SE crankshaft
#31
10-13-2008, 12:04 AM
Tourer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Diamond bar, California
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, my Indy is stuck on S&S and thats 90% of the builds he dose and a comperable 95 bolt on kit that he dose makes 95 hp, mine makes 105, the torque is about 10 lbs less as well, so from that aspect i feel i have the better value.
alot of people here tout alot of other shops aswell as HQ and I think acoulpe have slightly better products, but in most street aplications there additional expence just isnt justified.
and to boot, if all the parts are put into the un-capable hands of novice HD Fi tuners it dosnt matter what combo you have it will still be slow.
what do you perfer as a FI tuner VS the SERT and why.
alot of people here tout alot of other shops aswell as HQ and I think acoulpe have slightly better products, but in most street aplications there additional expence just isnt justified.
and to boot, if all the parts are put into the un-capable hands of novice HD Fi tuners it dosnt matter what combo you have it will still be slow.
what do you perfer as a FI tuner VS the SERT and why.
Last edited by new_mentor70; 10-13-2008 at 12:11 AM.
#32
10-13-2008, 12:59 AM
well, my Indy is stuck on S&S and thats 90% of the builds he dose and a comperable 95 bolt on kit that he dose makes 95 hp, mine makes 105, the torque is about 10 lbs less as well, so from that aspect i feel i have the better value.
alot of people here tout alot of other shops aswell as HQ and I think acoulpe have slightly better products, but in most street aplications there additional expence just isnt justified.
and to boot, if all the parts are put into the un-capable hands of novice HD Fi tuners it dosnt matter what combo you have it will still be slow.
what do you perfer as a FI tuner VS the SERT and why.
alot of people here tout alot of other shops aswell as HQ and I think acoulpe have slightly better products, but in most street aplications there additional expence just isnt justified.
and to boot, if all the parts are put into the un-capable hands of novice HD Fi tuners it dosnt matter what combo you have it will still be slow.
what do you perfer as a FI tuner VS the SERT and why.
If your 95" is making numbers around 100/100, then your doing OK. 100/100 numbers at the wheel(SAE) is respectable.
#33
10-13-2008, 08:41 AM
Tourer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Diamond bar, California
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#34
10-13-2008, 06:20 PM
Tourer
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to keep the cost of engine parts/machining under $2000, labor and dyno NOT included. I'd be absolutely estatic to do the complete job, labor and dyno for around $2500max.
What can I do with a budget of $2-2500 knowing I will pay someone (indy) to do the labor?
mps
#35
10-13-2008, 10:17 PM
#36
10-13-2008, 11:05 PM
Um, nope never have heard em. Just because its "known" on a forum doesnt mean its a really well known or respected company.
But regardless, let me teach you something(this coming from someone who builds and repairs engines himself). Ya know, if you come down off that pedestal you have yourself on, I just might listen a bit to what you have to say. Lets see, I graduated ASE certified, have run my own auto repair shop, built and raced stock cars, drag raced big blocks for years, drag raced EVOs for years, last car which I just sold was a 66 Chevelle with a 383 600hp STROKER built by me, and I have been building my own bike engines for years. I am always up to learn something! Your opinion of yourself is only exceeded by your unwillingness to accept that there are good viable build options available.
Oversquare engines are ALOT smoother, as their inherant lack of piston to wall sideloading and RS geometry. I did agree that oversquare engines are inherently smoother, but I still maintain that an undersquare engine, built correctly is very smooth and can be very reliable if built properly.
"Grunt" down low has nothing to do with how long a piston "stroke" is. Its all about the cubes in reality. If you really want to get into a debate on this, just be prepared to look foolish. Geez, I must want to look foolish as I am debating this point....
"Stroking" an engine has no advantage other than a "quick fix" to gain extra engine volume. But it is far from the best way to do it. Stroking should only be done when boring isnt an option anymore. Which is not the case with the TC engine.
But regardless, let me teach you something(this coming from someone who builds and repairs engines himself). Ya know, if you come down off that pedestal you have yourself on, I just might listen a bit to what you have to say. Lets see, I graduated ASE certified, have run my own auto repair shop, built and raced stock cars, drag raced big blocks for years, drag raced EVOs for years, last car which I just sold was a 66 Chevelle with a 383 600hp STROKER built by me, and I have been building my own bike engines for years. I am always up to learn something! Your opinion of yourself is only exceeded by your unwillingness to accept that there are good viable build options available.
Oversquare engines are ALOT smoother, as their inherant lack of piston to wall sideloading and RS geometry. I did agree that oversquare engines are inherently smoother, but I still maintain that an undersquare engine, built correctly is very smooth and can be very reliable if built properly.
"Grunt" down low has nothing to do with how long a piston "stroke" is. Its all about the cubes in reality. If you really want to get into a debate on this, just be prepared to look foolish. Geez, I must want to look foolish as I am debating this point....
"Stroking" an engine has no advantage other than a "quick fix" to gain extra engine volume. But it is far from the best way to do it. Stroking should only be done when boring isnt an option anymore. Which is not the case with the TC engine.
I am debating and not forcing my opinions on anyone. Nor am I saying that the knowleagde I have is greater than others, specifically the professional builders here on the forum.
Oh, and not wanting to teach you a thing or two, here is the link to Darkhorse Crankworks. http://www.darkhorsecrankworks.com/
You can go read and form your own opinion.
Last edited by Dalton; 10-13-2008 at 11:07 PM.
#37
10-13-2008, 11:24 PM
Tourer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Diamond bar, California
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regards to bore sizing in an earlier post, I was instructed when dealing with pump gas to control the burn or flame travel in the most effective ways posible, the more that a bore exeeds 3.5 inches the harder it is to control, granted there are factors like combustion chamber shape and pistons. this has nothing to do with smoothness, just engine efficiency.
#38
10-13-2008, 11:36 PM
Now using the "performance marketplace" as a guideline. You don't see the big picture here. How do you know I dont see the big picture? I decided to build what I did based on research and knowledge. Most people don't know or want to spend the cash(alot more than $1000), to reduce their stroke length and increase their bore for a number of reasons including:
A. They don't know or see the benefit(as most people here or anywhere don't know as much as they think about vtwin engine physics) Nope, I am not a physicist but know a good runing engine when I ride one.
B. They don't want to spend the high cost(buy a crank, pay labor to split the case and install) Hmmmm, lets see, bought a crank, had it reworked, split the cases and had them bored to accept the 4.060 cylinders bored to 4.065 to take out the "waviness" your reference in HD cyls, timken bearing conversion, better piston oilers, etc.
C. Potentially pay to have their case bored as well See above
D. Then pay for a new set of jugs and pistons Yep, got 'em
Most people don't see the cost/benefit of reducing their stroke back to the original 4" setup then boring out their case to increase it back to where the original displacement was or greater. But most people don't know what serious engine building entails now either.
They prefer the quick cheaper alternative fix instead. Damn, I missed that benefit, you think they are still selling tickets? Seems to me I did just fine. And unfortunately it was not quicker or cheaper as you indicate it is to stroke rather than destroke.Whether this be racing or daily use. HP is HP. Whether your running a bagger or not, the ORIGINAL 4" stroke crank is better for power in terms of LONGEVITY. (Ask any competent builder how great it is to have the crank pin moved up into the RINGLANDS like on the HD 4 3/8" crank now used. Not the best design by a LONGSHOT!) And I gave many reasons why above. And any half competent shop/individual can get easy 100/100 # outs of the ORIGINAL 95" TC setup. More than enough to smoke the tires in the first 3 gears on a heavy bagger and still get a reliable 100k out of their build.Hey, what do you know, we agree on something, my 03 95" RKC made 102/112
Now getting to your buddy Kevin. Like I tell all. Stay away from HD cylinders. They are poor. They wave like spagetti and flex ALOT. The "Bigger bore" 4.065 diameter(or whatever they are)cylinders are a joke. If your buddy is going to spend the money to get his case bored out, then he should look into a pair of Axtell cylinders. They come in 4" bore, 4.125"(107" which is a very popular build around here), and 4.25"(114" which requires a very competent shop to properly bore the stock case out to this size correctly). Any of these setups can easily make 125/125 #'s or better with EASE. Do you have stock in Axtell? Yes, I tell everyone tha twill listen that I am completely satisfied with my HQ setup, but most times also qualify that with a statement that individuals must do their homework before buying. The companies you mention that do headwork all do fine work. To imply that HQ's is subpar is ludicrous. It is some of the nicest work I have seen.
Hell my 97" build (3.938" bore x 4" stroke which needed no case boring)just made 120/125 #'s on a dyno the other day with no AFR/ignition timing tuning whatsoever.
One point I agree with, I run the TCFI II and it is a good system, but disagree wen you say that SERT is not a good system. In capable hands, SERT is an excellent system and the new TTS Mastertune, though yet uproven with a lot of miles, appears to elevate the SERT to the next level.
This will be my last post to this thread so flame on if you wish, I have had my say.
#39
10-14-2008, 07:29 AM
Tourer
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply. As far as a dyno tuner. I have Jamie of Fuel Moto literally right near me. He has stated he can tune SERT on his dynos as well as PC-III so whatever I do will likely go to him for final tuning. But definately appreiate the reply as far as parts go.
mps
#40
10-14-2008, 08:54 AM
I think it is wrong to come onto a forum and "preach " to the masses of first time owners here and to those that have a basic understanding. Most are looking for good information presented in a way that make understanding easy. Is a 120 or larger engine for everyone, no. But to say the design is flawed and a POS is not accurate. I will not attack your views of a destroked engine. Look at what was available when tweaking the old 283 and 327 chevies, they were pure hp machines that would spin a zillion rpms for long periods without grenading. But, there is no substitue for cubic inches and strokers have been around forever and will continue to exist. So far you have bashed HQ and GMR, do you have anyone else in your sights? Provide information, and yes it can even be biased, and we all have our opinions, but for Pete's sake, dont ram yours down our throats.
One point I agree with, I run the TCFI II and it is a good system, but disagree wen you say that SERT is not a good system. In capable hands, SERT is an excellent system and the new TTS Mastertune, though yet uproven with a lot of miles, appears to elevate the SERT to the next level.
This will be my last post to this thread so flame on if you wish, I have had my say.
One point I agree with, I run the TCFI II and it is a good system, but disagree wen you say that SERT is not a good system. In capable hands, SERT is an excellent system and the new TTS Mastertune, though yet uproven with a lot of miles, appears to elevate the SERT to the next level.
This will be my last post to this thread so flame on if you wish, I have had my say.
A. I'm sure you have some engine knowledge, and its a good thing, its obvious this is part of our hobby. Though I don't think its up to par of say a master mechanic or equivalent.
B. I'm sure you do, but I bet you havent ridden a built 114" or 121" OS TC engine to appreciate what I'm talking about, thats evident.
C. I did, but still splitting cases for all cept those who are willing to do the labor themselves is costly. Most people I know don't want to split their cases and do the bottem end work that in all honestly is necessary for a good fundamental build.
D. Again see above as you would say.
E. ........
F. This is where I will diagree. The few HQ heads I have had a chance to play with were very similiar in design to Branch flowmetrics heads. Both places had very "pretty" work with polished chambers,but used overly large exhaust valves and the ports were too large. I mean, they still made much better power than stock TC heads, but I felt they were better suited for a very high revving high hp engine setup with a very narrow(high) rpm band.
Last I don't preach, but there is ALOT of misinformation on this board, and there are plenty of ways the cat can be skinned better around these parts.
For me bashing HQ. I didn't bash them at all. I just think there are better places for street set up heads.
GMR? Check their own posts on a few different forums. Its self explanatory. That place praises one part(and sells em)one year, and the next does the exact opposite. GMR is not a place I would do business with personally. And I have seen ALOT of complaints on GMR and places associated with GMR.
The SERT is fine for those who know how to properly set up a canned map system for their specific engine(which is actually pretty rare). But why waste so much time and money between the SERT and dyno time when a system like the TTS or TFCI can do so much more in a more accurate manner? Most people I have seen who have bought the SERT were in over their heads.........that includes the person running the dyno as well.
Last edited by SuperAhcmed; 10-14-2008 at 08:57 AM.