The stock 103 has 8 ft. lb. of torque more than the stock 96.

If one can not tell the difference between them on a ride, they need their butt dyno adjusted.

Cycle Guide did a test of the new slim with the 103 and they broke into the 11's in the 1/4 at over 102 miles an hour. That was a first for a stock HD cruiser. Need to know any more?

 

If you are planning on going to a larger bore for power you are going the wrong direction unless you are going to do a cam upgrade.
I suggest taking a look at cams first. It will save you some $$$ and I think you will enjoy the power better.

just a thought

dd

 

JMO, but when I went from the 88 I had to the new 96 I couldn't tell hardly any difference, but fast forward a few years, and wow, the 103 was a LOT better.

 

Maybe it's my cheapness and old age, 61, but just wondering why no one mentioned the effect on mpg when going to a larger cc engine.

Maybe I missed it but I wouldn't do anything that leads to more gas station stops. Tortoise and the hare type of thing.....

 

My hero was the tortoise also. I want to do things to my bike for mpg not mph.

 

Refer to my post above. I went from an average of 38 mpg to 42 mpg with the build once I got past the urge to twist the wick with the added power - and I'm 56.

 

I'm getting 47 MPG with a Stage 1 set up.. stock I was lucky to get 40 MPG, the better the map the more efficient it runs.

 

What puzzles me is that these bikes are supposedly super-lean from the factory, yet the gas mileage increases when they get re-tuned to run richer.

How does that work? It seems to defy logic.

Also, my 80", factory-bone-stock, carbed (very ineficient?) EVO gets at least 60 MPG on a bad day and has hit 70 MPG on a really good one. Never gets noticeably hot or pings either.

I had a carbed '03 RK, also factory-stock, that got terrible mileage and ran hot as hell, when it would run at all, and it was only 8" bigger. I just don't get it.

 

I didnt know anybody cared about getting 49mpg vs getting 40 mpg. Who cares? You can go another 40 miles on a tank at best? Going 200 miles before a stop is about as much as I ever want to go. I enjoy getting off and taking a break, walking around, talking to my group.

I would much rather get 40 and have more power. Its not like this is my daily driver and if it was 40mpg is still better than a prius. I wouldnt trade my lifted 5.7L V8 full size pickup truck that averages 14mpg for anything, LOL. So 40mpg is more than fine with me. Maybe if I was poor and didnt have a car for daily driving would I care about the expense increase of getting 40mpg instead of 48.

To each his own

 

This is the downside of EFI, when you restrict the airflow it actually makes the engine work harder and it tends to burn fuel irratically and a lot of times means a lot of wasted fuel on the compression stroke. When tuning the bike on a a more contiquous flow where there are no dips in odd places. The lean condition that you recieve when you buy the bike is due to the EPA coming down on the company and requiring that there is almost no emissions from the exhaust and also no valve overlap from cam lobes that are almost round.

With better mapping you have more precise fuel flow from the injectors.

Also all the Evos I've ever owned that were carbed got WAY better gas mileage as I suspect that the CV carbs with their bladders were self adjusting to the ambiant air temps and pressures in any given environment.