Has anyone heard through the grapevine or other that any business may be making Twin Cam CVO 110 heads anytime soon? Speed and Science Ltd. and R&R Cycles make Twin Cam heads but are based on the standard TC heads, not CVO 110. S&S makes heads, but are basically Twin Cam but their design.
Good 110 cores are getting harder to find all the time. They're asking $800+ for worn out heads, they're either trash, or the head gasket surface has been cut away, making the chambers small.
Regular TC head cores are a dime a dozen. I have boxes of them set back for that one project one day... :emoGroan:
Anyone hear any possibilities of 110 heads being produced by STD or others?
Have you considered MVA heads? Dan Baisley did a couple of "updates" to mine and they moved my 120 up to that 150 level at only 11.3 and 205# CCP.
I have MVA heads on my last 124" touring motor that Larry ported. They move a lot of air. The heads I have now are 110+ which are basically the same as the MVA head, only a little different in the ports. Larry also set these up, they also push some serious air. These are for the 124" I'm building now.
Both times I bought brand new heads to send Larry. It gives him better opportunity and I know they haven't been butchered before I buy them.
I'm just looking for next, I don't think much more can be gotten out of the CVO stock castings. Hoping that someone will make an aftermarket with a better designed port that can offer more CFM. I know one can go down the B2 road. But I like simple.
What about an old set of the CVO 103" castings?
Chances of finding a stash of unmolested CVO 103 heads is slim to none, and that doesn't change the narrative. They won't give any more HP than a 110 head will.
I'd like to see the aftermarket come up with a better CVO 110 head. Like R&R did with their Twin Cam stage 5 heads. New castings, and make very good power.
I'd look into the Ultima tc heads. Come with 2.1 intake and 1.7 exhaust. I buy the blank castings and send them to my guy.
Bingo, the Ultima heads do have some potential. They are a beefy casting (meaning big changes will not require welding) and ported move some air plus are affordable. They are taller, have different valve angles, 114cc chamber, and a breather system easily adapted or negotiated.
Here is the ordering information
Do they have enough meat for ACR machining?
I've never used Ultima motor parts, or worked on a bike that had any. But I hear more bad than good, and at that don't hear all that much about Ultima. HD MVA heads are still a decent bargain new, of course you'll replace the springs and valves when the heads are ported. But they fit no issues as they're OEM. S&S 91cc heads is the next best thing to EOM CVO as far as fit. They cost more, but then they're S&S ($$$) and are decent quality too.
It would be interesting to poll a half dozen or so of the known top Harley head porters with your combination of parts and expectations and see how they place the MVA, 110, S&S, Ultima or other(?) heads based on required mods and power outcome to your goals. I'll bet there would be as many opinions as there is choices. I know my MVA's required different valve profiles, sizes and springs (that would give longevity but still control) and only minor clean-up on the porting.
I like them all but they require different changes. The displacement and intended horsepower level come in to play making those decisions.
Quote from: rigidthumper on December 06, 2021, 02:08:08 PMDo they have enough meat for ACR machining?
They come machined for manuals.
If you wanted ACRs I could machine the Ultimas for those.
Quote from: Ohio HD on December 06, 2021, 03:09:26 PMI've never used Ultima motor parts, or worked on a bike that had any. But I hear more bad than good, and at that don't hear all that much about Ultima. HD MVA heads are still a decent bargain new, of course you'll replace the springs and valves when the heads are ported. But they fit no issues as they're OEM. S&S 91cc heads is the next best thing to EOM CVO as far as fit. They cost more, but then they're S&S ($$$) and are decent quality too.
No need to have any heads machined to use Harley ACRs. There is a better way.
-10mm to HD ACR adapters.
-Uses standard, off the shelf Harley ACRs.
-Much easier to replace when they fail (They will).
-Threads into existing hole for mechanical releases.
-Cost is less than $50 on ebay.
For value added, very few will know what they are. If/when asked you tell people that they are 'direct plasma injectors'.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51731906903_356546b059_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51732321654_041c6be157_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51732316289_8a527e1cf4_k.jpg)
:hyst: Plasma injectors. :hyst: That's hilarious. :hyst: Is the Plazma in a red bottle under the seat?
All jokes aside, there is no way I would pay money to have heads machined to accept HD ACRs knowing that the rocker boxes would have to be removed to replace them when (not if) they failed. I would seriously question any hack that offers to machine heads for ACRs without first offering up this as a solution. Crazy.
Quote from: turboprop on December 07, 2021, 11:49:35 AMQuote from: Ohio HD on December 06, 2021, 03:09:26 PMI've never used Ultima motor parts, or worked on a bike that had any. But I hear more bad than good, and at that don't hear all that much about Ultima. HD MVA heads are still a decent bargain new, of course you'll replace the springs and valves when the heads are ported. But they fit no issues as they're OEM. S&S 91cc heads is the next best thing to EOM CVO as far as fit. They cost more, but then they're S&S ($$$) and are decent quality too.
No need to have any heads machined to use Harley ACRs. There is a better way.
-10mm to HD ACR adapters.
-Uses standard, off the shelf Harley ACRs.
-Much easier to replace when they fail (They will).
-Threads into existing hole for mechanical releases.
-Cost is less than $50 on ebay.
For value added, very few will know what they are. If/when asked you tell people that they are 'direct plasma injectors.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51731906903_356546b059_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51732321654_041c6be157_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51732316289_8a527e1cf4_k.jpg)
I'm going to use that!
And when the relief passage plugs up, that setup is a lot easier to unclog than the factory passage.
John
Quote from: turboprop on December 07, 2021, 12:26:21 PMAll jokes aside, there is no way I would pay money to have heads machined to accept HD ACRs knowing that the rocker boxes would have to be removed to replace them when (not if) they failed. I would seriously question any hack that offers to machine heads for ACRs without first offering up this as a solution. Crazy.
This is slick. Any concern with the length of the setup going into a small hole drilled into soft metal? I'd be concerned that a small bump against this could cause enough shear force to damage the head.
That's different, but I would go with that setup. I see no problem with it and a lot less headache. The best thing you don't have to worry about the ports getting plug up.
Quote from: 838 on December 07, 2021, 02:30:42 PMQuote from: turboprop on December 07, 2021, 12:26:21 PMAll jokes aside, there is no way I would pay money to have heads machined to accept HD ACRs knowing that the rocker boxes would have to be removed to replace them when (not if) they failed. I would seriously question any hack that offers to machine heads for ACRs without first offering up this as a solution. Crazy.
This is slick. Any concern with the length of the setup going into a small hole drilled into soft metal? I'd be concerned that a small bump against this could cause enough shear force to damage the head.
The engine shown (Taj-Ma-Motor) had 12.9 compression and cold cranked at 225 lbs. I pounded on it hard for six years to include riding coast to coast one week. Several issues with that engine over the years, long setup threaded into a small hole was not one of them.
That's a great alternative, Agreed!
I'm trying to educate myself on heads. I sent a new set of S$S 89cc 2" valved to Star and was told they come in at 300 CFM. I know most HD CVO/MVA heads with work come in a decent amount higher. I did a little research and found a formula, but it was for car heads. I had a set of big rig chevy heads that were super small compared to L88 heads. I do know they're two different worlds apart in the RPM range. The question is does this apply to Harleys also? If so, I think I'm okay at 300 CFM for a 117".
Step 1
Multiply the engine's highest expected revolutions per minute (RPMs) by the displacement of the engine, as measured in cubic inches. For example, if the engine is not expected to reach speeds in excess of 6,000 RPMs, and if the size of the engine is 350 cubic inches, then 6,000 x 350 = 2,100,000.
Step 2
Divide the result from Step 1 by 3,456. For example, 2,100,000 / 3,456 = 607.638.
Multiply the result from Step 3 by .85, which represents a standard street engine's volumetric efficiency. For example, 607.638 x .85 = 516.49. Therefore, the engine should be equipped with a fuel delivery system capable of providing between 500 and 550 CFM.
I could be wrong, but in the formula, what is the result desired? Should be horsepower, not RPM?
I guess my meaning is a 350 Chevy with only a 550 cfm total feed, how much HP does that make? As you add compression, more radical came, you need for fuel and air.
The formula above means a 124" to run 6,500 rpm needs 198 cfm. Sounds low to me. I know the 117" I bought from Ray was pushing in the neighborhood of 340 cfm. Both sets of heads I have for my 124" motors are over 340 cfm.
Ok, so what is the cfm rating? 198 @ 10" is about 332 @ 28". That seems more reasonable if that value in the calculation above is @ 10".
That's a major factor that was left out. It was a question that I was asking because I don't know.
I hope it was 28. I might need a bigger bottle ;)
https://itstillruns.com/calculate-engine-cfm-intake-6393767.html
After I thought about it, I think the article was presuming we knew it was @ 10". I think in some worlds that's the defacto rating. However I know just from what I've been told by those smarter than me, that a head porter may use several ratings through out the tuning of the ports process, but lists the finished product as @ 10" or it seems in our HD world @ 28".
I would think your in the neighborhood to make enough air passage for the motor.
Did you say bottle? As in NOS?
It's a 40 dryshot that I had collecting dust. I don't use it much, but it does give it a good kick.
It lets me know how much my tires suck.
When I got my heads back from Dan Baisley they were tested and reported 10". At that time I posted looking for the formula to convert it to 28" so I would have a comparison to what everyone seemed to use. Max explained it.
I was looking for torque numbers for a street engine frrom the head work. I am thinking (but could be wrong) the 10" was used because of the cam specs and to test the lower VE to ensure the torque came in early. The flow numbers were given to me at each .100" lift level up to .700" . I will see if I can find the post with the explanation.
You will have a hard time tying flow numbers to horsepower. Part of the reason is the bigger the barn door gets the airflow cfm goes up but the velocity goes down despite constant test pressure (very simplistic analogy with a lot of the nuances left out). Cross sectional area needs to be such that velocity is optimized to match the demand then you have satisfied the builds requirements. Displacement, VE, maximum rpm are a few drivers. A high flow slow port ends up with a pig of a build, when extreme, and is hard to tune. Then guys start searching for the "best" cam :wink:
Pressure conversion is easy if you have 10" and want 28", √(28 ÷ 10)= 1.673. You will be comparing junk data when trying to see what a head flows from one vendor to the next in most cases for similar reasons dynos are not that easily compared. The fixturing matters as well as the test pressure and I am assuming the benches are accurately calibrated. Also standard test vacuum for carburetor CFM is 1-1/2 inches of mercury. This is 20" H2O. Another wrinkle that needs to be ironed out. Plus flow numbers generated for exhaust side are misleading and not easily tied to how well the port works or if it is properly sized. And another myth dispelled, high low lift flow does not increase low end torque.
Some references that can help anyone wanting to research more I suggest Engine Airflow by Harold Bettes ISBN 978-1-55788-537-1 and purchasing Pipemax software by Larry Meaux. Performance Trends software also helps with CSA sizing.
There is an estimated result from CFM. There are certain assumptions being made, like that the motor is designed optimally as one of the five options shown on the calculator.
Plugging a few numbers into this that I know to be true, it's fairly close.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/calcafhp.php
I looked up my 120 w/ MVA heads flow sheet and did a calc. from the Wallace Racing (horsepower from intake flow) calculator. I changed the numbers from the spec sheet (22" to 28") and entered them at 28" because that seems to be what everyone relates to. I think my numbers are correct. Before the heads were worked on we had a deep discussion on what I was looking for, which cams were being used, throttle body, pipe(s), gearing and how it will be ridden. I was told very little would be done to the MVA's because they were already good for what I hoped to get back but springs, valve profiles and exhaust sizes were done along with some fine tuning in the ports and seats.
He had my manifold and HPI 62/64 throttle body for blending etc.. IIRC these heads were tested with the manifold and TB.
Intake at .600 lift - 309.11 cfm = 147 hp with a RPM Range of 5,213 to 6,713
.700 lift - 319.27 cfm = 151 with a RPM Range of 5,428 to 6,928
With 660SM cams .660 lift - 315.81 cfm = 150 with a RPM Range of 5,359 to 6,859120X Dyno - Dragula and Burns (1).jpg
I would say the calculator is pretty darn close (at least in my combination). You can see by the dyno sheet the pipe can make the difference or the RPM. This one was clipped at 6200 and may have put out a little more.
Somewhere in that calculation is a VE factor. The VE makes all the difference of whether the numbers will be accurate or not. Many factors can screw up the VE, kd, in your case you had all the right combination to make a high VE. I am referring to actual VE not the factors used in the tuning software. This is not always the case however and pipes hold a high weight on achieving a high VE along with the other factors. Ages ago I had similar results with a 120r tuned by Jim Kennedy and the bike had a wegner 2 into 2 pipe. The mva heads are a lot like what I described, needing changes but capable heads. My point however is there is no broad brush that all the heads get except for an initial evaluation.
The actual motor VE% is something that most don't have the resources to find out. Estimates like the three listed below can be used for estimating the motor output potential.
Engine Type VE%
Stock motor, modern design 85%
Slightly modified motor* 100%
Highly modified motor** 115%
*Slightly Modified = performance cam, upgraded induction, free flowing exhaust
**Highly Modified = aggressive cam, large upgraded induction, racing exhaust, heads ported for maximum output, compression 11:1 or higher
85% is decent to use for our built engines.
I don't doubt that's true, this is data I took from a book several years ago.
So this is somewhat close to what Jason stated. I think the wild card in this formula is knowing what the actual CFM used is. I don't think it's meant to mean what the heads / intake can give, rather what the motor is using.
VE = (cfm x 3,456) / (c.i.d. x rpm)
Image 1.jpg
I changed the output to percent.
VE = (cfm x 3,456) / (c.i.d. x rpm)
Image 2.jpg
I have Dynomation software for simulations and I have found the same, ~85% is about what our engines are at when the combinations are not too far off from optimum and no power adders are used. Choosing the VE is empirical data based on builds I have analyzed and knew their results on a Dynojet 250I inertia dyno with their assumed compensation for drivetrain losses VS a water brake dyno and horsepower at the crank. RWHP VS Brake Hp. But can we interchange RWHP and DJWHP? It is a little bit of a quagmire, in my opinion.
FWIW, I also add 15-20% to the BSFC in car injector calcs. There is one built into a tuning program that seems pretty accurate as well. My plan is an actual flow meter on a bike, but the equipment I know how to do this with are not on everyday street ridden bikes, so....... Don't know how great the info will translate over to actual useful data. I have always just went big and if idle had to be 1100 for control. That's what it is.
My initial belief is the BSFC is lower on M8's than TC's, but don't really have enough data to be convinced of that. Too many variables.
Apologize if this is way off topic but kind of thought it fit into same thinking process.
I grew tired of trying to find clean used 110 heads. I snatched this set of NOS MVA heads without the original box. They just didn't get used for what ever reason. The sad thing is I bought these for a little less that the highest priced used 110 heads I had found.
These are just in case heads, I don't have any plans for them.
12-16-2021 - 16925-11 MVA heads - 01.jpg
12-16-2021 - 16925-11 MVA heads - 02.jpg
The first step...
There is a shop near me that is working on a new set of heads just not sure if they based them off the CVO style or not