drop a 114 into a 107?
#1
#2
The following users liked this post:
talkingrock (01-18-2023)
#5
The following 5 users liked this post by dajogejr:
GPHDXLC (11-20-2022),
M Oclaf (11-20-2022),
mjwebb (11-20-2022),
talkingrock (01-18-2023),
VernDiesel (11-19-2022)
#6
"All things in moderation except acceleration, have cash set aside, and enjoy the build as much as the ride" All of these things suggest to me to build a cheaper bike as opposed to buying a new CVO. Plus with the M8 its so much easier and cheaper and more reliable per HP than with previous motors.
Personally I prefer to start with a 107 as it has the shorter 4.375 stroke. Which is already a relatively long stroke. If you are building a two up trailer toating touring motor you want the longer stroke even a 4.625. But if you want to make HP and retain maximum reliability you might prefer the shorter stroke. All things being equal best naturally aspirated HP comes through rpm. A shorter stroke has less piston speed and less piston side loading at the same rpm which leads to better ring seal and piston / cylinder life. True the difference in stroke is not dramatic so perhaps to the rpm and horsepower level you wish to attain its negligible and the additional displacement out weighs that. That's for you to decide just sharing my thoughts. If you are building a 170 HP motor and want it to live the longest while regularly seeing 6500+ rpms perhaps its a fair consideration.
Personally I prefer to start with a 107 as it has the shorter 4.375 stroke. Which is already a relatively long stroke. If you are building a two up trailer toating touring motor you want the longer stroke even a 4.625. But if you want to make HP and retain maximum reliability you might prefer the shorter stroke. All things being equal best naturally aspirated HP comes through rpm. A shorter stroke has less piston speed and less piston side loading at the same rpm which leads to better ring seal and piston / cylinder life. True the difference in stroke is not dramatic so perhaps to the rpm and horsepower level you wish to attain its negligible and the additional displacement out weighs that. That's for you to decide just sharing my thoughts. If you are building a 170 HP motor and want it to live the longest while regularly seeing 6500+ rpms perhaps its a fair consideration.
#7
i’d buy the 107, get a big bore kit, cam, breather, tuner, etc.
Going from a stock “ish” 107 to 114 is not a lot to gain, you’d be on better footing leaving the 107 and upgrading that.
Still be a build and will be easier to source and install parts rather than swap power plants….
Going from a stock “ish” 107 to 114 is not a lot to gain, you’d be on better footing leaving the 107 and upgrading that.
Still be a build and will be easier to source and install parts rather than swap power plants….
Trending Topics
#8
#10
"All things in moderation except acceleration, have cash set aside, and enjoy the build as much as the ride" All of these things suggest to me to build a cheaper bike as opposed to buying a new CVO. Plus with the M8 its so much easier and cheaper and more reliable per HP than with previous motors.
Personally I prefer to start with a 107 as it has the shorter 4.375 stroke. Which is already a relatively long stroke. If you are building a two up trailer toating touring motor you want the longer stroke even a 4.625. But if you want to make HP and retain maximum reliability you might prefer the shorter stroke. All things being equal best naturally aspirated HP comes through rpm. A shorter stroke has less piston speed and less piston side loading at the same rpm which leads to better ring seal and piston / cylinder life. True the difference in stroke is not dramatic so perhaps to the rpm and horsepower level you wish to attain its negligible and the additional displacement out weighs that. That's for you to decide just sharing my thoughts. If you are building a 170 HP motor and want it to live the longest while regularly seeing 6500+ rpms perhaps its a fair consideration.
Personally I prefer to start with a 107 as it has the shorter 4.375 stroke. Which is already a relatively long stroke. If you are building a two up trailer toating touring motor you want the longer stroke even a 4.625. But if you want to make HP and retain maximum reliability you might prefer the shorter stroke. All things being equal best naturally aspirated HP comes through rpm. A shorter stroke has less piston speed and less piston side loading at the same rpm which leads to better ring seal and piston / cylinder life. True the difference in stroke is not dramatic so perhaps to the rpm and horsepower level you wish to attain its negligible and the additional displacement out weighs that. That's for you to decide just sharing my thoughts. If you are building a 170 HP motor and want it to live the longest while regularly seeing 6500+ rpms perhaps its a fair consideration.