117 with a R&R 5 piece crank : V-Twin Forum: Harley Davidson Forums

HDWRENCH · 05-26-2009, 03:15 PM

Having built close to a dozen of engines with the R&R 5 piece crank, these engine are soooooo smooth you think you are not on a hd but a metric engine. I made a pull at a RPM that I never do. With a big inch engine they will not allow you to run them down to 1300 rpm smoothly. Again this is not how I make pulls, it was only to show how smooth these cranks are. Myself and the customer are amazed at how fast and smooth the engine is . The engine made 100 ftlbs of tq at 1600 RPM !!!

05 dyna belongs to Snap
parts are as follows
R&R crank
Jims timken ( upgraded)
R&R cast heads
R&R 615 cam
HPI 51 MM t/b 4.3 injectors
Axtell 117 kit compression is set at 10.9.1
V&H pro pipe.
5th gear pull ( 1:1 ratio)

rdking2005 · 05-26-2009, 03:28 PM

Sweet... Nice set-up Mark!

towboattrash34 · 05-26-2009, 03:51 PM

very nice...

syco · 05-26-2009, 04:37 PM

Now that is a nice looking sheet! Plus its in SAE!!! Beautiful build.Nice job.

TXCHOP · 05-26-2009, 05:34 PM

WOW! Nice numbers and curves for that build..Wouldn't mind riding that.

Just curious though, how does starting the run early show the smoothness of the crank?
Also, the 1.24 correction factor? does that mean Uncorrected sheet showed 97.08/103.18..Not being a smartass, just trying to learn as i am buying a dyno soon as well and need the edjumacation....Just to compare Graeme's sheet was 1.11 cf at similar elevation but different weather..

Totenkopf · 05-26-2009, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXCHOP

Also, the 1.24 correction factor? does that mean Uncorrected sheet showed 97.08/103.18..Not being a smartass, just trying to learn as i am buying a dyno soon as well and need the edjumacation....Just to compare Graeme's sheet was 1.11 cf at similar elevation but different weather..

2.3 in-Hg and 13*F could easily explain the cf diff.

24.8 is pretty low pressure.

FlyingGasCan · 05-26-2009, 06:35 PM

Dan,

Just to compare characteristics involved, my motor was was tuned north of here where actual elevation is near to 3700' and corrected air is pegged close to 4500 feet. I think elevation for Prescott is 5368 feet uncorrected so there may lay some difference if you measuretheir variables. If I was to tune here in town, the corrected air can be anywhere between 5000' to 7500' feet dependant on weather.

The shop that tuned mine also uses wide band sensors to read the air/fuel as where many others use a sniffer in the pipe. Not sure how Steve measures the AFR but would bet there's some variance there as well. Ran mine on another dyno on Sunday and the sniffer showed a lean AFR with room to add more fuel across the board. Might take some injectors with me and buy a TTS with tune from Steve if I can get down there in the next month, and provided he has time to put a tune on it.

BTW, very nice sheet Steve, and yes I would agree these cranks run very smooth. I've noticed a big difference when cruising down below 2000rpm but was hesitant to drop lower and kicked her down, but it did handle 1800 no problem under light load with little vibration at all. Very cool!

claydbal · 05-26-2009, 06:55 PM

a CF of 1.24 means it showed 24% above actual. unless my louisiana math is bad again.

great looking curve BTW. wish i could afford the 5 piece crank, what is the difference in weight between the RR crank and oem? anyone ever weigh em?

FlyingGasCan · 05-26-2009, 06:57 PM

6lbs as told to me by Reg at R&R

claydbal · 05-26-2009, 07:16 PM

that sure was a quick call. so drag racers would be happy!! only lose 6# tq going from sea level to 6000 ft. sure would make the racelogs easy to keep up with.

reggie is a great guy and sure is a smart fellow, but i dont think he could explain how to unscrew a spark plug in 2 minutes. LOL and at 7pm his time?

FlyingGasCan · 05-26-2009, 07:23 PM

I didn't call him. He told me that a few weeks ago when he called to follow up with me on the crank.

HDWRENCH · 05-26-2009, 07:59 PM

being that I use win pep 7 I cannot make any changes in the elevation to work towards better numbers. When i got the dyno it defaulted to 10,000 feet. I set it to the 5325 which is what my GPS showed in the shop. Made another run and nothing changed at all. From what I understand the 7 version is controlled by the stack unlike the earlier 6 version. I post my run conditions , you will see that it was almost 100 in the booth and we had a storm rolling in. So add the elev and the low pressure and you ahve a lousy dyno day. Not that I ever get a break as far as the elev goes not moving. I have had customer get back to mne after I tune and they run the bike on the dyno day deal in phoenix, as well I have tested bikes that where tuned at 1500 ( phoenix give or take on the 100% accurate elev) and found that my dyno is middle of the road , no highs or lows so happy about that. AS we all know hard to compare to the 1 per type of deal.

I will have to check on the uncorrected... never look as I only run in SAE , all final numbers are in a 1:1 ratio. I still think that even with uncorrected and sae at high elev that it is not a across the board numbers game. AS well the big inch engine will vary from stockers. Example a 96 bike tuned here and then re checked at lower elev will show almost no gain numbers wise, but take a big inch bike and do the same thing and you will that the correction factor is working but the final power out put at 1500 feet is more than my sheet will show. I have no idea where the cut off point is or if there even is one.

TX chop once you get a dyno you will understand the smoothness down low. For example lets say you have a fully prepped crank and you let a engine of this type come down into the very low rpm range they get jerky, you can feel the power pulses, this has to do with the balance factor of the crank. ( That really is something to call Reggie SR about , that way you dont get second hand info )

As for the

claydbal · 05-26-2009, 08:08 PM

steve, i wasnt busting your chops on your dyno, just discussing the CF. that has been a topic as of late you know. some actuals are higher than SAE, some SAE are higher than actual. here, unless its summer, SAE and actuall are almost identical.(i see SAE at .96,.98 and 1.0 usually. STD is higher, and that was the standard untill recently. then there is the argument with the 07 up bikes where 6th is 1 to 1 but primary and secondary is so much taller and parasitic loss is higher.

that is all.

i am curious as to the weight of the rr 5 peice vs oem though. is the rr crank much lighter?

syco · 05-26-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by claydbal

steve, i wasnt busting your chops on your dyno, just discussing the CF. that has been a topic as of late you know. some actuals are higher than SAE, some SAE are higher than actual. here, unless its summer, SAE and actuall are almost identical.(i see SAE at .96,.98 and 1.0 usually. STD is higher, and that was the standard untill recently. then there is the argument with the 07 up bikes where 6th is 1 to 1 but primary and secondary is so much taller and parasitic loss is higher.

that is all.

i am curious as to the weight of the rr 5 peice vs oem though. is the rr crank much lighter?

I was told the same as Flyinggascan on the weight of the 5piece crank by Randy.Its supposed to be 6pounds lighter than OEM.

snap · 05-26-2009, 09:42 PM

Steve, Thanks for putting up the sheet as i requested. Its great to be back in the saddle again.
The thing is so frikken fun to ride! This motor pulls like the proverbial locomotive, power everywhere yet smooth and easy to ride, and no pinging

:woohoo
To say im pleased is a major understatement. Steve and michele, YOU GUYS ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!