Head porting advice.

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Jun 21, 2009 | 02:36 PM

#11

HDRider2002

Road Master

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 1,142

Likes: 7

From: Michigan

i email with Doug at HQ to find out if my 0034 would work well with their 95" kit, and he assured me it is just fine. Now, the 0039 is what they include in their sport touring kit i believe, and it might be a bit "better" than the 0034. If you already have the 0034 cam in place, no need to swap it.

Jun 21, 2009 | 03:14 PM

#12

Harleypingman

Extreme HDF Member

Joined: Apr 2006

Posts: 10,449

Likes: 46

From: Roswell, GA

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadking531

thanks for the info pingman. I will get with my indy Monday and make sure we are not putting in too much cam. I will ask him to call HQ and get a recomendation.

I was just looking on their website and it says the 39 cam is for 95" ported motors and will work 9.5 to 10.?, My SE kit should be close to a 9.5 compression, right? maybe not.

I am on cam, build information overload at this point.

You would do well to contact HQ yourself. The HQ website recommendation of the HQ-0039 is based on THEIR head porting which is significantly different than what your indy is likely to be doing. HQ's head porting will include removing the valve guides to substantially reshape the intake port and combustion chamber. "Street porting" basically involves far less work on the intake port and combustion chamber because the valve guides are left in the head; and, much of the compression increase in the street porting is derived from milling the head.

I hate to generalize about anything. But if you are considering the HQ cams, tell Kevin or Doug what you want to do with the engine and what kind of budget you are working with. And many guys have been happy with BigBoyz headwork and see what they have to say. Frankly, it's very hard to piecemeal a motor and get really good results for the $$$ spent.

Jun 21, 2009 | 04:14 PM

#13

roadking531

Thread Starter

Tourer

Joined: Jul 2007

Posts: 444

Likes: 4

From: Albuquerque

Thanks. I will give them a call tomorrow myself and see what they recommend. I appreciate the advice.

Jun 21, 2009 | 05:42 PM

#14

fastultra.

Advanced

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 92

Likes: 0

Go with a 2-1 with a ghost pipe! You will be astounded by the power gain!

Jun 21, 2009 | 06:12 PM

#15

jrhd1

Cruiser

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 161

Likes: 0

From: Cincinnati, Ohio

You cant go wrong with HQ engine builds. They are not cheap, but do produce great numbers. I just built there 113 and getting 125hp and 136 torque. Also take a look at www.skipscycles.com and give Skip a call. This guy builds some great builds at a fair price. I drove 6 hours to there shop and he did an awesome job tunning my bike. Also, they build some nice engines and all the work is done in house. If I knew Skip before I built my HQ build, I might have used his stuff. I think you will get more bang for the buck.

Jun 21, 2009 | 07:31 PM

#16

gregsdart

Cruiser

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 211

Likes: 0

torque

For your own info, and to get a point across to the guy working on your bike, take a look at the torque curves in the SE catalog and see if you can pin down the rpm you are unhappy with. An example is going from a SE255 cam to a 203, looks to me like the 203 cam will lose 10 ft lb torque till 3500 rpm, something I could not get to like. Lets say you and a friend are both on baggers riding two up. The bike with the shorter duration cam will get a long jump start on you. You might come by him like a freight train at about 60 mph, but it might take that long to catch him! Had this happen to me, by over camming a hot street car.

Jun 22, 2009 | 02:59 PM

#17

roadking531

Thread Starter

Tourer

Joined: Jul 2007

Posts: 444

Likes: 4

From: Albuquerque

Emailed with Kevin from HQ today and here is his reply:

"The 34 would be a better choice if he's going big with ports and valve sizes (like 1.94 or larger which I wouldn't recommend). Other than that, the 39 would be a good choice if upgrading valve springs."

There is no plan to change valve sizes or going with big ports, so the 39 should be the ticket.

Thanks for your feedback, I feel better after getting the reply from Kevin.

I will post the results after the parts come in the work is done.

Jul 19, 2009 | 07:47 PM

#18

roadking531

Thread Starter

Tourer

Joined: Jul 2007

Posts: 444

Likes: 4

From: Albuquerque

Update

Just wanted to update after the build.

Whooohoo!

I have been trying to get my f**in scanner to work to post the dyno chart, but it refuses to cooperate.

Went with the HQ39G cams. Heads were cleaned up, decided to do dresser duals with my SE touring slip ons.

Great news is the 39 is a great cam for pulling all the way through the rpm band. I am now at 96.1 ft/lbs torque and it maxes at 3500 rpm. My RKing was never so ran so good. I am tickled with the way it runs.

Not great news is that is only at 81 HP. I really don't think I care, as the bike is pulling so much harder anyway. My indy and I talked about it and after I roll another 30K on it, it will be a good time to freshen up the the pistons and rings (over 60K at that point). Then I can go with some higher compression and really have a powerhouse.