Who's online: Guests: 211
  • Grease Monkey Posts: 697
    Performance Poster Grease Monkey
    04 Sep 2019 08:15 PM
    Been doing a bit of digging about what these stock springs can handle, there is a lot of contradictory information floating about.
    I found a Harley document that gave the max lift after the the guide upgrade in 08 at no more than .595.
    One head porter in the states claimed that coil bind would occur at .680 and they had a safe lift of .640 although he didn't recommend it.
    Also found a video that I will link below  on stock 110 valve lift from Tman, they have a .625 lift cam that is a bolt in for the 110!
    That is above what Harley say and for that matter quite a few others.
    If my hearing is serving me right in the video he said the clearance between the top hat and seal was .695 and coil bind was .745!
    That would mean a .637 lift cam in theory would have a clearance of .058" when open and be over .100" off coil bind.
    Hope this works.
    https://www.facebook.com/100157792180/videos/vb.100157792180/10152823764087181/?type=2&theater
  • paulybronco Posts: 11789
    Forum Legend paulybronco
    04 Sep 2019 08:55 PM
    Quoting Grease Monkey on 04 Sep 2019 08:15 PM
    Been doing a bit of digging about what these stock springs can handle, there is a lot of contradictory information floating about.
    I found a Harley document that gave the max lift after the the guide upgrade in 08 at no more than .595.
    One head porter in the states claimed that coil bind would occur at .680 and they had a safe lift of .640 although he didn't recommend it.
    Also found a video that I will link below  on stock 110 valve lift from Tman, they have a .625 lift cam that is a bolt in for the 110!
    That is above what Harley say and for that matter quite a few others.
    If my hearing is serving me right in the video he said the clearance between the top hat and seal was .695 and coil bind was .745!
    That would mean a .637 lift cam in theory would have a clearance of .058" when open and be over .100" off coil bind.
    Hope this works.
    https://www.facebook.com/100157792180/videos/vb.100157792180/10152823764087181/?type=2&theater
    Hilly he does say water cooled head...are the perhaps different to the std head perhaps?
  • Krash Kinkade Posts: 2619
    Forum Legend Krash Kinkade
    05 Sep 2019 05:48 AM
    I suppose in the end, it's what you want out of your motor & what sort of miles you are doing. using stock valve springs to maximum lift possible. they won't last long. but using stock springs that can handle those lifts. but with stock lift cam. they will last a long time.
    my sporty set up to take 650 lift but am using a 560 lift set of cam's as I just want to ride a lot, not have to keep pulling it down.
  • Hoodeng Posts: 193
    Stock Poster Hoodeng
    05 Sep 2019 11:04 AM
    There are a number of 110" configurations,obviously the first is the CVO110, the head on this motor is stand alone head, it had a 2.080" inlet valve and a spring kit that would struggle with .600" lift.There was a 110+ head that had a 2.120" inlet, cast as cnc ports and capable of more lift depending on the spring kit installed.Then there is the ported std casting used on the 103-110" bolt on kit,this has a cnc ported standard casting with a 1.875" valve, but pretty much only safe to .580" lift, not to mention Rushmore versions.
    Harley Davidson have made stage 4 engine kits since the inception of the TC, these kits have changed iterations many times over the years,the first stage 4 was a cracker, best heads at the time and one of the bigger performers, the current stage four is a smaller cam and ported stock head version.So if you have a stage four on your bike you need the part number of the kit that was used to replace correct parts, bear in mind some parts for the early stuff is no longer available, even though the kit has the same name.
    So back to the 110 thing, you need to know which version of 110 you are talking about as there are a number that use the same name but different parts, particularly the heads,, myself, i would want to run the vernier over the head and springs before i commit to any change in lift and clearance, but i am sure each guy passing comment knows which head he has in front of him, but the rest of us could have a different understanding of what he has in front of him.

    Cheers.
  • Grease Monkey Posts: 697
    Performance Poster Grease Monkey
    05 Sep 2019 02:32 PM
    Fella's there is no confusion as to what heads Brandon has in the video, latest version of the stock twin cam 110 CVO heads, same clearances applie to the water cooled version he said.
    The video is what it is, I've not measured clearance on mine so no first hand corroboration from me.
    He obviously had the seal off for the coil bind test and the springs out to measure top hat to seal but it got me wondering what others have found?
    Reason being a mate of mine ran .637" lift cams in his stock CVO softail, it was a dog under 3000rpm as you would expect being later inlet closing cam but it suffered no mechanical issues prior to him taking them out, when he told me about it I was puzzled and started looking.
    Tman specify there 625 cam for the stock CVO 110 as a bolt in cam, it is a .625" lift cam, hence the video.
    I have no idea if the stock springs would hold up for any length of time but in the litigious U S of A you would be a game individual to recommend your product if it was not fit for purpose.
    Hoody you pretty much said what I believed about .600" lift, that was one of the factors in me picking a .590" cam, now it seems a bit up in the air. They way Harley change supplier's without part number changes make knowing who's springs they are an unknown, well to me anyway.
  • Hoodeng Posts: 193
    Stock Poster Hoodeng
    05 Sep 2019 06:22 PM
    The reason he got away with .637" with the stock springs is because the spring is in bind with .660" hence the max lift of .600"  he may be only .023" away from bind but it will still work regardless of the fact it needs .060" minimum clearance @ full lift.
    Stock CVO's only have 9.3:1 comp that is why they run a short inlet close, there are a few bolt ins for the CVO like the S&S MR103, Andrews 57H or SE585 which have overlap that the 255 does not, and will give the engine a lift but not make it stellar .Unfortunately if the engine does not have decent comp the thing will only go backwards if you try adding too later inlet close, if the engine does not have decent cranking comp it may not even recover with revs,,its just plain over cammed regardless of its larger capacity.
    I have seen very good results when a stock 110CVO has been tuned and that has been with the 255.
    A .590" cam will work well,the CVO springs are good quality no problem there, so you can do what you are doing with confidence,myself, the vernier is out all the time.
    I have seen stuff bolted into engines over the years that just defies reason and reports to me are the thing rode fine,,,thing is the rider probably haven't ridden anything else for a comparison.I have done engines for guys that pull good numbers and reports back from riders is that they can't feel any difference,, they only ride to 3.5K and the engine is pumping at 6.2K, tell them to crank it up a bit and they load their kimbies on their first try.
    I also hear from people that can out ride anyone in the hills and attribute it to their bikes superior performance, maybe they are tougher than me?, i know what hp mine makes and have an idea of what others make and mines up a bit,maybe I'm chicken?? who knows?I'm probably not that good a rider but I'm not that stupid to race blind.

    Cheers.
  • Grease Monkey Posts: 697
    Performance Poster Grease Monkey
    05 Sep 2019 08:51 PM
    He was told to put them in, he isn't that mechanical, then he put 555's in, took them out as well, when I met him the 255's were back in it, I did a road tune for him a couple of years ago, he loves it.
    So the video is bullshit then?
  • Hoodeng Posts: 193
    Stock Poster Hoodeng
    06 Sep 2019 09:57 AM
    Its not bullshit with the head he tested, but i have tested plenty of heads that come in at a lot less than the one he did. I would still check each head before a substantial lift change was made.There are also instances of valve to valve when TDC's are substantial.
    When CVO heads are ported the inlet diameter is changed not just to pick up curtain area but to optimize the angle set that is used, that can't be done with a stock valve even though the change in diameter can be as little as .045". These heads can make 130+hp.
    I still get surprised at the range of cams that some think will bolt in and work well, guys confuse the term "bolt in" to mean it is applicable to their current engine and will give a performance advantage. The term 'bolt in" only refers to the mechanical clearances required for it to operate,not its performance potential in any engine that it is installed in.
    Many years ago in discussion with a major cam suppliers representative  the conclusion was made that cam lists are printed upside down and that most guys go to the bottom of the page straight away,so if big is good,bigger is better and the biggest is the best.This is not the case.
    When the .637" lift cam was installed, was the customer told that he needed a major change in compression? or just told the cam would bolt in without a problem which by all accounts it did, it just didn't perform.

    Cheers.
  • Grease Monkey Posts: 697
    Performance Poster Grease Monkey
    06 Sep 2019 10:57 AM
    Yep understand all that, no argument here, no he wasn't told that it needed more comp until he was talking to me about it recently, I didn't know he had had them fitted, not gunna name names but his advisor really should of known better, give you a ring about my heads soon, don't want to waste your time until I have the coin to get them done but a plan is a start I guess.
    Thanks for the interest Hoody.
    Cheers.
  • Hoodeng Posts: 193
    Stock Poster Hoodeng
    06 Sep 2019 11:23 AM
    Mate, you would not be surprised at the amount of people out there that will take money that is burning a hole in a customers pocket regardless of the outcome, some actually have no idea of the relationship of parts and their effect on outcomes, the best some can come up with is "here, the catalog says".
    That said, as you know we get people come through the door that have a fixed amount of money and performance level in mind  that they want the job pruned to fit. Some can not bring themselves to accept that a profit will be made from the work you do for them, i for one am not here to have a machine shop full of palls that think my life revolves around them going faster for nothing!! i need to make an income to exist. I would rather knock a job back where there is an unrealistic expectation versus dollar expenditure, than have a customer that thinks poorly of what has been done. You look to be around the same.

    Cheers.
  • Grease Monkey Posts: 697
    Performance Poster Grease Monkey
    06 Sep 2019 11:50 AM
    I'm self employed Hoody, I get it. Man's got a make living, if he can do that doing something he loves then he is also blessed.

  • paulybronco Posts: 11789
    Forum Legend paulybronco
    07 Sep 2019 07:48 AM
    Quoting Grease Monkey on 06 Sep 2019 11:50 AM
    I'm self employed Hoody, I get it. Man's got a make living, if he can do that doing something he loves then he is also blessed.

    Very true gents, we see it on this very forum from people who believe they should be highly paid for their jobs but cry rip off when required to pay for goods or services.
  • Grease Monkey Posts: 697
    Performance Poster Grease Monkey
    07 Sep 2019 09:36 AM
    I was considering fitting AV&V .650" double springs myself and let the heads be what they are, I have most of the tools and the skill set to do that barring the installed height mic and seal installer which can be had for not a lot of dollars but that still leaves all the other 110 head issues there in the wings, I don't have reamers and cutters nor a press let alone the know-how to address the ports, sure I could do some blending and minor clean-up stuff but that would most likely just make me feel good without any noticeable performance gains, takes me awhile to sort stuff in my head so I'm happy with a decision, end of the day if you want something done properly you need to get someone that knows what they are doing to do it and pay them, the way I see it is you agree on a plan, the work gets done, the man gets paid, everyone is happy.
  • Hoodeng Posts: 193
    Stock Poster Hoodeng
    07 Sep 2019 10:41 AM
    You don't need an install height mike, i have used inside callipers and vernier for as long as i can remember, i have set down spacers for spring testing. You can turn up all the seal installers..Which reminded me of one of the install issues with the 110" ,there have been different stem seals used over the years that can limit high lifts.

    If you want to invest in a piece of equipment that will relate to your work no matter what level you aspire to is a good valve spring tester, i know they are expensive in comparison to your total tool budget outlay, this tool takes the guess work and reliance on package information out of the equation and gives you empirical data.
    My first tester was a Yother which i thought was the best thing,,,,then i bought a Crane 99851-1 calibration spring after i thought i was getting some wandering test results,well, Yother to back of shelf [although for most installation circumstance is a more than worthy tool], and bought a Rimac Digital,this thing although no longer available is an industry standard test piece of equipment, i run the test spring in the thing weekly,this thing is right on the money every time.  If it ever dies i will be getting a Performance Trends Plus version, it has print out features that are very handy if i have to supply back to customers not just pressure at lift points,some guys want rate and consistency of batch as well.
    There are also a bunch of set down gauges, and various setting up tools that have accumulated over the years as jobs dictated their necessity. Starting out is a bitch sometimes especially if it is only a hobby, which is how i started and then went full time nearly thirty years ago, is there any tool that is unnecessary? probably, but each time i use a tool that has not been used for years i'm pretty happy that i have it!

    Cheers.
  • Grease Monkey Posts: 697
    Performance Poster Grease Monkey
    07 Sep 2019 10:51 AM
    That pretty much makes my point, I don't have 30 years left either lol, can't teach experience Hoody. Try and call you on Monday when I finish the run.
  • Grease Monkey Posts: 697
    Performance Poster Grease Monkey
    10 Sep 2019 07:28 AM
    Thanks for chat yesterday Hoody, much appreciated, looked up valve spring testers, I can see why you like the one you have and even it's potential replacement, but seeing as this might well be the only heads I ever play with as to me it's not even a hobby I'm going to use one like this, will check it's calibration but it will have to do.HD Forums Australia - Screenshot_20190910-072601_1.png

  • speedzter Posts: 1782
    The 'Rat
    Motor Head speedzter
    10 Sep 2019 08:31 AM



  • Hoodeng Posts: 193
    Stock Poster Hoodeng
    10 Sep 2019 09:07 AM
    Any time GM. That tester is like the first one i got and will take a lot of presumption out of your work. Only thing he didn't do in the video was use set down spacers on the inner spring to replicate the installed dimensions.And it's cheap, i paid more than that near thirty years ago.
    Do buy a calibration spring with it.

    Cheers.
  • Grease Monkey Posts: 697
    Performance Poster Grease Monkey
    10 Sep 2019 09:29 AM
    Thanks for the vid speedster.
    Copy that on both counts Hoody.
    Dunno why I thought I needed the mic, maybe because I like little tools and got tunnel vision, I'm a fitter and turner by trade and an inside caliper didn't even occur to me, early dementia perhaps :)
© 2019 - 1.0.4.2