Se 120r complete engine?
"Seeker of Freedom"
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 2
From: Kansas City Area
I'll be putting in a 120R with the SE266E cam as soon as the parts all arrive. Most suggest the SE266E torque curve on this motor comes it a little too late in the rpm range.
Isn't anything in the 100-120 ft/lbs more than enough in the 1800-3250 range for a bagger. More than this is just extra wear on the transmission and tires.
Pushing the extra torque and hp up to the 3250-7000 range gives the rider the ability to be more selective of the power use.
Someone please explain why I need 135+ ft/lbs of torque at 2000-3250 rpm. It seems to me the torque curve on this cam would be beneficial to the logevity/reliability of a sanely ridden bagger.
Isn't anything in the 100-120 ft/lbs more than enough in the 1800-3250 range for a bagger. More than this is just extra wear on the transmission and tires.
Pushing the extra torque and hp up to the 3250-7000 range gives the rider the ability to be more selective of the power use.
Someone please explain why I need 135+ ft/lbs of torque at 2000-3250 rpm. It seems to me the torque curve on this cam would be beneficial to the logevity/reliability of a sanely ridden bagger.
Club Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 45,429
Likes: 2,898
From: Bedford UK
I have a TC88 Dyna with stage 1, which I only ride solo, and on which I have reduced overall gearing from the stock 25T compensator to a SE21T. That increases torque to the rear wheel by 19% over stock and gives wonderful performance for very little outlay. If we assume that bike gives around 80 ft.lbs TQ at the crankshaft, with my revised gearing of 3.75:1 (compared with factory 3.15:1) torque at the rear wheel is 300 ft.lbs (80 x 3.75). If we now take my weight plus that of the bike into account (180 + 670 = 850 pounds, or 850 / 2000 = .425 tons), we get a torque to weight ratio of approx 700 ft.lbs/ton (300 / .425).
Now let's turn to my dresser. With my wife on board and the bike fully loaded, ready to start our annual summer tour, I reckon our rolling weight is close to 1200 pounds, or .6 tons. The gearing on that bike is 3.37:1. So if I want my Glide to give similar performance when 2-up as my Dyna gives when solo, I need the same torque to weight ratio of 700 ft.lbs/ton. We have to reverse-engineer the above sums, so torque required at the rear wheel is 700 x .6 = 420 ft.lbs (compared with 300 for the Dyna). Torque at the crankshaft is 420 / 3.37 = 124 ft.lbs. In 5th gear on a 2011 bike, those figures are 420 / 3.407 = 123 ft.lbs.
Now that may not be 135 ft.lbs, but is not far short of it! If you want to whip a solo Harley while 2-up, or just enjoy some serious performance, you need a serious injection of torque. A few of us fall into that category!
Nothing less than a 131ci will do....
Last edited by grbrown; Oct 20, 2010 at 05:12 AM. Reason: Expanded.
"Seeker of Freedom"
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 2
From: Kansas City Area
That's very simple my friend! Just involves a little simple arithmetic.
I have a TC88 Dyna with stage 1, which I only ride solo, and on which I have reduced overall gearing from the stock 25T compensator to a SE21T. That increases torque to the rear wheel by 19% over stock and gives wonderful performance for very little outlay. If we assume that bike gives around 80 ft.lbs TQ at the crankshaft, with my revised gearing of 3.75:1 (compared with factory 3.15:1) torque at the rear wheel is 300 ft.lbs (80 x 3.75). If we now take my weight plus that of the bike into account (180 + 670 = 850 pounds, or 850 / 2000 = .425 tons), we get a torque to weight ratio of approx 700 ft.lbs/ton (300 / .425).
Now let's turn to my dresser. With my wife on board and the bike fully loaded, ready to start our annual summer tour, I reckon our rolling weight is close to 1200 pounds, or .6 tons. The gearing on that bike is 3.37:1. So if I want my Glide to give similar performance when 2-up as my Dyna gives when solo, I need the same torque to weight ratio of 700 ft.lbs/ton. We have to reverse-engineer the above sums, so torque required at the rear wheel is 700 x .6 = 420 ft.lbs (compared with 300 for the Dyna). Torque at the crankshaft is 420 / 3.37 = 124 ft.lbs. In 5th gear on a 2011 bike, those figures are 420 / 3.407 = 123 ft.lbs.
Now that may not be 135 ft.lbs, but is not far short of it! If you want to whip a solo Harley while 2-up, or just enjoy some serious performance, you need a serious injection of torque. A few of us fall into that category!
Nothing less than a 131ci will do....
I have a TC88 Dyna with stage 1, which I only ride solo, and on which I have reduced overall gearing from the stock 25T compensator to a SE21T. That increases torque to the rear wheel by 19% over stock and gives wonderful performance for very little outlay. If we assume that bike gives around 80 ft.lbs TQ at the crankshaft, with my revised gearing of 3.75:1 (compared with factory 3.15:1) torque at the rear wheel is 300 ft.lbs (80 x 3.75). If we now take my weight plus that of the bike into account (180 + 670 = 850 pounds, or 850 / 2000 = .425 tons), we get a torque to weight ratio of approx 700 ft.lbs/ton (300 / .425).
Now let's turn to my dresser. With my wife on board and the bike fully loaded, ready to start our annual summer tour, I reckon our rolling weight is close to 1200 pounds, or .6 tons. The gearing on that bike is 3.37:1. So if I want my Glide to give similar performance when 2-up as my Dyna gives when solo, I need the same torque to weight ratio of 700 ft.lbs/ton. We have to reverse-engineer the above sums, so torque required at the rear wheel is 700 x .6 = 420 ft.lbs (compared with 300 for the Dyna). Torque at the crankshaft is 420 / 3.37 = 124 ft.lbs. In 5th gear on a 2011 bike, those figures are 420 / 3.407 = 123 ft.lbs.
Now that may not be 135 ft.lbs, but is not far short of it! If you want to whip a solo Harley while 2-up, or just enjoy some serious performance, you need a serious injection of torque. A few of us fall into that category!
Nothing less than a 131ci will do....
Now math I can understand. Thanks that helped.
"Seeker of Freedom"
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 2
From: Kansas City Area
Thread Starter
|
Cruiser
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: St Charles, Mo
That's very simple my friend! Just involves a little simple arithmetic.
I have a TC88 Dyna with stage 1, which I only ride solo, and on which I have reduced overall gearing from the stock 25T compensator to a SE21T. That increases torque to the rear wheel by 19% over stock and gives wonderful performance for very little outlay. If we assume that bike gives around 80 ft.lbs TQ at the crankshaft, with my revised gearing of 3.75:1 (compared with factory 3.15:1) torque at the rear wheel is 300 ft.lbs (80 x 3.75). If we now take my weight plus that of the bike into account (180 + 670 = 850 pounds, or 850 / 2000 = .425 tons), we get a torque to weight ratio of approx 700 ft.lbs/ton (300 / .425).
Now let's turn to my dresser. With my wife on board and the bike fully loaded, ready to start our annual summer tour, I reckon our rolling weight is close to 1200 pounds, or .6 tons. The gearing on that bike is 3.37:1. So if I want my Glide to give similar performance when 2-up as my Dyna gives when solo, I need the same torque to weight ratio of 700 ft.lbs/ton. We have to reverse-engineer the above sums, so torque required at the rear wheel is 700 x .6 = 420 ft.lbs (compared with 300 for the Dyna). Torque at the crankshaft is 420 / 3.37 = 124 ft.lbs. In 5th gear on a 2011 bike, those figures are 420 / 3.407 = 123 ft.lbs.
Now that may not be 135 ft.lbs, but is not far short of it! If you want to whip a solo Harley while 2-up, or just enjoy some serious performance, you need a serious injection of torque. A few of us fall into that category!
Nothing less than a 131ci will do....
I have a TC88 Dyna with stage 1, which I only ride solo, and on which I have reduced overall gearing from the stock 25T compensator to a SE21T. That increases torque to the rear wheel by 19% over stock and gives wonderful performance for very little outlay. If we assume that bike gives around 80 ft.lbs TQ at the crankshaft, with my revised gearing of 3.75:1 (compared with factory 3.15:1) torque at the rear wheel is 300 ft.lbs (80 x 3.75). If we now take my weight plus that of the bike into account (180 + 670 = 850 pounds, or 850 / 2000 = .425 tons), we get a torque to weight ratio of approx 700 ft.lbs/ton (300 / .425).
Now let's turn to my dresser. With my wife on board and the bike fully loaded, ready to start our annual summer tour, I reckon our rolling weight is close to 1200 pounds, or .6 tons. The gearing on that bike is 3.37:1. So if I want my Glide to give similar performance when 2-up as my Dyna gives when solo, I need the same torque to weight ratio of 700 ft.lbs/ton. We have to reverse-engineer the above sums, so torque required at the rear wheel is 700 x .6 = 420 ft.lbs (compared with 300 for the Dyna). Torque at the crankshaft is 420 / 3.37 = 124 ft.lbs. In 5th gear on a 2011 bike, those figures are 420 / 3.407 = 123 ft.lbs.
Now that may not be 135 ft.lbs, but is not far short of it! If you want to whip a solo Harley while 2-up, or just enjoy some serious performance, you need a serious injection of torque. A few of us fall into that category!
Nothing less than a 131ci will do....
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Verdad Gallardo
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Harley-Davidson Needs to Fix in 2026
Verdad Gallardo
Banned
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,580
Likes: 7
From: The Internet (& Dyer, Indiana)
I changed the clutch basket gear instead, to fix the stock "too tall" gearing issue. No regrets, but guys are also accomplishing the same thing with the trans pulley swap.
Thread Starter
|
Cruiser
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: St Charles, Mo
When I was changing my compensator last year, they only had them with the same amount of teeth as stock. The only way to change the amount on the front gear was to go without a compensator at all (no way I'd recommend that on a press fit crank). But this was not on an 88, it was the 96 (103 now).
I changed the clutch basket gear instead, to fix the stock "too tall" gearing issue. No regrets, but guys are also accomplishing the same thing with the trans pulley swap.
I changed the clutch basket gear instead, to fix the stock "too tall" gearing issue. No regrets, but guys are also accomplishing the same thing with the trans pulley swap.