103 Big bore kit
#31
12-08-2008 | 05:12 PM
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 52
From: DFW
#32
12-08-2008 | 05:16 PM
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 52
From: DFW
Now you guys got me wanting the 103. I was all set to start and friends are trying to sell me on the HQ 107 but its more money than the 103 and would require more time to hide it from the wife. That being said, by the sounds of it the 103 should give me what I'm looking for. Alittle more lower gear grunt on take off, better for two up when that happens (not often) and not such a hit to the bank book.
110-115 HP and 115-125 ft/lb torque. You're not gonna touch those with the Stage 2 103" build, but it has nothing to do with whether or not it is a good build or a fun bike to ride with it. For anyone who doesn't want to go the full build route....it's a real nice kit.
#33
12-08-2008 | 05:17 PM
Retired Admin
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,865
Likes: 9,043
From: Wisconsin
I'm coming off a hot built 103 in the Heritage I traded in. It had SE ported heads and a 260 cam. It put out 105HP and 107TQ. I loved getting on that thing and really miss it. That being said, I'm pretty comfortable with the power I'm getting with the stock 96", but will be doing a lot of 2 up riding next spring after all this fricking snow melts. The dealer has a couple of non-HD builds he's trying to sell me, but the more I hear about the HD Stage II 103 with the 255, the more I like it. I'm not looking to do burnouts or blow out Hyabusas. I just want some extra torque at the bottom end and enough power to pass on the highway.
#34
12-08-2008 | 05:20 PM
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 52
From: DFW
Well I have a stock 96 heads untouched, Stock compression with SE211s, Power Curve, SERT, that dynoed 93HP and 107lbs of torque.
Going to 103 is nothing more then a 0.60 thousands overbore if I am not mistaken. Advantage over a 96 yes, but not major for money spent. What I personally do not like about the 255 is they run quickly out of poop at 4,000. There is not much duration in that cam. I have a buddy running a 103 and 255s and I smoke him with the 96 and 211s! Much of it has to do with the guy doing the tuning.
Going to 103 is nothing more then a 0.60 thousands overbore if I am not mistaken. Advantage over a 96 yes, but not major for money spent. What I personally do not like about the 255 is they run quickly out of poop at 4,000. There is not much duration in that cam. I have a buddy running a 103 and 255s and I smoke him with the 96 and 211s! Much of it has to do with the guy doing the tuning.
#37
12-08-2008 | 05:45 PM
Ultimate HDF Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,663
Likes: 7
From: Northeast Ohio
Get 200 + highway city, 240+ on long range rides now, I am a pretty agresive rider ( as much as you can be with the stock motor). Last bike did the SE 103 with HQ 500 cams, Tmax tuner, MPG dropped to 28 mpg, 07 RKC, loved the power and tq but did not like stopping every 120 miles to gas it up. Now have a 09 UC with beaucoup range and 6 gal tank.
I dont think you will find that people say the HD builds are bad, just that they do not produce the power of aftermaret builds. Chasing dyno numbers will get you all wound up, dynos vary and builds vary even with the same componenets, depending on who tunes 'em. When my 120 was a 103", peak numbers were 120/121, but it wouldn't live well there, rideable numbers after a bit of detuning were 112/118. You wont get a 103 HD build to produce those numbers, but again chasing numbers is not the way to go. Numbers are good for comparisons, but they are very misleading.
#39
12-08-2008 | 08:57 PM
Advanced
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
From:
Does anyone think it is a waste to do a 103 kit & not do anything with the heads?
I have 3k budgeted for motor work over the winter and I was planning on doing the SE 103" Stg III with SE251 cams
I talked to one of my buddies and he is telling me I am pissing $ away if I don't do something with the heads
I have 3k budgeted for motor work over the winter and I was planning on doing the SE 103" Stg III with SE251 cams
I talked to one of my buddies and he is telling me I am pissing $ away if I don't do something with the heads
#40
12-08-2008 | 09:40 PM
Stellar HDF Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,157
Likes: 858
From: Sandy, Oregon
Well there is no black magic here other then being 90 ABSL where I live.
I think the rideability would really delight and surprise you. On the bottom with the 211 is better then stock. How often, once out of the clutch and rolling do you ride at 2500 RPM or below thats lugging wasted power range to focus a power point IMHO. This bike comes in strong at 3000 RPM I have 90TQ move up just 200 RPM there 100TQ on the grip and climbing. If your trying to make good power below this range. Two things come to my mind. I am not spending much time in that range at all in any condition while riding. If I was, its lugging the engine by most standards. If I am passing someone I am not doing it at 2500RPM. When your on the fly usually I am usually in the 2700-2800 RPM range. This is only two hundred RPM away from where I have nice big amount of TQ. So yes this is the departure of a 255 that is nice power off idle, but is weazing after 4000RPM (bottom end cam.) To the 211 a mid range cam that shows up at the grip at 2800 and pulls strong to redline.
Its worth mentioning this bike has been dyno tuned twice now with two different mufflers. The first time with the Reinharts it did 86HP and 98 TQ. Only change was to CFR mufflers and a re-tune with a different tech just very recently. I put 11K on it with the first tune, lots of butt time with it. He has increased it to the documented 93HP 107TQ And believe me its there! different bike now, I can feel every bit of that graph between these two tunes! I personally think mufflers had very little to do with it.
Lets take a look real quick at where you start with a cam, and where you end up in the two cams we are discussing.
Stock Cam
Int 217/Exh 220 Duration 111.5 LSA 474/474 Lift
255 Cam
Int 211/Exh 235 Duration 105 LSA 550/550 Lift
211 Cam
Int 248/Exh 256 Duration 106 LSA 508/508 Lift
I showed these specs, so even those that do not fully understand cams can take a look. The 255 is really just a higher lift stock cam. It does not offer much for increasing fill time. Benefit is what we know, focused on low end power, and will run out of breath early. Especially with any head work and larger displacement. I suspect it also offers decent mileage. The 211 has some enhanced lift over stock, but has a much longer increase in fill time (Duration). This cam in the case of a 96 would easily support a bump in compression and some headwork without cam limitation. We need to remember an engine is just a big air compressor. The more air we can pump and move the more power we will make.
Now as much as I hate to go against the grain with many, the 255 would not be my choice for a 103. I think the 211 would out perform it especially with some port work. Its clear in allot of cases it contends quite well in a 96 in comparing the 103s running 255s with the overall numbers.
I have no dog in this fight, really, just good results that I am sharing to give folks something else to consider for themselves. I am hoping mine will be even a bit better when they figure out what is up with my bikes whacky F/C problem.
When I first put these cams in with the first tune results. I posted them and two other folks PMed me for info, and followed suit. I heard back after they got them installed and they real happy with their results. At the end of the day I personally think the SE255 gets a bit more credit then it deserves and the SE211 is one of the best kept secrets in the SE line up for nice useable rolling power out of a 96 or a 103. That said there are lots of good cams on the market and your mileage may vary.
Its just information here, I am not trying to change anyones mind. Just sharing the information.
I think the rideability would really delight and surprise you. On the bottom with the 211 is better then stock. How often, once out of the clutch and rolling do you ride at 2500 RPM or below thats lugging wasted power range to focus a power point IMHO. This bike comes in strong at 3000 RPM I have 90TQ move up just 200 RPM there 100TQ on the grip and climbing. If your trying to make good power below this range. Two things come to my mind. I am not spending much time in that range at all in any condition while riding. If I was, its lugging the engine by most standards. If I am passing someone I am not doing it at 2500RPM. When your on the fly usually I am usually in the 2700-2800 RPM range. This is only two hundred RPM away from where I have nice big amount of TQ. So yes this is the departure of a 255 that is nice power off idle, but is weazing after 4000RPM (bottom end cam.) To the 211 a mid range cam that shows up at the grip at 2800 and pulls strong to redline.
Its worth mentioning this bike has been dyno tuned twice now with two different mufflers. The first time with the Reinharts it did 86HP and 98 TQ. Only change was to CFR mufflers and a re-tune with a different tech just very recently. I put 11K on it with the first tune, lots of butt time with it. He has increased it to the documented 93HP 107TQ And believe me its there! different bike now, I can feel every bit of that graph between these two tunes! I personally think mufflers had very little to do with it.
Lets take a look real quick at where you start with a cam, and where you end up in the two cams we are discussing.
Stock Cam
Int 217/Exh 220 Duration 111.5 LSA 474/474 Lift
255 Cam
Int 211/Exh 235 Duration 105 LSA 550/550 Lift
211 Cam
Int 248/Exh 256 Duration 106 LSA 508/508 Lift
I showed these specs, so even those that do not fully understand cams can take a look. The 255 is really just a higher lift stock cam. It does not offer much for increasing fill time. Benefit is what we know, focused on low end power, and will run out of breath early. Especially with any head work and larger displacement. I suspect it also offers decent mileage. The 211 has some enhanced lift over stock, but has a much longer increase in fill time (Duration). This cam in the case of a 96 would easily support a bump in compression and some headwork without cam limitation. We need to remember an engine is just a big air compressor. The more air we can pump and move the more power we will make.
Now as much as I hate to go against the grain with many, the 255 would not be my choice for a 103. I think the 211 would out perform it especially with some port work. Its clear in allot of cases it contends quite well in a 96 in comparing the 103s running 255s with the overall numbers.
I have no dog in this fight, really, just good results that I am sharing to give folks something else to consider for themselves. I am hoping mine will be even a bit better when they figure out what is up with my bikes whacky F/C problem.
When I first put these cams in with the first tune results. I posted them and two other folks PMed me for info, and followed suit. I heard back after they got them installed and they real happy with their results. At the end of the day I personally think the SE255 gets a bit more credit then it deserves and the SE211 is one of the best kept secrets in the SE line up for nice useable rolling power out of a 96 or a 103. That said there are lots of good cams on the market and your mileage may vary.
Its just information here, I am not trying to change anyones mind. Just sharing the information.
First time I've seen numbers like that with a stock 96" but something looks funky with it regardless...the least of which is that the torque is typical 211...up the rev band. I suppose if you twist to 4K through every gear that bike would be fun to ride. Most Stage II baggers are making 95 ft/lb at 2.5RPM.