Se 120r complete engine?
#261
10-17-2010, 07:19 PM
"Seeker of Freedom"
#262
10-19-2010, 09:21 PM
"Seeker of Freedom"
I'll be putting in a 120R with the SE266E cam as soon as the parts all arrive. Most suggest the SE266E torque curve on this motor comes it a little too late in the rpm range.
Isn't anything in the 100-120 ft/lbs more than enough in the 1800-3250 range for a bagger. More than this is just extra wear on the transmission and tires.
Pushing the extra torque and hp up to the 3250-7000 range gives the rider the ability to be more selective of the power use.
Someone please explain why I need 135+ ft/lbs of torque at 2000-3250 rpm. It seems to me the torque curve on this cam would be beneficial to the logevity/reliability of a sanely ridden bagger.
Isn't anything in the 100-120 ft/lbs more than enough in the 1800-3250 range for a bagger. More than this is just extra wear on the transmission and tires.
Pushing the extra torque and hp up to the 3250-7000 range gives the rider the ability to be more selective of the power use.
Someone please explain why I need 135+ ft/lbs of torque at 2000-3250 rpm. It seems to me the torque curve on this cam would be beneficial to the logevity/reliability of a sanely ridden bagger.
#264
10-20-2010, 05:09 AM
Club Member
I have a TC88 Dyna with stage 1, which I only ride solo, and on which I have reduced overall gearing from the stock 25T compensator to a SE21T. That increases torque to the rear wheel by 19% over stock and gives wonderful performance for very little outlay. If we assume that bike gives around 80 ft.lbs TQ at the crankshaft, with my revised gearing of 3.75:1 (compared with factory 3.15:1) torque at the rear wheel is 300 ft.lbs (80 x 3.75). If we now take my weight plus that of the bike into account (180 + 670 = 850 pounds, or 850 / 2000 = .425 tons), we get a torque to weight ratio of approx 700 ft.lbs/ton (300 / .425).
Now let's turn to my dresser. With my wife on board and the bike fully loaded, ready to start our annual summer tour, I reckon our rolling weight is close to 1200 pounds, or .6 tons. The gearing on that bike is 3.37:1. So if I want my Glide to give similar performance when 2-up as my Dyna gives when solo, I need the same torque to weight ratio of 700 ft.lbs/ton. We have to reverse-engineer the above sums, so torque required at the rear wheel is 700 x .6 = 420 ft.lbs (compared with 300 for the Dyna). Torque at the crankshaft is 420 / 3.37 = 124 ft.lbs. In 5th gear on a 2011 bike, those figures are 420 / 3.407 = 123 ft.lbs.
Now that may not be 135 ft.lbs, but is not far short of it! If you want to whip a solo Harley while 2-up, or just enjoy some serious performance, you need a serious injection of torque. A few of us fall into that category!
Nothing less than a 131ci will do....
Last edited by grbrown; 10-20-2010 at 05:12 AM. Reason: Expanded.
#265
10-20-2010, 08:21 AM
"Seeker of Freedom"
That's very simple my friend! Just involves a little simple arithmetic.
I have a TC88 Dyna with stage 1, which I only ride solo, and on which I have reduced overall gearing from the stock 25T compensator to a SE21T. That increases torque to the rear wheel by 19% over stock and gives wonderful performance for very little outlay. If we assume that bike gives around 80 ft.lbs TQ at the crankshaft, with my revised gearing of 3.75:1 (compared with factory 3.15:1) torque at the rear wheel is 300 ft.lbs (80 x 3.75). If we now take my weight plus that of the bike into account (180 + 670 = 850 pounds, or 850 / 2000 = .425 tons), we get a torque to weight ratio of approx 700 ft.lbs/ton (300 / .425).
Now let's turn to my dresser. With my wife on board and the bike fully loaded, ready to start our annual summer tour, I reckon our rolling weight is close to 1200 pounds, or .6 tons. The gearing on that bike is 3.37:1. So if I want my Glide to give similar performance when 2-up as my Dyna gives when solo, I need the same torque to weight ratio of 700 ft.lbs/ton. We have to reverse-engineer the above sums, so torque required at the rear wheel is 700 x .6 = 420 ft.lbs (compared with 300 for the Dyna). Torque at the crankshaft is 420 / 3.37 = 124 ft.lbs. In 5th gear on a 2011 bike, those figures are 420 / 3.407 = 123 ft.lbs.
Now that may not be 135 ft.lbs, but is not far short of it! If you want to whip a solo Harley while 2-up, or just enjoy some serious performance, you need a serious injection of torque. A few of us fall into that category!
Nothing less than a 131ci will do....
I have a TC88 Dyna with stage 1, which I only ride solo, and on which I have reduced overall gearing from the stock 25T compensator to a SE21T. That increases torque to the rear wheel by 19% over stock and gives wonderful performance for very little outlay. If we assume that bike gives around 80 ft.lbs TQ at the crankshaft, with my revised gearing of 3.75:1 (compared with factory 3.15:1) torque at the rear wheel is 300 ft.lbs (80 x 3.75). If we now take my weight plus that of the bike into account (180 + 670 = 850 pounds, or 850 / 2000 = .425 tons), we get a torque to weight ratio of approx 700 ft.lbs/ton (300 / .425).
Now let's turn to my dresser. With my wife on board and the bike fully loaded, ready to start our annual summer tour, I reckon our rolling weight is close to 1200 pounds, or .6 tons. The gearing on that bike is 3.37:1. So if I want my Glide to give similar performance when 2-up as my Dyna gives when solo, I need the same torque to weight ratio of 700 ft.lbs/ton. We have to reverse-engineer the above sums, so torque required at the rear wheel is 700 x .6 = 420 ft.lbs (compared with 300 for the Dyna). Torque at the crankshaft is 420 / 3.37 = 124 ft.lbs. In 5th gear on a 2011 bike, those figures are 420 / 3.407 = 123 ft.lbs.
Now that may not be 135 ft.lbs, but is not far short of it! If you want to whip a solo Harley while 2-up, or just enjoy some serious performance, you need a serious injection of torque. A few of us fall into that category!
Nothing less than a 131ci will do....
Now math I can understand. Thanks that helped.
#266
10-20-2010, 12:50 PM
Club Member
#268
10-23-2010, 02:51 PM
That's very simple my friend! Just involves a little simple arithmetic.
I have a TC88 Dyna with stage 1, which I only ride solo, and on which I have reduced overall gearing from the stock 25T compensator to a SE21T. That increases torque to the rear wheel by 19% over stock and gives wonderful performance for very little outlay. If we assume that bike gives around 80 ft.lbs TQ at the crankshaft, with my revised gearing of 3.75:1 (compared with factory 3.15:1) torque at the rear wheel is 300 ft.lbs (80 x 3.75). If we now take my weight plus that of the bike into account (180 + 670 = 850 pounds, or 850 / 2000 = .425 tons), we get a torque to weight ratio of approx 700 ft.lbs/ton (300 / .425).
Now let's turn to my dresser. With my wife on board and the bike fully loaded, ready to start our annual summer tour, I reckon our rolling weight is close to 1200 pounds, or .6 tons. The gearing on that bike is 3.37:1. So if I want my Glide to give similar performance when 2-up as my Dyna gives when solo, I need the same torque to weight ratio of 700 ft.lbs/ton. We have to reverse-engineer the above sums, so torque required at the rear wheel is 700 x .6 = 420 ft.lbs (compared with 300 for the Dyna). Torque at the crankshaft is 420 / 3.37 = 124 ft.lbs. In 5th gear on a 2011 bike, those figures are 420 / 3.407 = 123 ft.lbs.
Now that may not be 135 ft.lbs, but is not far short of it! If you want to whip a solo Harley while 2-up, or just enjoy some serious performance, you need a serious injection of torque. A few of us fall into that category!
Nothing less than a 131ci will do....
I have a TC88 Dyna with stage 1, which I only ride solo, and on which I have reduced overall gearing from the stock 25T compensator to a SE21T. That increases torque to the rear wheel by 19% over stock and gives wonderful performance for very little outlay. If we assume that bike gives around 80 ft.lbs TQ at the crankshaft, with my revised gearing of 3.75:1 (compared with factory 3.15:1) torque at the rear wheel is 300 ft.lbs (80 x 3.75). If we now take my weight plus that of the bike into account (180 + 670 = 850 pounds, or 850 / 2000 = .425 tons), we get a torque to weight ratio of approx 700 ft.lbs/ton (300 / .425).
Now let's turn to my dresser. With my wife on board and the bike fully loaded, ready to start our annual summer tour, I reckon our rolling weight is close to 1200 pounds, or .6 tons. The gearing on that bike is 3.37:1. So if I want my Glide to give similar performance when 2-up as my Dyna gives when solo, I need the same torque to weight ratio of 700 ft.lbs/ton. We have to reverse-engineer the above sums, so torque required at the rear wheel is 700 x .6 = 420 ft.lbs (compared with 300 for the Dyna). Torque at the crankshaft is 420 / 3.37 = 124 ft.lbs. In 5th gear on a 2011 bike, those figures are 420 / 3.407 = 123 ft.lbs.
Now that may not be 135 ft.lbs, but is not far short of it! If you want to whip a solo Harley while 2-up, or just enjoy some serious performance, you need a serious injection of torque. A few of us fall into that category!
Nothing less than a 131ci will do....
#269
10-23-2010, 02:59 PM
I changed the clutch basket gear instead, to fix the stock "too tall" gearing issue. No regrets, but guys are also accomplishing the same thing with the trans pulley swap.
#270
10-23-2010, 03:28 PM
When I was changing my compensator last year, they only had them with the same amount of teeth as stock. The only way to change the amount on the front gear was to go without a compensator at all (no way I'd recommend that on a press fit crank). But this was not on an 88, it was the 96 (103 now).
I changed the clutch basket gear instead, to fix the stock "too tall" gearing issue. No regrets, but guys are also accomplishing the same thing with the trans pulley swap.
I changed the clutch basket gear instead, to fix the stock "too tall" gearing issue. No regrets, but guys are also accomplishing the same thing with the trans pulley swap.