even the worst offenders we've seen, (yes we've seen even worse). Also consider each of these combinations were properly dyno tuned and properly tested.



Below you will find an overlay of each of the runs from this test. Most interesting to note is the WM8-22x test with the large "ABC" mufflers made less power below 2600 RPM than with the stock cam, head pipe and the same mufflers!

Fuel Moto 

Quote from: Jamie Long on April 15, 2019, 01:32:44 PM
The following dyno chart represents a combo we've been working on. This setup is not about peak numbers it's about big, early torque with a broad curve. It does not have anywhere near the peak horsepower potential as some of our other M8 kit's, however it has the huge emphasis on low RPM torque that some riders are looking for. It's is a FM 124" M8 big bore kit with stock cylinder heads, our standard Jackpot M8 2/1/2 and Street Outlaw mufflers, it has a SE 64mm TB with Ward ported manifold, and a special cam combination (we're working with Bobby Wood) that we're not quite ready to disclose. We're going to test this kit in a couple more engines and it should be ready to release by the end of April. Key points of this dyno chart are this motor makes 130Tq @ 2250 RPM, 140Tq @ 2650 RPM, and it carries 130+Tq from 2250-5000 RPM's. Most notably, we cannot stress enough how picky these M8 motors are on individual components, while this example uses all off the shelf parts, this is a culmination of months of testing to get to the end results. Don't expect anywhere near these same results with a big open exhaust or the wrong cam etc.. We're not trying to hurt feelings; we're simply sharing facts & data, not opinion. More info to come.

Any update on this ?

Quote from: Jamie Long on May 13, 2019, 03:03:59 PM
We've been noting the importance of using properly baffled mufflers for many years, and with the Milwaukee-8 engines we've found they are even more exhaust sensitive than the Twin Cam design. We spend a large amount of the day going over these differences so we wanted to put an easy to understand test together that may help choose the proper components for your application. Muffler choice can make or break the entire combination and the current trend of large, open baffles is unfortunately the opposite of what these motors want with most configurations, especially when you go to an aftermarket cam. We've seen as much as 30+ Tq loss in the lower RPM's and these excessively large baffles contribute to poor response and tunability. If you have mufflers with these excessively large baffles, big tapered, or stepped cores they are costing you considerable performance, you cannot bend the laws of physics. Reversion is effectively reducing velocity that is essential to low-mid RPM performance & response. For info on exhaust theory & design some of the best written resources are the tech articles from Burns Stainless.

Test 5) Wood WM8-22x cam, Jackpot 2/1/2 headpipe, Muffler "ABC", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune



Test 6) Wood WM8-22x cam, Jackpot 2/1/2 headpipe, Muffler "123", Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision tune



They made the same torque! but wait a minute this is where the testing gets really interesting. When you add the aftermarket Wood WM8-22x cam to the mix it really separates the two mufflers. There is now a huge defined loss in low RPM power; the motor is simply not happy and does not respond with the large baffled mufflers in the lower RPM's. Your looking at a difference as much as 20Tq in the lower RPM's, throttle response is also poor. Riding the bike seat of the pants difference is night and day; mufflers are the only difference.

Consider the WM8-22x is one of the strongest low-mid RPM cams on the market. If you were using another cam that is not quite as strong on the bottom or a different pipe without a properly designed merge collector; the results of the larger baffles would be even worse. The mufflers we tested were not even the worst offenders we've seen, (yes we've seen even worse). Also consider each of these combinations were properly dyno tuned and properly tested.



Below you will find an overlay of each of the runs from this test. Most interesting to note is the WM8-22x test with the large "ABC" mufflers made less power below 2600 RPM than with the stock cam, head pipe and the same mufflers!

Jamie, this is great data for helping to 'see' how mufflers and cams interacts and impact each other and it's not what I want to really hear.  I have a 107 Freewheeler with a WM8-22x and CFR which I assume are at the bottom of your list of large open baffled mufflers (stock headpipes with CAT).  I am running one of your maps made for my configuration and it does seem to run great.

My question is that with this type of set up could a dyno tune offer some noticeable improvements without any changes to the cam and pipes?  Or would it be a complete waste of money because of the set up I have?

I realize that spending that money on the right set of pipes would probably give me even more power without dyno tune then my set up with a tune, but I really like what I have.  I'm just wondering if a dyno tune can reduce say a 20 Tq dip to 10 Tq dip.  Most of my riding is between 2.5 and 4.5k.  Hopefully your answer will be that a tune for me will have greater potential for gains than a perfectly matched system would.

And or would your torque inserts help in my situation?... but now I'm screwing with the sound.
Hope this makes sense and thanks for your thoughts... Ron

Quote from: Ronbo2 on December 16, 2019, 10:46:41 PM

Jamie, this is great data for helping to 'see' how mufflers and cams interacts and impact each other and it's not what I want to really hear.  I have a 107 Freewheeler with a WM8-22x and CFR which I assume are at the bottom of your list of large open baffled mufflers (stock headpipes with CAT).  I am running one of your maps made for my configuration and it does seem to run great.

My question is that with this type of set up could a dyno tune offer some noticeable improvements without any changes to the cam and pipes?  Or would it be a complete waste of money because of the set up I have?

I realize that spending that money on the right set of pipes would probably give me even more power without dyno tune then my set up with a tune, but I really like what I have.  I'm just wondering if a dyno tune can reduce say a 20 Tq dip to 10 Tq dip.  Most of my riding is between 2.5 and 4.5k.  Hopefully your answer will be that a tune for me will have greater potential for gains than a perfectly matched system would.

And or would your torque inserts help in my situation?... but now I'm screwing with the sound.
Hope this makes sense and thanks for your thoughts... Ron

A dyno tune will correct any deficiencies in the tune however it will not correct any shortcomings in the actual engine/exhaust combination as you cannot bend the laws of physics. Another way of saying this is if the tune is not correct you may see come gains, however you cannot overcome an inherent issue of a component thats not playing well with the rest of the combination with tuning. When it comes to CFR mufflers (or other similar designs) you need to consider what is most important; sound, aesthetics, or performance and choose your primary objective.

Thanks Jamie this is all good info