Hp.

:roflmao::roflmao:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<For you Paul!!!!

LOL...Frightening creature...Those poison arrows?

Re: Q

Sorry for not getting back on this--I've been riding the last couple days.

Sorry if you can't accept actual Motor Co data, friend. My post showed what we measured as an "average" on the 88, and was measured at the rear wheel--not the crank. H-D's dyno is certified to be accurate (less than .005% deviation) for S.A.E., D.O.T., and E.P.A. specs--not bragging rights.

A third party operator does NOT have to be certified, and results can be easily skewed 25% or more (equip. error OR operator intent), especially if they are selling their services or parts. Not many will have a $5 mil. dyno, flow bench, and lab either.

The #'s I posted were acurate Engine Dept. resuts in 2006. The Twin Cam 96 was meant to have only maginally better accel. #'s, which it did, and not diminish EPA mandates. It had a bit more hp and tq., but the real gains came from the 6 speed trans. That is also why you won't see much difference in performance between the 96 and the 103 motors.

johnny you must come to the dark side of the torque . feeeel the power!

Re: Q

the funny thing of all this alex is the fact that those that shot there load early dont know that you worked at the motor company and actually have real world info from the inside. at the motor plant . thanks for the info as allways .Nice to have you on the site . for motor company info. some respect is due boys!

Re: Q

Thought the difference in the 96 and 103 was the small difference in the pistons, and the heads on the newer bike breathed a little better.
Not sure if they changed the cam at all.

Re: Q

103 it is a 3.7/8 bore the heads do flow much better , cams do have less duration than before because of emissions . and they dont want unburnt fuel in the converter . very little overlap,

Re: Q

Ain't got to worry about the converter, its the 1st thing I got rid of along with the factory computer.
Got fuel moto header pipes. If I didn't git those I was gonna get fulsac.
Think I might look at a 2in1 later on. Mabe the one Fuelmoto sells.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Re: Q

I will stand corrected on the data being measured at the rear wheel and not the crank based on your say so. The fact that the data came from the MoCo does not impress but I will take you at your word even though the MoCo data is not supported by results from other sources. I also believe that the MoCo with the $5 million dyno also have a dyno facility where the environment can be controlled to produce the optimum results which may not be replicated in the dyno rooms of the third party operators. But that wouldn't be considered skewing the results; just optimizing. But I digress, that was not the question posed by the OP. The thread got a little sideways from answering the OP.

The OPs question was what he could expect to gain from the addition of a free flowing air filter and exhaust system. I am not a tuner but have a close association with a well known and respected racer, tuner, builder and head porter that tunes for four dealerships in my area. I am learning to tune by working with him and tuning both my bikes. He has probably tuned every SE or aftermarket configuration you can imagine and I go by data that I have seen and trust.

A 15%-20% increase from the addition of a free flowing air filter and exhaust is the exception to the rule. I am not saying it is not possible but very unlikely; a 10% to 12% gain is achievable. One would think that there would be more 15%-20% gains if the third party operators would intentionallyh skewing results; one would think they would skew them to show more than the 10% to 12% we usually see.

We will just have to agree to disagree; I just have different experiences but I enjoy the discussion.

Re: Q

It wouldn't and doesn't make any difference to me that Alex worked for the MoCo. There is nothing disrespectful about sharing my experiences on a subject that may be different from those of Alex or any other forum member.

A little tongue in cheek here but I also don't accept everything the MoCo puts out as gospel. For instance, I would ever run Syn 3 in my engine, primary and transmission but the MoCo recommends it. How about that SE compensator that the MoCo suggests is an upgrade to the OEM unit. I almost forgot about the valve guide seals in '05 and the MoCo's response that using 1.5 quarts of oil in 1000 miles was normal. I could go on but you get my drift. Again, no disrespect toward Alex or the MoCo, just stating the obvious.

Needless to say, I am skeptical of anything the MoCo puts out, but that's just me.

The stock pipes (with catalyst) and air intake are VERY restrictive to comply with the EPA decibel and emmission mandates. They are not what anyone wants, and H-D pulls their hair out trying to come up with a good compromise for performance, but know almost 90% of owners will change these parts quickly. That's why the Screamin Eagle performance parts are readily available as OPTIONS with a stupid warning. Federal lawyers are always watching for standards variances, but usually skip over import bikes because of small volumes.

Better flowing heads come from the SuperFlow flow bench, and a little help from Chevrolet. Years ago, Chevy offered bigger valve "fuelie heads" on Corvettes with much success that was copied by everyone. Even today, their induction systems and head-work is considered the best (by competitors) for US market.

Lastly, the results are NOT based on optimum conditions (sea level with 10% humidity, no wind) because no one has those conditions in real-world. Perameters are 1,200 ft. with 50% humidty, and 15 mph head wind. Numbers are from random samples with EPA inspectors present.

Syn 3 is used because of fuel mileage benefits. ALL mfrs. do this. Standard compensators are rated to last 100,000 miles of normal use--not racing or hard use (which can quickly be determined). Head valve components are purchased from outside reputable mfrs. ANY defects are seriously adressed from both sides, but you may have had a dealer make statements to avoid warranty costs. They are not perfect, but controls and regs are very tight.

H-D's are supremely designed and built for their INTENDED USE. I'm sure this is not what anyone wants to hear when they have a problem. And H-D usually ignors the limits on warranty claims to keep folks happy. Would you really own one if you didn't trust them?

Do who makes Syn3 oil really

Well, after all that back and forth, we agree.

I don't trust the MoCo; they have given me too many reasons not too. My first Harley was a 1976 Sporty, purchased in 1998, so I have been riding them for a while. I own a Harley in spite of the MoCo and chickensh!t dealers because I like them and I can fix what the MoCo screws up.

Fortunately, there are four dealers in my area and all are pretty decent but I do live in Texas where a man's word is still worth something.