What was your cost for a 107?

 

great info. i have been considering the exact same thing. and with the cvo you're sorta painted into a box because mods would decrease its value i'm thinking. and that 30+grand is a big stack of dough. i think i'll be leaning toward a 103 stage II as well. i guess that's 9.5 flat tops and 255's?

 

It depends on what you build but I'd say around 4k would build you a ripper. That's heads, cams, jugs, pistons, pushrods, rockers, etc.

Go to Head Quarters website and start reading. A 107 is the deal in my opinion at least when it comes to a 96 inch engine. No case boring, more cubes and more torque.

Plus it's just plain cooler than having a 103, which everyone has.

 

I love my 103". Has plenty of power and my buddy can not get away from me with his CVO RD Glide. If I really pushed it I would probably leave him all together. Plus the stock cams just don't sound as good as my 255 cams.
The CVO's sure are good looking machines though. My boss just bought a Ruby Red and Typhoon Maroon SE Ultra today. Looks really good.

 

+1 on building a 96" to whatever you want. The CVO bikes are real lookers but stinkers from a performance standpoint. I first built to 103 and then to 120". Even a new Ultra built to 113 or 120" will be less money than a CVO bike. I also agree on checking the Head Quarters site, good info there and great components.

 

The CVO'ers seem to be getting around ~90hp and ~105ft/lbs after removing the cat and mufflers, open air cleaner, and dyno tune. Bone stock they're very restricted.

 

I would shoot myself in the head if I paid 30k for a CVO bike and it dyno'd at 90hp. Seriously...I think I'd jump off a building.

 

Yeah, I don't think I'd be overly thrilled about that kind of power out of 110". They do look really nice and have a lot of accessories on them. So the looks alone bump up the cost. I guess they're more lookers than performers. But for someone used to a stock bike, the CVO's could still seem pretty quick. They just don't know what they're missin'.