HarleyTechTalk

I am not really happy to see these great results you are getting with the new M8 engine.

I road tested one a few months back and tried really hard not to be impressed by the smoothness and power right out of the box.

Now I am trying really hard to not trade my present ride in on a new 2017. 

The results of your testing are doing nothing to help my resolve .... 

   De-cat was a nice improvement.  Very respectable numbers.

 that was a nice gain right there.   
Keep up the great work Daren. 
I can't wait to see the difference when you swap the cam out.   
Any thoughts on a cam yet?

Ray

I looks like from Darren's testing so far the stock a/c must go.
I've seen comparisons of my Rushmore stocker and it doesn't really seem to hold back much, but the M8 is really choked!
My buddy negotiated with the dealer he bought his Limited from up here to throw in a Stage 1 package which included that skinny Ventilator a/c, Cannons and the Street Tuner. He never rode his bike before the Stage upgrade but says it is a dream compared to his old 96" and I don't doubt it.

Thanks guys, and for clarification, the previous graph I posted the red line was completely tuned with stock AC and exhaust vs the blue line, stage one with the de-catted head pipe, SE AC and Kerker mufflers to illustrate where it was with just a tune and where it is now, sorry for the confusion.

Here's the comparison with and without the cat, note no real power gains but it sure does sound better.
[attach=0]

Quote from: No Cents on February 18, 2017, 05:17:45 PM
that was a nice gain right there.   
Keep up the great work Daren. 
I can't wait to see the difference when you swap the cam out.   
Any thoughts on a cam yet?

Ray

Yes, I will have the first of the test cams in my hands very soon. I also have a head pipe coming from Fuel moto and mufflers from RC component's.

Today it's going to be near 70*, so I feel that a road test is in order.

Great work  and as always thanks for your time and for sharing.
Would you post a graph showing runfile 77 from reply #15 and runfile 9 from reply #54
Thanks

Great testing Darren. Clearly this proves the new head combination despite being large can be scaled down and make very respectable horsepower and especially torque. That combination you have now would satisfy a great majority of the riders out there. The exciting element is that there is so much untapped potential.

Quote from: 1FSTRK on February 19, 2017, 05:24:54 AM
Great work  and as always thanks for your time and for sharing.
Would you post a graph showing runfile 77 from reply #15 and runfile 9 from reply #54
Thanks

Thanks, here you go.
[attach=0]

Quote from: HD Street Performance on February 19, 2017, 05:30:54 AM
Great testing Darren. Clearly this proves the new head combination despite being large can be scaled down and make very respectable horsepower and especially torque. That combination you have now would satisfy a great majority of the riders out there. The exciting element is that there is so much untapped potential.

Thanks Don, I agree that there is a ton of untapped potential with the Milwaukee Eight.

Herko and I devised the small methodical steps in this testing, including the break in process, so that we could compile as much data as possible, taking baby steps instead of quantum leaps.

Thanks for the additional graph.
It is looking like the exhaust is not the controlling factor at this level, the a back to back with the new head pipe be the next test?

Quote from: 1FSTRK on February 20, 2017, 03:43:11 AM
Thanks for the additional graph.
It is looking like the exhaust is not the controlling factor at this level, the a back to back with the new head pipe be the next test?

Agreed. the next test will either be more mufflers or head pipe, whichever gets here first.

Ok, let me see if I am understanding this correctly....changing to a non-cat exhaust system had no gain in performance, but did improve the perceived sound?  Is that what I am reading?  So another words if you put on a set of Street Cannons, left the stock head pipe with cat the bike would perform the same as if you either gutted the stock header or spent $$ to get an non cat head pipe with the same slip ons. Am I missing something here?  Except for the sound the stock exhaust header with cat is as efficient as a non cat head pipe system???  How can that be?  So wondering outloud if one were to go with the $1200 HD "high flow" system with the cats in the Street Cannons how that would compare to an aftermarket non cat system or the current headpipe with Street Cannons alone?  If the performance is the same with or without the cat, besides the sound, why would one bother to change it...except maybe for the heat reduction?  Please set my thinking straight on this as I am confused.  Thanks in advance.

Quote from: spook on February 20, 2017, 01:04:12 PM
Ok, let me see if I am understanding this correctly....changing to a non-cat exhaust system had no gain in performance, but did improve the perceived sound?  Is that what I am reading?  So another words if you put on a set of Street Cannons, left the stock head pipe with cat the bike would perform the same as if you either gutted the stock header or spent $$ to get an non cat head pipe with the same slip ons. Am I missing something here?  Except for the sound the stock exhaust header with cat is as efficient as a non cat head pipe system???  How can that be?  So wondering outloud if one were to go with the $1200 HD "high flow" system with the cats in the Street Cannons how that would compare to an aftermarket non cat system or the current headpipe with Street Cannons alone?  If the performance is the same with or without the cat, besides the sound, why would one bother to change it...except maybe for the heat reduction?  Please set my thinking straight on this as I am confused.  Thanks in advance.

Yes Spook, you are correct as far as de-catting the stock head pipe, it raised the db level only and reduced the heat, no performance gains were seen at this level, add cams and cubes, then I suspect things will change.

As far as an aftermarket head pipe, I will post the results with the Fuel Moto 2-1-2 head pipe when I receive it and perform the testing, Jamie has had gains with FM 2-1-2 over the stock pipe, so it should be interesting to see.

The Street Cannon's I tested did not have the catalyst, so it would be only speculation to say one way or the other, I personally don't care for the sound of them and if they were all that was available I would run the stock mufflers.

Daren

Quote from: spook on February 20, 2017, 01:04:12 PM
Ok, let me see if I am understanding this correctly....changing to a non-cat exhaust system had no gain in performance, but did improve the perceived sound?  Is that what I am reading?  So another words if you put on a set of Street Cannons, left the stock head pipe with cat the bike would perform the same as if you either gutted the stock header or spent $$ to get an non cat head pipe with the same slip ons. Am I missing something here?  Except for the sound the stock exhaust header with cat is as efficient as a non cat head pipe system???  How can that be?  So wondering outloud if one were to go with the $1200 HD "high flow" system with the cats in the Street Cannons how that would compare to an aftermarket non cat system or the current headpipe with Street Cannons alone?  If the performance is the same with or without the cat, besides the sound, why would one bother to change it...except maybe for the heat reduction?  Please set my thinking straight on this as I am confused.  Thanks in advance.

That is why this type of testing and posting is so important. No sales pitch or expected results, just honest testing an reporting.
Mr Sheffer is a class act for sharing this with us and HTT is the place to find this info.

Thank you very much for the clarification.  I take interest in this as my 2017 CVO street glide just landed at the dealer and my parts guy and wrench would be very interested in taking this bike to a stage 4 level....all I have to do is pay for it!  So before I let them rip into the bike I want to know what the cost/benefit ratio of various components.  I am done chasing dyno numbers but do miss the 120 T man twin cam in my 06 Street Glide.  Had a 2015 CVO SG which I left totally stock and it was ok for what it was, but just couldn't get excited about and sold it with 2000 miles on the clocks.  Thanks again for the information.  Keep it coming!!

Quote from: Durwood on January 15, 2017, 04:47:54 AM
I forgot to mention that I installed some stiffer clutch springs to help the Assist and Slip clutch, they improved the grip below 2500 where the torque is really coming on strong.

Daren, can you tell me more about the springs you used for this? Did they have any effect of lever pull?

Thanks,

K.

Quote from: NCTURBOS on February 23, 2017, 01:29:56 PM

Quote from: Durwood on January 15, 2017, 04:47:54 AM
I forgot to mention that I installed some stiffer clutch springs to help the Assist and Slip clutch, they improved the grip below 2500 where the torque is really coming on strong.

Daren, can you tell me more about the springs you used for this? Did they have any effect of lever pull?

Thanks,

K.

They are Barnett red springs, they come in packs of 6, PN 501-99-06091, the lever pull isn't bad, I noticed a slight increase.
I tested the springs vs stock. Barnett's springs were 110# each, and the stock springs were 75#, compressed to the same height.

Quote from: Durwood on February 23, 2017, 01:41:43 PM

Quote from: NCTURBOS on February 23, 2017, 01:29:56 PM

Quote from: Durwood on January 15, 2017, 04:47:54 AM
I forgot to mention that I installed some stiffer clutch springs to help the Assist and Slip clutch, they improved the grip below 2500 where the torque is really coming on strong.

Daren, can you tell me more about the springs you used for this? Did they have any effect of lever pull?

Thanks,

K.

They are Barnett red springs, they come in packs of 6, PN 501-99-06091, the lever pull isn't bad, I noticed a slight increase.
I tested the springs vs stock. Barnett's springs were 110# each, and the stock springs were 75#, compressed to the same height.

Ok, cool... I read elsewhere that the '17 springs are a lighter weight spring versus the '13-'16 OEM springs. And also that AIM offers a heavier duty spring that is a 120# version. Any idea what the installed height is? What compressed height did you measure them at??

Thanks!

Quote from: NCTURBOS on February 23, 2017, 02:53:37 PM

Quote from: Durwood on February 23, 2017, 01:41:43 PM

Quote from: NCTURBOS on February 23, 2017, 01:29:56 PM

Quote from: Durwood on January 15, 2017, 04:47:54 AM
I forgot to mention that I installed some stiffer clutch springs to help the Assist and Slip clutch, they improved the grip below 2500 where the torque is really coming on strong.

Daren, can you tell me more about the springs you used for this? Did they have any effect of lever pull?

Thanks,

K.

They are Barnett red springs, they come in packs of 6, PN 501-99-06091, the lever pull isn't bad, I noticed a slight increase.
I tested the springs vs stock. Barnett's springs were 110# each, and the stock springs were 75#, compressed to the same height.

Ok, cool... I read elsewhere that the '17 springs are a lighter weight spring versus the '13-'16 OEM springs. And also that AIM offers a heavier duty spring that is a 120# version. Any idea what the installed height is? What compressed height did you measure them at??

Thanks!

This was a quick test as I just wanted to make sure they were in fact stiffer, we checked them @ 1.000"

Didn't check installed height, but I will the next time I have the derby cover off.

Excellent work Darren;  Once again thanks for taking the time out of your busy schedule, and coming on here posting and reporting info back to us... Really appreciated!!  Keep up the good work brother..  Some sound clips would be really nice

The OEM springs from the CVO are 100 lbs each , they are now being sold as a SE item.. as I was they reduce the lbs on the 17 springs. SO you can also buy the early SE springs for a CVO .

Quote from: No Cents on February 18, 2017, 05:17:45 PM
that was a nice gain right there.   
Keep up the great work Daren. 
I can't wait to see the difference when you swap the cam out.   
Any thoughts on a cam yet?

Ray

Ray, I just received the word today, the prototype M8 cam is on the way to us from Cycle-Rama.

Quote from: GMR-PERFORMANCE on February 27, 2017, 03:08:52 PM
The OEM springs from the CVO are 100 lbs each , they are now being sold as a SE item.. as I was they reduce the lbs on the 17 springs. SO you can also buy the early SE springs for a CVO .

Steve, not sure I follow this.
Do you have the part number, lbs, and check height for the different springs?
Thanks

OEM number for the 15 spring is 11700002 retail is 4.99 each they are 100 lbs from my testing and as well what AIM has stated also.

Info on new spring is 100lbs .  Buy some and check it out .

Quote from: rich1 on January 18, 2017, 04:26:34 PM
Thanks for the info Durwood. Just so I understand about the vent hoses when you changed air cleaners. There was no oil drip from them? Do you think we can get away without venting them to atmosphere?

Rich, I want to update my reply to this question, I am now seeing a very small amount of oil discharge, nothing like a Twin Cam but it is there. Very minute.

Also in the process of testing the Cycle-Rama prototype bolt in cam, I will post the graphs when completed.