I have been kicken this around a bit...........Jamie I have 255's in my Limited at the moment and am going to switch!! (you tuned my red 08 FLHT with 255's and a LSR) I was thinking the TW 5-6's but most are saying go with the 7's........ I am going to have the heads "freshened up" a bit as well.

Any imput??


Thanks and the bike sounds great!!!

 

To follow-up on 11sec.Shovel's questions, here are a few more:

1. Was the 110 with stock cams tuned before the dyno run or was is completely stock?
2. What mufflers and AC did it have installed?
3. Was compression increased when the cam-upgrade was made?

Jamie, you said that a stock TC96 would be better served with the Wood 6-6, presumably because of the compression issue. Since the CVO has even less advertised compression (9.15 vs. 9.2), why would the TC96 be less worthy of the TW7 upgrade than the CVO? Would engine size make up for the loss in low-end torque?

 

The 110" bike came in very well tuned, while we did not dyno tune it beforehand for the base runs he has had the PC-V and Auto Tune on his bike with our map since last year and he has frequently monitored and accepted the trims several times. When we did our initial evaluation the AFR and other parameters were excellent, we would not have even used the original runs for comparison if there was a question about the tune.

As noted earlier the only changes we made were the Wood TW-7H cams and the dyno tune. This bike has Klock Werks mufflers, a non catalyst head pipe and the original SE Ventilator AC that comes with the CVO.

As far as the TW-7H being a good choice for the 96" bike, that is a good question and a combination we have not tested. The differences in compression between the 96/110 are nominal, however the larger bore and different cylinder heads of the 110" motor are better suited to the .065 increase in lift with the TW-7H (as compared to the TW6-6) The increased displacement will certainly also help make up for the later intake valve closing as well.

 

The 96" and 110" motors use the same throttle body and injectors. The motors have slighly different advertised compression but this does very bike to bike based on variances in production tolerances. We make runs in 4th and 5th gear and generally try to get as close to 1:1 as possible, however the higher gear is more sensitive to vibration from increased wheel speed and parasitic losses so we use the graphs that show the best overall representation without having to change the smoothing. Doing it this way may not always show the highest numbers, but it is the most accurate. The runs posted for the 110 were done in 5th gear. We also always use SAE correction

 

Question for Jamie;

I have an 09' FLHTCU with a 103" BB, SE ventilator, Woods TW-7h, +4 cam gear, RH td's, PCV w/AT, no headwork. Do you think this would be my optimum setup without headwork for td's and if so what should my ballpark numbers be on a dyno? I'm very pleased with my current setup, great throttle response and pulls hard from 2500 on. In your opinion would headwork be a benefit riding 2-up 90% of the time or would it just benefit the top end?

Thanks in advance!

 

subscribed

 

Subscribed and (as a new owner of a 2010 RG) also interested in TW-7H "good question". Might need to install better springs/lifters (or something else) too but...

 

That's a good tune.

I would think the 7H's would harm the low-end in a stock TC96, like most aftermarket cams would do, and I agree the 6-6 would be a better choice among the Wood offerings.

 

Can you please post these dyno sheets again from this very old post? This is exactly what I am considering right now for my 16 CVO 110 pro street breakout.
Thanks!

 

go to fuelmoto.com and at the bottom of the page is a selection for dyno runs...lots and lots of dyno runs...nice resurrection by the way.