Sportster Rebuild

Oh, yeah, how about turbo or nitrous?

Just stop wasting time. Ya want fast? Ya want HP? Ya want to beat ol CB? Here ya go. 300hp.
http://m.kawasaki.com/product/details/2015-Ninja-H2R

Saw that. Girl here at work wants one. Crazy.

Would not an adjustable VOES system work well with your cam selection? It's not like you have to worry about variable valve timing. Your cams will be selected to provide best HP and torque at a certain RPM range, not throughout the entire range from off idle to 7500 or whatever your redline is.

Since we are thinking out loud, how about fuel injection swap, aftermarket fuel tuner, custom made wiring harness using a mid 2000s GM auto donor for its weather sealed connections and compatibility with HD components, and a small 25-50 hp shot of NOS injected directly into the cylinders?

Yeah, it's fun to spend someone else's money in your head! Of course, a turbo would be "free" horsepower, at least that's how engineers think of it.

P.s. every voes is adjustable pic the cap off the center adjust the spring tension for the ground contact. For the advance engagement you want seal it up with .3m 5200 you're done its been done that way for year's old school boys.!

All of this information about my current VOES that I already knew is great but there still hasn't been a convincing argument given as to the performane of the VOES is better than that of a MAP sensor.

$1000 HRK? Where do you get that number?

How much for a new crank??
IMO JB....The VOES switches curves at a certain vacuum point and the MAP senor switches curves when the manifold pressure reaches a certain point....I think you'd find the vacuum point and pressure point where they both switch would be very very close....
Like BP said too...The VOES is adjustable if it needs to be adjusted....

Here's how at the bottom of the page

http://www.wildwestcycle.com/f_voes.html

I believe the reason the MOCO started using MAP sensors on carbed bikes is because they are phasing out,or phased out carbs so their need for VOES switches had gone way down and they'd have to pay more for fewer....They need lotsa MAP senors because they're all EFI now and need MAP sensors and since the MAP sensor will do the same thing a VOES switch does on a carbed bike,they use them instead of buying a few VOES switches... JMHO....

The new crank will be just under $1000. However everyone is missing the fact that I said I would only switch to the different crank if in fact that my old one turns out to be crap. I do believe that this will be the case. I also said that there will be a little bit of extra case machining involved for the newer style crank, not $1000 worth of machining. I also said that since the case would be on the table (and assuming that the new style crank will be needed), I would consider heavily on converting to a MAP based system.

After other investigation, it is possible to switch from a VOES to a MAP system however Hammer Performance does not want to do it and in turn, has pretty much halted my desire to want to do it. Basically, from my understanding all that is needed to do the conversion is the newer style crank which is cogged which will enable the pick up to sense the crank, the sensor itself, an ignition that is MAP based, the MAP sensor itself, a manifold that is MAP sensor ready, and of course the machining of the case for the sensor to be placed.

The machining for the new crank is pretty much figured into my estimate already. However the cost of the crank is not. I received a smoken estimate from Hammer Performance and it really does allow me to play around a little bit but not too much.

Here is an example. I received my estimate from Hammer Performance and right away I knocked $700 off of it because of parts that I already have and due to different preferences than Aarons. That $700 savings came from clutch and carb.

EDIT: I asked Aaron not to include the crank or crank repair until I know for sure if that crank is crap or not. This was a conscious decision. Just saying.

Here is a picture of the crank shaft that I would be going to if needed.

I thought it was Hammer Perf's idea in the first place? Now they don't want to do it? I still think it would be neat to convert to fuel injection in the instance you are facing. I see this as the next logical step in your bike's progression, way more sensible to me than converting the twin cam bike to it. You could then build your own fuel mapping and timing throughout the RPM range. A really neat winter project for a play bike, versus experimenting on one you rely on to tour with.

Not sure where you got the idea that it was Hammers idea to convert it to a MAP based system? I spoke to Aaron and he agreed that a MAP would be the better way to go and he told me right then that they weren't interested in doing the conversion.

No, I don't think that fuel injection is the natural progression for this bike or project. Would it be fun to do? Yes, but that is money that I just didn't budget for. In my opinion, setting my Sportster up for fuel injection makes way less sense then setting my Road Glide up for fuel injection. These two bikes, the Sportster and Road Glide are used for a completely different riding experience. Just saying.

Ok, I thought you talked about MAP swap earlier, but not until post #65, well after you talked to Hammer Perf. Thought that was their suggestion. My bad.
My point about the Sporty to fuel injection is it is likely used as a relatively close to home bike versus the RG, so to enter into areas you are unfamiliar with (fuel injection), it will not leave you stranded far from home if it has tuning issues on a trip. Plus, the fuel injection would allow you to tune multiple ways for greater power throughout your cam choice's power range, versus the carb's jetting, which would need to come apart each time you want to swap jets to try.
Not trying to ruffle any feathers, just throwing out an opinion. Either way, choose what works for you.

Remember, I can't make the Sportster an all out power house because my wife does ride this bike. Is this project stout? Yes, believe me, my wife can handle what this bike will provide. My goal is 105 square but if I fall a little short I will be ok with that. Fuel injection just seems to be too much for its purpose. No feathers ruffled, just a good healthy conversation.