Victory Motorcycle Forum banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I rarely post but visit often. I have two chariots in the stable; '11 xct and a '12 hammer; both equipped nicely with the standard bolt ones....I am trying to decide what to do this year while the snow is falling mainly focused on the hammer; Last dyno session yielded 111hp/121tq. Not sure I am a fan of an iron sleeve in a almuminum jug; Lloyds 116 BB. That being said, what's the strongest performing stock bore 106 and what did it take?Deck the jugs with a big cam? Deck/mill/cam/piston.......my tuner, a respected harley builder, is pushing me away from the cast iron liner. Stating there is horse power to be had in a stock bore siting his personal 95ci HD that pulled 132 Hp.....

Best regArds,
Brian

'11 xct
Timing wheel,filter,Lloyds vfc, d&d slips

'12 Hammer
RPW slash, pcv,s&s intake, dyno tuned
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,018 Posts
I rarely post but visit often. I have two chariots in the stable; '11 xct and a '12 hammer; both equipped nicely with the standard bolt ones....I am trying to decide what to do this year while the snow is falling mainly focused on the hammer; Last dyno session yielded 111hp/121tq. Not sure I am a fan of an iron sleeve in a almuminum jug; Lloyds 116 BB. That being said, what's the strongest performing stock bore 106 and what did it take?Deck the jugs with a big cam? Deck/mill/cam/piston.......my tuner, a respected harley builder, is pushing me away from the cast iron liner. Stating there is horse power to be had in a stock bore siting his personal 95ci HD that pulled 132 Hp.....

Best regArds,
Brian

'11 xct
Timing wheel,filter,Lloyds vfc, d&d slips

'12 Hammer
RPW slash, pcv,s&s intake, dyno tuned
Could be a typo but a 95CI is a Bored 88" and has been proven to put on more Power than the Stock 96 ", which is an 88 with a bit more Stroke .. HD went from 88" to 96" in 2007 ..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
95 or 96 ci is irrelevant. Point I'm interested in is if he is making 132hp on a 95 or 96ci displacement, shouldn't our 106's be capable of 130+ without a displacement change???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
My first response is 'let me see the dyno' when someone claims to make 132 HP out of a naturally aspirated 95ci HD. My second response is 'how many times have you rebuilt it?" You can get some good numbers from an HD mill, but generally they aren't going to last. You vic will put down whatever it's putting down till you get tired of running it.. 120/120 as a daily driver solid as steel isn't that unusual.

There's also the type of tuning done... you can tune a bike to make 'max HP' and it would SUCK to ride.. a race bike designed to make those big numbers at redline RPM with a really horrible curve would just be no fun.. it's just bragging rights. Give me a bike with a torque curve flat as a ducks ass and you got a bike that's fun to ride, even if the HP # isn't stratospheric. If all you think you want is a big HP # on a chart go buy a sport bike w/ an 13K redline.. that's how they do it.. the torque may suck but if you keep the mill running at supersonic speeds you can brag all day about how much HP you have.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,875 Posts
My first response is 'let me see the dyno' when someone claims to make 132 HP out of a naturally aspirated 95ci HD.
My friend makes 124 HP from a 98" that was built from stuff he had lying around the shop...

There's also the type of tuning done... you can tune a bike to make 'max HP' and it would SUCK to ride.. a race bike designed to make those big numbers at redline RPM with a really horrible curve would just be no fun.
The power output and power curves will be a product of the components used. You can't tune a mild engine to make big HP and you can't tune a race engine to make big low end torque.

If what you're saying is true, you could simply re-tune your bike and have lots of horsepower at the expense of low end torque, but that is simply not the case. Can't be done.

Tuning is done all over... at every throttle position and rpm. You would tune the ignition timing and the air/fuel ratio to what is considered optimal... full time... You can't tune HP in.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,875 Posts
95 or 96 ci is irrelevant. Point I'm interested in is if he is making 132hp on a 95 or 96ci displacement, shouldn't our 106's be capable of 130+ without a displacement change???
Sure, the 106 can make 140 HP... what it will take is high compression, lots of headwork including larger valves, much more aggressive cams, larger intake manifold, larger throttle body, larger injectors, an open air box, and a kick-ass exhaust system.

Kyle has a 100" that makes 135 HP, but it spins to 7000+ rpm and it has no low end torque.


Here's an example....
Rob has a big bore (113.something inches) that is Nikasil (Star racing/George Bryce). It has worked big-valve heads, big throttle bodies, and HPT cams. He makes 143 HP and 135 Tq and the torque peak is around 5000 rpm.

My 116 (114.something inches) has stock heads and valve sizes, stock throttle bodies, and .495 S&S cams. I make 132 HP and 144 Tq and the torque peak is around 4000 rpm.

What his additional work did was reverse the numbers. His work was EXPENSIVE.

Here's the thing... In order to get the heads off a Victory the engine has to come out of the frame. If you have the engine out and the jugs off... the cost difference between just putting high compression pistons in it and putting a big bore kit in it is very small. You are already buying pistons, you are already buying rings, gaskets, etc... the only thing you need to make the inches happen is to re-sleeve the jugs.

You need to decide what YOU want from the bike. Inches make TORQUE.

2 things to remember:
IT'S NOT A HARLEY. It will respond very differently to modifications than a Harley does.
The iron liner big bore is proven. There is nothing to be afraid of, just warm it up to full operating temperature before you beat on it. I've been running a Lloydz iron motor since 2008 with no issues. The 110" version ran 11.40s at the track with 92,000 miles on the odometer. It only got rebuilt because the transmission broke.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33 Posts
Could be a typo but a 95CI is a Bored 88" and has been proven to put on more Power than the Stock 96 ", which is an 88 with a bit more Stroke .. HD went from 88" to 96" in 2007 ..
When I purchased my 2004 FLSTFI (101st Anniversary, Baby!) I had the dealership install the 95 stage 2 kit. It came with larger Nikasil Cylinders, no boring necessary. The 96 was a longer stroke as it's cheaper for the manufacturer.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,875 Posts
Its a expression I have heard since I was a little kid at the dragstrips.
Torque x rpm / 5252 = Horsepower
This relationship is like a mathematical marriage... Oh, the compromises!

If you listen to the guys who ride big-twins, they all want 120 ft-lbs at 2000 rpm... but they only want that because they've never had it. The compromises to get that are many, and once there you would find yourself asking, "What have I done?".
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
13,003 Posts
nvr_fst_enuf

just so you know you already have iron sleeves in your motor matter of fact we all do
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
We're saying the same thing Larry.. when I said 'tune' I meant build... you can MAKE a big make big high end HP by what you choose to put in it and tune it to do.. OR you can set it up to be more of a streetable setup with better torque throughout the range, but you high end #'s aren't going to make for great bragging rights.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,801 Posts
My first response is 'let me see the dyno' when someone claims to make 132 HP out of a naturally aspirated 95ci HD. My second response is 'how many times have you rebuilt it?" You can get some good numbers from an HD mill, but generally they aren't going to last. You vic will put down whatever it's putting down till you get tired of running it.. 120/120 as a daily driver solid as steel isn't that unusual.

There's also the type of tuning done... you can tune a bike to make 'max HP' and it would SUCK to ride.. a race bike designed to make those big numbers at redline RPM with a really horrible curve would just be no fun.. it's just bragging rights. Give me a bike with a torque curve flat as a ducks ass and you got a bike that's fun to ride, even if the HP # isn't stratospheric. If all you think you want is a big HP # on a chart go buy a sport bike w/ an 13K redline.. that's how they do it.. the torque may suck but if you keep the mill running at supersonic speeds you can brag all day about how much HP you have.
This may very well be true about 'other' engines.

The Victory lump is inherently so well designed that improvement can be made without the low speed bogging that may occur in other designs.
Our engines work that well unenhanced that enhancing them with the right selection of balanced parts both inside and out does not in fact have any negatives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
In about two weeks I’ll finally get my bike on a dyno to see some numbers. Over last winter I had the throttle body punched out to 49mm, the Torque Tubes modified to work with the larger TB, added .495 cams and everything required to run them, also got head work done by Star Racing and added high compression (10.4:1) pistons.

Riding around at 3K rpm it’s just a normal feeling bike to me,.. Around 3400-3500 the party starts and keeps pulling hard to 6K.

If you do all of that to a lightweight steel frame it should be ok without the extra displacement. Add those extra inches with everything else to a light steel frame and your bike will be an absolute monster. For the core frame bike I would just go with the extra displacement from the get go especially with those bikes being a heavier.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top