Is true that the TC88 and the B engine were originally designed to be 95 cubic inches. I'm now thinking I may do the conversion this winter. But I don't wanna put any un do stress on the counter balancers, if it can not handle the increased torque.
No probs. They (S/E) now got a 103 ci for the "B" motors.
S/E performance divison played a major part in the development of the TC. That is why its so east to go to 95". Its easer to get epa emission (and cheeper) from 88ci + the 88 is far stronger than the 80" evo it replaced. Why do any more when they can make a killing on guys like us that always want more?
Torque has no effect whatsoever on the balancers, but they are very rpm sensitive. You want to keep these engines under 6200 and probably under 6000.
They also are sensitive to rate of acceleration, if you miss a red line shift or shut it down on a dyno without pulling the clutch in, the drive sprocket for the balancers can slip on the crank throwing the timing of the balancers out and then you will be riding a self destructing paint mixer.
I really appreciate the response Hippo. After I wrote this thread, I realized that I had not expressed my question very well. I did already know sixty two hundred R's was my limit. I just didn't want to throw on some big bore jugs and worked heads, along with some trick intake and throttle body. To find out later on that the bottom end is no match for the top end.
When I bought this bike I said the Screamin Eagle was all I was gonna do, but now I find myself going, hmmmmmmm.
It's all compromises. On the few really large B engines we built we welded the sprocket to the crank eliminating this concern. The problem with this is that if the balancers were to fail they might lock the engine.
Not what you want to do for Joe Blow walking in off the street, but no problem with a good rider.
The japanese engines with balancers as far as I know all have the drive sprockets keyed to their drive. Maybe Harley had too much of a liability concern or not enough faith in the system. The balancers are huge compared to other bikes and have a lot of inertia once spooled up, this is probably part of the equation.
I actually can't belive I am saying this, (since my last Harley was an EVO engine) but so far (only 500 miles on the new Fatboy) the 88B with Stage 1 and the Vance and Hines BigShots Long (and some ECM reprograming) seems to make a farily decent bike!
Took the misses for a ride today and harldley knew she was there! Of course I guess I'm driving pretty mellow now days, but pleanty of torque for us to scout around in traffice on!
Yes, maybe in three years I'll pop here to 95, but that will probably be the max for this bike.
I'll just have to wait the 5+ years for my 105 cu+ engine on a Road King
Just when I start thinking logically again, I hear numbers like one sixteen cubes. thx Hippo. In reality, i'll probably just stay with the standard stage one stuff. I'm very happy with the performance of my H-D. I gotta blame Mr. Price, if he would not have created such an awesome forum I wouldn't beware of all the way ko0L things that one can do.
I think from a money stand point that the SE 103 is way over priced. I just bought a Axtell 107 kit . no rod speed change easier on the balancers. I think the biggest problem we have seen with the B motors is the balancers spinning but it is not from over revving but..... chopping the throttle when the motor is maxed in lets say 2nd gear and letting the motor decel hard has caused a few to come apart. It depends on your riding stlye big cube mmotor that are long stroke are not motor to be lugging in city traffic. I think Merch tells you that they like their motors over 2800 at all times. Hippo hit though a good 95 will run great on the street. Not uncommon to use se parts and get 100/100 out of a 95 motor. good luck