Us CVO'ers are has beens LOL
#11
#13
#14
Dead of winter up here in the Great White North. I agree that a lot of the M8 forum has us CVO riders using that forum as well. I love my 2017 CVO Street Glide and my wife loves her 2017 Hard Candy Hotrod Red SGS, but buying bikes in December and than not being able to ride until the end of March sucks.
The following users liked this post:
SilverStreetGlide (01-18-2017)
#15
Not exactly better but close. I have a 12 RG CVO and a 16 RG CVO Ultra. I added a 17 RGS with full stage I.
Just about 7K on it and it comes close in performance to the 16. However the 12 RG CVO was the most potent 110 produced at 122 ft. lbs. of torque. The 16 is 115 ft. lbs of torque. H-D specs at the crank.
The 12 will run away from the M8. M8's tracking is slightly better. No difference in the ride with the exception that on rough rail road crossing, large bumps or pot holes the M8 suspension is better.
Mpg is 52 on the M8 and I get 50 on the CVO's.
A 17 M8 CVO will solidly out perform a 110 CVO.
I have two show bikes but I call my CVO's "Show Off" bikes. To me that means no matter what year they are they still make a statement. I use the RGS for winter riding but would never do that to a CVO.
The one fact is that the low cost of doing the drop in M8 114 kit is likely one of the reasons that 17 CVO production numbers were very low.
Just about 7K on it and it comes close in performance to the 16. However the 12 RG CVO was the most potent 110 produced at 122 ft. lbs. of torque. The 16 is 115 ft. lbs of torque. H-D specs at the crank.
The 12 will run away from the M8. M8's tracking is slightly better. No difference in the ride with the exception that on rough rail road crossing, large bumps or pot holes the M8 suspension is better.
Mpg is 52 on the M8 and I get 50 on the CVO's.
A 17 M8 CVO will solidly out perform a 110 CVO.
I have two show bikes but I call my CVO's "Show Off" bikes. To me that means no matter what year they are they still make a statement. I use the RGS for winter riding but would never do that to a CVO.
The one fact is that the low cost of doing the drop in M8 114 kit is likely one of the reasons that 17 CVO production numbers were very low.
Last edited by lh4x4; 01-21-2017 at 11:35 PM.
#16
I think you are correct in saying a stock 114 will out perform a stock 110, if it didn't why would a purchase be necessary. A slightly warm 110" will run with most anything, a warmer 110 will run with most. A CVO limited is as good as it gets, until we see some warmed up 113, 117 and the new M8 117. For all practical purposes the 110 CVO is a great motor for the touring crowd. There is always the K1600LT for the power touring crowd, a 104 inch six cylinder with gobs of torque and limited foot/leg room.
#17
Not exactly better but close. I have a 12 RG CVO and a 16 RG CVO Ultra. I added a 17 RGS with full stage I.
Just about 7K on it and it comes close in performance to the 16. However the 12 RG CVO was the most potent 110 produced at 122 ft. lbs. of torque. The 16 is 115 ft. lbs of torque. H-D specs at the crank.
The 12 will run away from the M8. M8's tracking is slightly better. No difference in the ride with the exception that on rough rail road crossing, large bumps or pot holes the M8 suspension is better.
Just about 7K on it and it comes close in performance to the 16. However the 12 RG CVO was the most potent 110 produced at 122 ft. lbs. of torque. The 16 is 115 ft. lbs of torque. H-D specs at the crank.
The 12 will run away from the M8. M8's tracking is slightly better. No difference in the ride with the exception that on rough rail road crossing, large bumps or pot holes the M8 suspension is better.
" The Stage 1 M8 out pulls my 12 and 16 RG CVO's without question. The 12 RG CVO was the most potent stock 110 H-D ever produced with 10.12 compression and 122 ft lbs of torque at the crank. Other touring 110's were/are 115 ft. lbs. of torque." Last edited by lh4x4; 09-18-2016 at 07:55 PM.
I'm confused.
#18
I think you are correct in saying a stock 114 will out perform a stock 110, if it didn't why would a purchase be necessary. A slightly warm 110" will run with most anything, a warmer 110 will run with most. A CVO limited is as good as it gets, until we see some warmed up 113, 117 and the new M8 117. For all practical purposes the 110 CVO is a great motor for the touring crowd. There is always the K1600LT for the power touring crowd, a 104 inch six cylinder with gobs of torque and limited foot/leg room.
The following users liked this post:
joe106 (03-07-2017)
#19
I think you are correct in saying a stock 114 will out perform a stock 110, if it didn't why would a purchase be necessary. A slightly warm 110" will run with most anything, a warmer 110 will run with most. A CVO limited is as good as it gets, until we see some warmed up 113, 117 and the new M8 117. For all practical purposes the 110 CVO is a great motor for the touring crowd. There is always the K1600LT for the power touring crowd, a 104 inch six cylinder with gobs of torque and limited foot/leg room.
A friends 14 CVO limited had the lifters fail with 23K on the bike. Another friend had his lifters fail and motor replaced on his 15 CVO..
So, its not a great motor. Every one I have owned expect my 13 had had bad failures. My 13 had not because I built the motor with 1000 miles on the bike. Running better lifters, better valve spring and better bearings.
#20
Gregg. My opinion over time by my butt dyno can change. I have been riding the heck out of the M8. Just added 473 miles in the last three days. I don't run the CVO's in the winter.
What I want to do is this spring is to take them to Cordova Drag Strip along with the 120R Dyna and get concrete numbers on them.
Would that be okay with you?
What I want to do is this spring is to take them to Cordova Drag Strip along with the 120R Dyna and get concrete numbers on them.
Would that be okay with you?