V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The November issue of Motorcyclist has a writeup un the new 103" screamin eagle road king. On "their" dyno, it put out max torque of 84.4 @ 4250 (80.3 @ 2500) RPM, and 72.8 HP @ 5500 RPM, This is actually less than the torque and HP for the 95" stage 2, per the chart in the 2003 catalog, page 456 (torque of approx 93, HP of approx 76 or 77). Both are at the rear wheels. What gives?

1. I can't read
2. The 103" has stock (i.e. very restrictive) exhaust
3. Normal difference between engines
4. Difference between dyno's
5. Its bullshit (not sure which, maybe both?)
6. Only HIPPO knows, and will tell us hear

greg

ps.`The stock # the article refer to, are similar as in the catalog, 75 lbs T, 66.3 hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
You need check out all the stage 2 stuff. Pipes(slip-ons) A/C ,igniton cams ect ect ect. The S/E 103 Road King is a EPA bike!. It wont take much to wake it up.

By the way FYI : CW mag did a test on the 103" S/E built Dyna when it frist can out, it shot through the 1/4 mile in 11.53 sec.
What did MC say the 103" King ran in the 1/4?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,186 Posts
Hey GB I will leave the ultra tech side of this to my brother The Hippo,,,,,


.... from a business side, I would ask simply .... no shi+?


HD would not sell a CI it could not provide an upgrade for, for just a few $$$.

88 goes to 95.

The 103 goes where?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,086 Posts
HD claims the CVO SE RK will produce 100 ft. lbs. @ 3500 rpm, if Motocyclist is correct HD got some 'splainin' to do. I'm betting the magazine is mistaken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,300 Posts
The 100 lb/ft HD claims are at the crank and for comparison they claim 86 lb/ft for a stock 88" bagger.

The dyno numbers are correct, the numbers are at the rear wheel. I told you guys I could kick this things a$$ with a mild 95" when it first came out.

This 103" is completely different from one built with SE parts. It has what amounts to a hemi combustion chamber head, specific pistons and a special cam. The nature of this design is to be very inefficient, more so with relatively low compression.

As low as the numbers are it does pull like a freight train up to about 70 mph.

Image over substance. The american way these days.


Sure you can make a runner out of them, but it will be expensive as in addition to the usual stuff you will need new heads and pistons.
It never made sense to me to make a 103" out of an 88" when you can make a 95" for pocket change.
And for Greg, if you were planning the 103", and a good 95" as not enough, for about the same money as the 103" you can have a stock stroke 107". They pull nicely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Hippo, I think I followed you, but not sure. (btw, I have efi).

1. If I add the stage 2 95" kit, per catalog, do I have the same engine specs as a factory 95" SERK? I have slip ons, and will have a re-flash

2. If I add the 103" stroker crank, per the catalog, I gather I then have rather different engine specs than the factory 103" offered on the 103" SERK?

3. Depending on previous answers, I gather that if i bought a factory 95"SERK and added the 103" stoker, this is also different from the new 103" SERK offered by the factory?

I realize I sound confused. I think Jimmy K and Kags must have hit the nail on the head?

4. It seems like most of the HD aftermarket cylinder heads are for carbureted models, except perhaps the "performance heads" on page 465 (part #16592-99A) of the 03 catalog. However, if this works, do I get in a cycle where I should now get different cams (other than 203s) and maybe higher compression pistons. Then, I probably need at least a power commander, maybe the new HD programmable unit? Then, .......?

If i don't want to go this far now, is the stage 2 big bore kit w/ cams a good stopping point, or ??

I'm actually pretty happy with the current performance, i just get excited about having more power (must be an incurable disease).

thx, greg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,300 Posts
The answer is pretty much yes to all, or close enough.

A conservative 95 is all you need on a touring bike and all you can use in the real world as the bikes are chassis limited anyway.

The big engine bikes will pull you for a while, but they are harder to ride and live with over a distance when conditions turn unfavorable. (Try riding a 116" in the rain, LOL)

Don't get me wrong, I get a kick out of the real strong bikes. For a little while.

.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
380 Posts
It was the same story with the SE Road Glide or any factory 95 inch. Just like you said, needs heads and some other things to make it all work. And the factory rep said you couldn't build one of similar performance for the $30,000 of the SE Road King. Ya right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
Hey Hippo
The pocket change you speak of, is that the pocket of some fancy slacks or the pockets of MY old levi's? :)
What would you say needs to be done to make a mild or conservative 95" and what kind of power would you expect from that. The only thing done to mine performance wise is V&H straight shots rejetted carb and SE high flow air filter. And how is a mild 95" as far as reliability?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,300 Posts
If one already had a decent set of pipes, air cleaner and carburetor, you should be able to scrape the 100 ft/lb and 90 HP mark for a little over 1K in parts, and 90 ft/lb 80HP for half that. Many of the parts that go into these engines are really optional.

A properly done mild 95" is likely more reliable then a completely stock engine, under the same operating conditions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
Hey Hippo thanks for the quick reply but whats with the cheap shot on the V&H straight shots :)
What parts are involved in the liitle over a thousand for parts option and does that include head work? Sorry to bug you but I think my levi's could scrounge that up.
One more question if that 100 ft/lb and 90 hp option has head work involved, do you do head work at the shop you work at?

Thanks
Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,300 Posts
Facts are not cheapshots, if you like them fine, but they make for very poor midrange torque unless it is the new kind with a hidden crossover.

Yes, it includes headwork and we do it.

I'll go you one better, you can get about low to mid 90's TQ and low to mid 80's HP for a couple hundred bucks in parts if you pick the right combination. This one is without head work, but it can embarass some big engine bikes out of the hole. Once you get into 85 mph rollons the big bikes rule.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
Thanks for the info- it is something to think about and no they have no hidden cross over, This is the first I have heard of these.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top