Mild Revperf 135" Jim's Big Bore Motor

[revperf]

This engine was built by Revperf's own Dusty Werner for a customer with an Ultra Classic.

Specs: Originally a OOB Jim's Injected 120

RP Ported Heads - OEM Valve Train Retained
RP 135" Big Bore Kit - 10.5:1CR
RP Prepared Flywheel Assembly
S&S 640G Cams
HP Inc. 62mm Throttle Body
V-Rod Injectors
PCIII-R
D&D Boarzilla

This motor has soooooo much more in it given the amount of CR that was used with the 640G cams. The customer was after an engine that would run on anybody's gas anywhere. The torque numbers reflect the lower dynamic cylinder pressure but the HP number is still waaayy impressive. To say that this is one bad Ultra is a real understatement. Pulls a trailer good too.

Brian

[BIG MAN]

dam thats sweet, I would be real happy with that ultra.

[hdmarsh77]

Me likey!!

[Cdouthitt]

Wow...but I hardly qualify a 135" 'er being mild.

[Mattman22033]

That is awesome. I wonder what kind of gas mileage you get with an engine like that...lol.

[DEVILDOG]

[Totenkopf]

Brian, too bad the owner didn't let Dusty step on it a little harder.

[revperf]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Brian, too bad the owner didn't let Dusty step on it a little harder.

Yeah, believe me he kicked and screamed and to be honest I was concerned with potential end result myself. When I consult on one of these motors I have a tremendous obligation to deliver the goods because of the amount of money, time, and emotional attachment there is with the bikes. The only real issue I had was cylinder pressure because of my experience with these cams. Just ask d'Wrench. The physical size came into play though and cushioned the blow. No pun intended.

As for it being a mild build or not. It really and truly is. It's just big. Keep it in perspective that this motor would be like building a 114 out of a TC88. Other than the cams and the T-Body essentially all the components from the "factory" were retained.

Thanks to all for the responses.

Brian
www.revperf.com

[turbotc]

Originally Posted by revperf

Yeah, believe me he kicked and screamed and to be honest I was concerned with potential end result myself. When I consult on one of these motors I have a tremendous obligation to deliver the goods because of the amount of money, time, and emotional attachment there is with the bikes. The only real issue I had was cylinder pressure because of my experience with these cams. Just ask d'Wrench. The physical size came into play though and cushioned the blow. No pun intended.

As for it being a mild build or not. It really and truly is. It's just big. Keep it in perspective that this motor would be like building a 114 out of a TC88. Other than the cams and the T-Body essentially all the components from the "factory" were retained.

Thanks to all for the responses.

Brian
www.revperf.com

If 162 HP for 135 Cubic Inches is mild, please tell me what your build performance describtion scale is for each of the below! I want to know how bad my engine's performance is....LOL

I'd love to just get a 1.1 HP per CI out of my 124. That's SAE 1.1. But then again, I only have about 2/3 the cam that engine is using.

1 HP per CI = 135
1.1 HP per CI = 148.5
1.2 HP per CI = 162
1.3 HP per CI = 178

[V-Rod Kit]

Originally Posted by turbotc

If 162 HP for 135 Cubic Inches is mild, please tell me what your build performance describtion scale is for each of the below! I want to know how bad my engine's performance is....LOL

I'd love to just get a 1.1 HP per CI out of my 124. That's SAE 1.1. But then again, I only have about 2/3 the cam that engine is using.

1 HP per CI = 135
1.1 HP per CI = 148.5
1.2 HP per CI = 162
1.3 HP per CI = 178

personally, i would consider 1.2 HP per cubic inch pretty mild.

my 347 camaro SS daily driver makes 423 at the wheels (over 520HP at the crank with 20% drivetrain loss), while not mild it is very streetable and makes 1.5 HP per CI and it's just a regular old pushrod V8...but what do i know...

Kit Sloan
'02 SOM SS M6 - 11.64 @ 119 mph NA on ET Streets - 12.44 @ 88 mph on drag radials :P
'05 Chopper Blue VRSCA V-rod - 12.0 @ 115 mph - Lot's of Chrome
.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by V-Rod Kit

personally, i would consider 1.2 HP per cubic inch pretty mild.

my 347 camaro SS daily driver makes 423 at the wheels (over 520HP at the crank with 20% drivetrain loss), while not mild it is very streetable and makes 1.5 HP per CI and it's just a regular old pushrod V8...but what do i know...

It's easier to make 1.5hp/ci in a V8 than it is in a air cooled V2. trust me!

In the race gas drag bike engines we have, we get close to 2hp/ci but that is an all out assault motor set on "kill" but still is meant to be somewhat reliable.

[turbotc]

Originally Posted by V-Rod Kit

personally, i would consider 1.2 HP per cubic inch pretty mild.

my 347 camaro SS daily driver makes 423 at the wheels (over 520HP at the crank with 20% drivetrain loss), while not mild it is very streetable and makes 1.5 HP per CI and it's just a regular old pushrod V8...but what do i know...

Kit Sloan
'02 SOM SS M6 - 11.64 @ 119 mph NA on ET Streets - 12.44 @ 88 mph on drag radials :P
'05 Chopper Blue VRSCA V-rod - 12.0 @ 115 mph - Lot's of Chrome
.

Your SS at the rear wheel just like that 135" HD is 1.2 HP per CI at the rear wheel too.

Most consider 15-17% drive train lost on cars. At 20% loss that 135 would be around 194.5 HP at crank for a 1.45 HP per CI engine. Not to mild to me at that either.

I for one, an I think most of of us consider what a dyno says engine power is applied to the drum/rollers.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by revperf

Yeah, believe me he kicked and screamed and to be honest I was concerned with potential end result myself. When I consult on one of these motors I have a tremendous obligation to deliver the goods because of the amount of money, time, and emotional attachment there is with the bikes. The only real issue I had was cylinder pressure because of my experience with these cams. Just ask d'Wrench. The physical size came into play though and cushioned the blow. No pun intended.

As for it being a mild build or not. It really and truly is. It's just big. Keep it in perspective that this motor would be like building a 114 out of a TC88. Other than the cams and the T-Body essentially all the components from the "factory" were retained.

Thanks to all for the responses.

Brian

I know you were playing a balancing act with getting just enough compression to get the cam to "turn on" versus satisfying the pump gas requirement and still getting enough air through the motor to let it breathe.

You done good! I love big dumb motors like that for big heavy bikes.

Out of curiousity, have you ridden the bike? Was wondering how it spools up with it being 4-3/8" by 4-1/2".

[route66paul]

RP ported heads? Is this a stock head that has been ported, or has it been revalved? Are the revperf heads? There is a lot of difference.

[V-Rod Kit]

Originally Posted by turbotc

Your SS at the rear wheel just like that 135" HD is 1.2 HP per CI at the rear wheel too.

Most consider 15-17% drive train lost on cars. At 20% loss that 135 would be around 194.5 HP at crank for a 1.45 HP per CI engine. Not to mild to me at that either.
i would consider 20% loss on my particular car (read: extremely heavy duty drivetrain) pretty conservative, but 15%-17% is the standard most would use on factory cars.

I for one, an I think most of of us consider what a dyno says engine power is applied to the drum/rollers.

yup, you're right...didn't consider the bike was at the rear wheel, DOH!

doesn't sound like nearly as mild of an engine now that i take that into consideration. 1.2 HP per CI at the crank i would still consider very mild, but since that's not what we're talking about here i retract my statement on this engine.