Take the same bikes one stock one with screaming eagle which one has less problems in the long run?

 

I would be of the opinion that the lean burning, hot running "EPA" engines would have a higher chance of trouble, particularly with the cylinders and valve train, than one slightly modified to run cooler.

 

`Depends upon how you ride and maintain the bike.

 

I agree assuming the obvious, that bikes are both maintained properly.

 

No! Not in the lean burn oem configuration. It runs hotter therefore it will wear faster. Add an oil cooler and change the AFR. It will run cooler, stronger and last longer.

But do not increase the rpm limit as in SESPT or increase the compression. That is conducive to shortening the life.

 

My experience has been that by the time the OEM stuff begins to wear out, the aftermarket has come up with something that is an improvement over the original design, engineering, or materials used. Not necessarily limited to SE, but companies like Baker, Andrews, Performance Machine, etc. Hell, the hydraulic conversion for the chain tensioners is listed as "hybrid" right on the SE package (it's from Andrews).

With one bike at 100,000 miles, and another at 264,000 miles in the garage, I can tell you they never would have gotten that far if left stock.

 

your money will last longer if you leave it stock,just sayin,but who can do that

 

jerseyjimk, you beat me to it. lol

 

The key is maintenance! My '03 FXD got gear driven Andrews cams at 60,000 miles, and I tore it down to do the top end at 99,500, only to find she still had the crosshatching in the cylinders from when it was born!!! She hit 100,000 miles last friday night. Treat it right, and it will treat you right. I don't baby this thing, but I don't abuse it either.

 

It might last longer stock but it wont be as fun to ride...