April 15, 2024, 09:18:37 PM

News:

For advertising inquiries or help with registration or other issues, you may contact us by email at help@harleytechtalk.com


opinion on 120" combination

Started by dave brode, August 23, 2018, 01:24:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dave brode

August 23, 2018, 01:24:01 PM Last Edit: August 23, 2018, 07:01:11 PM by dave brode
Hello All,

Please review my plans for a winter project 120" engine for my '02 FLHT and kick my ass as needed.

[have] Spare set of '02 cases, already bored to 4.310" for Axtell cylinders by Zippers. Will machine for '07 up cam bearings
[need] 120R style S&S flywheels 320-0525 for old cases.

[have] Take out 120R flat top pistons and rings- never run.

[need] HD/SE "bigger bore" 4.060" cylinders. [will buy on black friday -30% sale at dealer] - [unless I find a helluva deal on S&S 4" to bore]
-
[have] Wood 888 cams 246/246 - .575", 100 LSA

[have] Zipper's tensioners.

Heads will be either ported CVO110 with 2.120" intake or blended only MVA/120R/St. Will open port inlets for 1.800" S&S intake.  [have the CVO110s, looking for MVAs]

---


The bike has a 44mm cv done by Wood and a small primary fatcat with louvered baffle. I would consider the perforated baffle, but I'm not going to change pipes. I'm not looking for every horse. I can't imagine that compression down near 10-1 would hurt much. Although, a head cut to remove some of the radius at the quench pad seems logical. I would check piston to valve first though.

I'm looking at [roller] Baisley or S&S rockers, worth it to go to 1.7-1 for .600" or so?

Question:  I hope to use the rings that are on the take out pistons.  Are the 120 engines run in with an electric motor? This would break the rings in to some extent. Would it render them non re-useable?

Thanks in advance for any help offered.

Dave

p.s.- I'll be looking for someone to machine the cam bearing bores and set the main bearing end play. PMs welcome   



CarlosGGodfrog

Looks good Dave, I would go with roller rockers before hi-lift rockers though. You are close to .6 lift, so you may as well do it.

dave brode

Carlos,
Yes, roller. The question is, would the added lift be worth much? I know the gain would depend on how the heads did at .575" vs .600",  but if it is a matter of 2-3 horse, it's a non issue to me. 
Thanks.
Dave

Barrett

Quote from: dave brode on August 23, 2018, 04:18:46 PM
Carlos,
Yes, roller. The question is, would the added lift be worth much? I know the gain would depend on how the heads did at .575" vs .600",  but if it is a matter of 2-3 horse, it's a non issue to me. 
Thanks.
Dave

Read post #25 & #28

http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=91480.msg1054100#msg1054100

CarlosGGodfrog

Interesting article. I opted for the rollers, at stock ratio, for the reliability of less side loading on the valve. I did not consider increased lift rollers. That is a different topic, but 6% increase in lift might not be as dramatic a hp booster as we might think. How often are we at v high (over 6000 ) rpm ?

ThumperDeuce

Mr. Baisley will convert your stock rockers to rollers and correct the geometry.
Idiots are fun, no wonder every village wants one.

TorQuePimp

Instead of buying mva heads use the coin to have the 110 heads worked

Get the cylinders from board tracker..... already cheap

Not enough carb

rigidthumper

You're looking at ~10.27:1, based on .040 head gasket used and 95cc chamber 110 head, flat tops. 888 should crank ~195 with that combo, and make ~125 TQ/115 HP, with that carb & pipe, @/over 100# from 2.2K to 5.7K.  Very reasonable touring build.
Ignorance is bliss, and accuracy expensive. How much of either can you afford?

kd

Search the 120 builds in the dyno section on here. There's a few good examples.
KD

dave brode

Thanks all,

I agree with the Zippers guy, but "responded to add'l lift" is pretty vague. It would be nice to have a A-B number.

I wonder if how the 888 cams would act if a +4 sprocket was used?

Anyone have a comment on the rings?

GaryLC

The rings would probably be ok, but for 30 something bucks I'd get a new set from Boardtracker, just to be on the safe side.

Don D

August 24, 2018, 03:36:01 PM #11 Last Edit: August 24, 2018, 04:19:21 PM by HD Street Performance
Use a cv51. Use a good pipe and dry tc88 ignition.

dave brode

Don, How much will the 51 gain over the Wood prepped 44cv?

Have the Fatcat, will keep it.

Have Daytona Twin Tec module with software.

Good thought on rings, Gary.


Don D


dave brode

Thanks Don,

Huge difference between say 10.2-1 and 10.6-1?

Dave


Hillside Motorcycle

S&S G carb/ Thunderjet, and 1" spacer block would be a STRONG set-up.
Otto Knowbetter sez, "Even a fish wouldn't get caught if he kept his mouth shut"

dave brode

Update, input welcome;

Don [HD StreetPerf] did the bottom end and supplied the 120R style S&S flywheels [320-0525] for old cases. He also bored the cases for '07 up cam bearings, Thanks, Don. I have the 120R pistons and 4.060" cylinders. CR will be 10.3-1 or so.

I ended up with a set of CVO110 heads done by Baisley, their basic work, 1.800" inlet, 2.12, 1.65", etc.
[Thanks Mike]

I decided on these cams;

Arsenal Racecraft [by Andrews]
248/252 - .610" [.645" at 1.72*]
101/109 centers
.213"/.178" TDC
23/45 - 55/17

I have a set of 1.72-1 S&S rollers, and a pair of 1.625s. Split or 1.72s on both?

Dave






HD/Wrench

Myself would go with a S&S carb  Easy simple will get you there all day long .

As for altered rocker ratio its a test thing I have seen it work and i have seen no change as well I have seen power loss . Use of them on te intake side only would be the safest bet . EX side can be very tricky

dave brode

Thanks, GMR,

I was leaning toward 1.72s on the intake only, you convinced me. I have a CV spigot style S&S intake that will fit my Wood 44mm cv, I will probably see how it does. I do have a super G intake too if I decide that I need more carb.

Dave 


Rsw

Listen to Steve (GMR) he knows his Sh%#{t

HD/Wrench

Quote from: dave brode on April 16, 2019, 08:08:44 PM
Thanks, GMR,

I was leaning toward 1.72s on the intake only, you convinced me. I have a CV spigot style S&S intake that will fit my Wood 44mm cv, I will probably see how it does. I do have a super G intake too if I decide that I need more carb.

Dave

The 44 is a good carb but it is way too small on an air pump of that size my guess is that you will struggle to jet it. I built a 117 woods 6 combo bakc in the mid 2000's  well customer had a 42 Mik on it .

I could not jet it down far enough air pump plus high signal strength .

The S&S all though simple is a great carb tons of parts for it , works very well . 


dave brode

Thanks, GMR, Rsw, and Hillside too,

Gmr, I understand, it's like a 600 holley on a 496. The signal is very strong. 

I'll study the S&S carbs and try to muster some love for them. I've never more than glanced at one. I was thinking of a 48 mik, but I do despise that slide rattle.

Dave

dave brode

April 17, 2019, 07:25:38 PM #22 Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 09:05:06 PM by FSG
Veering off, it is interesting how testing with the manifold greatly reduces the flow differences. Especially between the stock G and the 48.


[attach=0,msg1292948]

HD/Wrench

the 48 is costly as a complete kit dont forget the 110 dollar jet kit you will need plus the https://secure.vulcanworks.net/store/Carb-Spacers-Adapters/ and its a large carb in size many times it will hit the fins based on what you are using .

peak vs drivablity is something to look at as well


XXX carbs does a bore job on the G and I have tuned a few of them one was the S&S 126 set up and man it ran well the guy did have a 48 on it peak to peak about the same but  low speed transition the S&S was much nicer . engine kits will vary for sure .


Zippers does a nice ready to go set up as well .


Mattbastard

Don't ya have to raise the tank to use a 48 as well?

That's a BIG carb.