Author Topic: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity  (Read 2914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline boatnut

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 94
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #25 on: Tuesday, November 06, 2012. 11:01:51 PM. »
"Because after ridding a built one there is no going back."
Therein lies the problem.... 

Offline sfmichael

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
  • Country: us
  • Hoping to build the next mighty 'mouse'
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #26 on: Tuesday, November 06, 2012. 11:23:44 PM. »
"He said that stock motors with cams will make more torque, get better gas mileage, last longer and will be more reliable than any built motor you can come up with."

He's dead wrong. A thorough but mild build will out perform a stocker in every way including possibly longevity. Some aggressive builds run forever too, but a well thought out, hand built motor can be better than the factory. The factory does a fine job but cannot blue-print and carefully hand assemble engines, nor does it have time to optimize all engine components or engine management systems.

Your hopefully well-intentioned indy is full of sh*t. He just doesn't know it. By "stock motors with cams" (which means they're no longer "stock") I'll assume he's saying Stage 2 engines with a good tune. He's on the right track...and probably means well.

Offline BUBBIE

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
  • Country: us
  • 09 FLHR KING / 06 sport 1200 R
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #27 on: Wednesday, November 07, 2012. 06:15:56 PM. »
 :potstir:

My bike is a 09 FLHR,

I have V&H slip-on exhaust, SE air, SE255's and BETA testing a Gen4 fueler by Dobeck Performance, (i have it set) giving me 50 miles per gallon on a long fairly flat ride from 51 miles around lower Az. south then Up to middle of NM mostly using some 5th and 6th at 65/68 mph, and at 89*... I love the low end torque and the total runability of it... AFR is set for cruise using 15 AFR (leanest I've tried). No over heat or ping.. Twisting the throttle and you get 12.5 AFR and Much less mileage but WOW, it moves... (AFR set at 14 cruise gives me 46/47 constant miles per gallon and when two up at times.. dropping to 45) Can't beat that in My Book...

This beta of the gen 4 was at Normal riding (one up and gear for a two day 600+ mile outing) YES,,,,, with an occasional Burst of throttle...

I have 103" pistons/cylinders done by Kirby of Prodrag, heads blueprinted by Don Doorfman, WAITING for me to put on this winter IF we have one???   Still going to use the SE255's.. 54,000 miles on the clock and enjoying it so much the way it is NOW, I'll probably have to put in a lot of New parts when I do the conversion. :hyst:

I too have had Big builds (my own) in Lighter bilkes but I'm Liking the way this Big bike acts with the few mods...

I guess I'd say se255's and the other stuff I have is a good thing... So your guy saying Cams and air and exhaust, won't make my neck hairs come up.. :hyst:  I give a lot of Credit to the fuler I use though...

signed....BUBBIE
***********************
Quite Often I am Right, so Forgive me when I'm WRONG !!!

Offline Hillsidecyclecom

  • Premium Vendor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6561
  • Country: 00
  • Munnsville, N.Y., between Syracuse, & Utica.
    • www.hillsidecycle.com
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #28 on: Thursday, November 08, 2012. 03:31:06 AM. »
Sounds like your indy's a parts fitter not a engine builder.

not even a parts fitter,sounds like a chrome boutique


"Chromosexual"
Predator Series Engine Kits

Offline Spudislandbiker

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 131
  • Country: ca
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #29 on: Thursday, November 08, 2012. 07:19:52 AM. »

Your first mistake is stating it being done over the next few years. Do it once and do it right or you will have a ton of spare parts sitting on the shelves. Way cheaper doing it once. Tust me on that. :koolaid:
Ron
[/quote]

Thank you everyone for your input. Very helpful and exactly what I thought as well..

I completely agree with you Ron. When I say I'm doing this over a few years. What I really mean is I'm saving the scratch, designing my build, finding suppliers/shops to use, etc.... But probably the most important, convincing my wife I need to rebuild the motor... (that alone is going to take two yrs  :hyst:)

Again Thank you All

Chris

Offline bigfoot5x

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 927
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #30 on: Thursday, November 08, 2012. 07:33:39 AM. »
I purposely did not buy the extended warranty so I could do this after the year warranty was out. Wife knew when I bought the bike. Only complaint I have is that I should have done it sooner.

Offline hd06myway

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #31 on: Thursday, November 08, 2012. 09:39:12 AM. »
I would imagine anyone going to a bigger, hotter motor wouldn't be concerned about gas milage or they wouldn't go there in the first place. I agree a good tune will render decent gas milage but a high performance motor is not about fuel economy... if you aren't going to light it up once in a while, why bother with it in the first place?  :idunno:

Offline BUBBIE

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
  • Country: us
  • 09 FLHR KING / 06 sport 1200 R
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #32 on: Thursday, November 08, 2012. 12:15:07 PM. »
I would imagine anyone going to a bigger, hotter motor wouldn't be concerned about gas milage or they wouldn't go there in the first place. I agree a good tune will render decent gas milage but a high performance motor is not about fuel economy... if you aren't going to light it up once in a while, why bother with it in the first place?  :idunno:

Read My reply above. You can get good mileage with a HOT ROD BIKE...

IF done correctly.

signed....BUBBIE
***********************
Quite Often I am Right, so Forgive me when I'm WRONG !!!

Offline wavlovr1

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 887
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #33 on: Thursday, November 08, 2012. 04:45:05 PM. »
My expierence is that factory motors built in the last few years to meet epa specs are not even close to being efficient gas milage motors... last longer? good luck with that... a motor built to make more power (within reason) is usually more efficient, gets better MPG, and will last longer to boot... ie; there is a lot of room for improvement on a stock motor just in air flow and a reasonable fuel/air mixture dialed in to get the best result from whatever fuel you burn...

Offline Spudislandbiker

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 131
  • Country: ca
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #34 on: Thursday, November 08, 2012. 04:50:52 PM. »
My expierence is that factory motors built in the last few years to meet epa specs are not even close to being efficient gas milage motors... last longer? good luck with that... a motor built to make more power (within reason) is usually more efficient, gets better MPG, and will last longer to boot... ie; there is a lot of room for improvement on a stock motor just in air flow and a reasonable fuel/air mixture dialed in to get the best result from whatever fuel you burn...
:up:

Well Put!!!!!

Offline Scooterfish

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1114
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #35 on: Friday, November 09, 2012. 07:45:38 AM. »
Wavlovr1 " a motor built to make more power (within reason) is usually more efficient, gets better MPG, and will last longer too"

The main reason the MPG drops is twisting the throttle more often & harder.
Northern Indiana

Offline wavlovr1

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 887
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #36 on: Friday, November 09, 2012. 04:50:06 PM. »
Wavlovr1 " a motor built to make more power (within reason) is usually more efficient, gets better MPG, and will last longer too"

The main reason the MPG drops is twisting the throttle more often & harder.

True :-)   but ride them both at a constant speed and the stock motor will use more gas than the built one. Of course, you don't get the same results from the stock motor when you twist the throttle more often and harder; but isn't it nice once and a while?

Offline HogBag

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1232
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #37 on: Friday, November 09, 2012. 06:55:31 PM. »
My stock 96 cube bike was dangerous when passing trucks etc as it had no punch but its defiantly not the case now. I just twist the wick in any gear and hang on tight as its blasts down the HWY. The last 500 mile trip I got 54 mpg cruising in 5th and 6th at 100 to 120 KPH. I could never go back to a low compression stock engine after riding a Harley that cracks when throttle is opened.

Offline burgies08ultra

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 382
  • Country: 00
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #38 on: Friday, November 09, 2012. 06:59:15 PM. »
well tell me about the bad boy motor u got there...
burgie
2013 road glide,2009 road king

Offline HogBag

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1232
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #39 on: Saturday, November 10, 2012. 12:57:27 PM. »
Burgie
Its a 07 FLHT with rev perf stg2 heads 1.9 1.61 valves 86cc , early CP 103 pistons that are above deck height with .032 squish, smith bros pushrods, wood lifters  wood 5/6 cams at 10.1 comp, 192 ccp, Jagg 6 row vertical cooler, DVR 51mm ported body, S&S tear drop with desperado cover 3 1/2 inch S&S filter, SE 4.9 injectors, trapped Bassani road rage with bung mods, TTS home tuned dpc176 mt8 starter map, stock clutch with SE spring VPC 82 top hat. The bike pulls the front wheel a few inches under power in 1st and 2nd and will lift easy with clutch input going into 3rd. The engine runs to 6200 limiter with out falling over. I ran around in circles for years with this engine trying to get it to spin up fast but it was a slug until I spoke to Dan Vance racing about his throttle body porting service. He asked me to send him the flow sheets on the heads with a stock 46mm body. He bored the body to 51mm with porting the main intake runner he also modified the T intake by welding a inch high divider with a knife edge between the inlets and then blended both intake tracks into the heads. Dan sent me the flow sheets on the body showing 150 CFM. The first ride after fitting the body I was cruising in 2nd or 3rd warming up the engine and hit a pot hole bumping my throttle hand and was laid up for two weeks with whiplash before I could get back on the bike. After 5 years of mods I finally got the throttle re-ponce I was chasing but the low speed drive-ability is gone with any touch of the throttle the bike launches trying to leave the rider on the road.

Sorry I keep editing as I remember whats been done to my mouse engine.  :embarrassed:
« Last Edit: Monday, November 12, 2012. 02:15:26 AM. by HogBag »

Offline Scooterfish

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1114
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #40 on: Monday, November 12, 2012. 06:49:03 AM. »
Wavlovr1 " a motor built to make more power (within reason) is usually more efficient, gets better MPG, and will last longer too"

The main reason the MPG drops is twisting the throttle more often & harder.

True :-)   but ride them both at a constant speed and the stock motor will use more gas than the built one. Of course, you don't get the same results from the stock motor when you twist the throttle more often and harder; but isn't it nice once and a while?

Yep  :agree:. I`m saying MPG on the mild build doesn`t drop because it`s less efficient. It may drop because the rider enjoys twisting the throttle more. :up:
Northern Indiana

Offline N-gin

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1555
  • Country: 00
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #41 on: Monday, November 12, 2012. 03:57:40 PM. »
I went from 96, to 103, then 107. 96 to 103 fuel mileage stayed the same maybe better mileage.  From 103 to 107. Mileag dropped considerably.
Also my rear tire is worn out. :sheep:
The best mileage I've gotten from the 107 is 180 miles. But keep in mind I have a tank lift that traps 1.0 (average) gallons even after my reserve says low.
« Last Edit: Monday, November 12, 2012. 04:00:34 PM. by N-gin »
You live more in 1 day on a machine like this, than most people do in a lifetime

Offline wavlovr1

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 887
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #42 on: Wednesday, November 28, 2012. 10:31:34 AM. »
Wavlovr1 " a motor built to make more power (within reason) is usually more efficient, gets better MPG, and will last longer too"

The main reason the MPG drops is twisting the throttle more often & harder.

True :-)   but ride them both at a constant speed and the stock motor will use more gas than the built one. Of course, you don't get the same results from the stock motor when you twist the throttle more often and harder; but isn't it nice once and a while?

Yep  :agree:. I`m saying MPG on the mild build doesn`t drop because it`s less efficient. It may drop because the rider enjoys twisting the throttle more. :up:

LOL, it's a hard habit to control..... Using that extra ump....  :chop:

Offline dynablack07

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Country: 00
Re: Performance vs Reliability vs Gas Mileage vs Longevity
« Reply #43 on: Thursday, November 29, 2012. 10:01:10 AM. »
The only good thing about stock ( IMHO ) , is the fun of planning how to make it go faster..
Once it's going faster, the fun continues, wrenching, etc..
Modified my first minibike while in 6th grade, and never regretted it, learned a ton.

I won't own a minivan, or a stock bike.. life's to short..
2007 103 FXDWG, SEPST, RS 577, 1.9/1.6 heads, crank/timken, S&S lifters, Cannons