CHOP CULT HOME
Email Password
Search
Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. #21
    Senior Member

    Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

    Get Adobe Flash player


    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    12,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by confab View Post
    What are we looking at, exactly?

    A timken retrofit?
    Not a retrofit using the 70 year old left case, it now can be made into "Wall Art"



    What you're eyeballing is a new left (356-T6) case with the bearing steel support casted in just like Harley did it back in the good old days, will ya have a look at the giant lugs the case steel insert has locking it in the alum.
    Best part, amug many, is it has bone stock looks that makes it very hard to tell that it wasn't a Oem case from yesteryear..

    About the work to do this ... The re-pop case has to be matched to your Oem right side case, comes with having the deck, bore, motor mount pads and center steel bearing support all having .040"-.060" more meat so the machining to match has no problems attainting a match ...
    Vin numbers pad is blank, gotta stamp in your old numbers and ... Da-Daaaa

    (Only your hairdresser will know for sure)


    The bearing used is the 69-up with the 70-up motor shaft seal in play ..
    Even 41-47 Kuncks can now run a Timken .
    Sorry 36-40 EL Guys ya still got to run the straight bearing, Timken not available ....
    Last edited by Dragstews; 10-19-2021 at 1:49 PM.

  2. #22
    Member

    Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

    Get Adobe Flash player


    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    87

    Default

    There is ....
    Thanks bud!!

    IIRC the magazine article I referenced was done by some racers, "Rawlin's Motor Maniacs" maybe?

    After measuring my case insert it's almost certain they used the 1.7810 cup O.D. bearing also. I wouldn't even consider using the bigger bearing!

    So what I have in mind is a 74 incher using 0.020 over EL jugs (thicker walls are better when it comes to iron staying round) and a 4.25" stroke, as much CR ratio as it takes, (much, much chamber work too) to produce 90 ft lbs at a relatively low rpm. Heaviest custom flywheels I can get my hands on... to mostly reduce the vibes

    In order of importance to me

    1) lowest vibration possible
    2) reliability
    3) decent power everywhere starting from right off idle

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    413

    Default

    If I remember that right thats and old racer trick. yields 68 inches, However maybe its the other way. I think the 61 inch stroke and the 74 inch cylinders would be a more square size yielding better rpms? Just thinking ....

  4. #24
    Member

    Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

    Get Adobe Flash player


    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flatman View Post
    If I remember that right thats and old racer trick. yields 68 inches, However maybe its the other way. I think the 61 inch stroke and the 74 inch cylinders would be a more square size yielding better rpms? Just thinking ....
    The formula I've always used is bore radius squared x pi x stroke x 2. I think around 73.5 inches before the 0.020 overbore.

  5. #25
    Senior Member

    Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

    Get Adobe Flash player


    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    Even 41-47 Kuncks can now run a Timken .

    That's awesome!

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    1,954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oneuptom View Post
    Thanks bud!!

    IIRC the magazine article I referenced was done by some racers, "Rawlin's Motor Maniacs" maybe?

    After measuring my case insert it's almost certain they used the 1.7810 cup O.D. bearing also. I wouldn't even consider using the bigger bearing!

    So what I have in mind is a 74 incher using 0.020 over EL jugs (thicker walls are better when it comes to iron staying round) and a 4.25" stroke, as much CR ratio as it takes, (much, much chamber work too) to produce 90 ft lbs at a relatively low rpm. Heaviest custom flywheels I can get my hands on... to mostly reduce the vibes

    In order of importance to me

    1) lowest vibration possible
    2) reliability
    3) decent power everywhere starting from right off idle
    1)The expectation of 90 ft.lb. is not realistic.
    2) As you increase stroke, vibration goes up. That is simple physics, and you cannot balance your way around it.
    3) As compression goes up, vibration goes up. Again, physics.
    4) The use of heavy flywheels makes for a nice street motor (and I prefer that for a heavy bike, personally).

    For your #1 goal of lowest vibration, you would be better off with EL flywheels and 3 5/8 bore cylinders. That would give you 72 cu.in. Of course torque would be comparatively lower.

    Also addressing the vibration, the lighter the pistons and rods, the lower the vibration. Again physics.

    It will be of interest to see what mix-and-match recipe you come up with. I like Frankenmotors.

    Jim

  7. #27
    Member

    Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

    Get Adobe Flash player


    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    87

    Default

    1)The expectation of 90 ft.lb. is not realistic
    Indeed it isn't, not with a stock intake that's for sure, and not at low rpm with a little motor, but I have a plan.

    Think of the long runner GM TPI intake and how it makes big low rpm torque. That kind of low rpm torque is ALWAYS tied to a long intake runner length!!! Harleys don't have any runner length, nothing you could consider tunable anyway

    I'll be using a NOS S&S dual runner Pan intake manifold mated to a NOS Screamin' Eagle Holley dual throat. Also have the complete jet kit for it. Make that intake and exhaust talk properly with each other and they'll give you 90 ft lbs from 74 inches below 5,500 rpm. Goes without saying it'll also take some compression and the right cam

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    1,954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oneuptom View Post
    Indeed it isn't, not with a stock intake that's for sure, and not at low rpm with a little motor, but I have a plan.

    Think of the long runner GM TPI intake and how it makes big low rpm torque. That kind of low rpm torque is ALWAYS tied to a long intake runner length!!! Harleys don't have any runner length, nothing you could consider tunable anyway

    I'll be using a NOS S&S dual runner Pan intake manifold mated to a NOS Screamin' Eagle Holley dual throat. Also have the complete jet kit for it. Make that intake and exhaust talk properly with each other and they'll give you 90 ft lbs from 74 inches below 5,500 rpm. Goes without saying it'll also take some compression and the right cam
    Good luck with it, but that ain't gonna happen.

    Jim

  9. #29
    Member

    Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

    Get Adobe Flash player


    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    87

    Default

    If a 383 TPI can make over 500 ft lbs, 1.3 lbs + per cube without even breaking a sweat using a small cam, why can't I build an engine making only 1.2 lbs per cube using basically the same architecture, blueprint?..

  10. #30
    Senior Member

    Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

    Get Adobe Flash player


    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    If a 383 TPI can make over 500 ft lbs, 1.3 lbs + per cube without even breaking a sweat using a small cam

    You're talking about the SOSN build.. Right?

  11. #31

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    1,954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oneuptom View Post
    If a 383 TPI can make over 500 ft lbs, 1.3 lbs + per cube without even breaking a sweat using a small cam, why can't I build an engine making only 1.2 lbs per cube using basically the same architecture, blueprint?..
    Because air cooled motors are different animals. And more importantly, the H-D combustion chambers are primitive compared to what they are doing with the car motors. And most importantly, that's an 8 cylinder motor and you cannot do a straight across comparison to a 2 cylinder motor. It just doesn't work like that.

    I admire your enthusiasm. But realize that people have been hopping up H-D motors for 100 years. Pretty much anything that you can imagine has been tried, by people much smarter than you or me. The performance limitations are pretty well known. Lastly, crank HP and chassis dyno HP (that we are more familiar with in the motorcycle community) are very different measurements.

    If I were you, I would shoot for 70 ft.lb. of torque, and if you can manage that, you will see how hard it is.

    Jim
    Last edited by JBinNC; 10-20-2021 at 12:30 PM.

  12. #32
    Member

    Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

    Get Adobe Flash player


    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    87

    Default

    It was everywhere at the time so I don't exactly remember?.. Pretty sure the intake runners on it were 1.5" though. If I'm not mistaken the S&S runners are 1.625", so plenty big enough for what I want. It's the length though that really matters here. Love all this TPI stuff and follow Richard Holdener's dyno testing religiously. I even have a 350 TPI in my old 92 GMC box van. Love that thing!!

  13. #33
    Senior Member

    Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

    Get Adobe Flash player


    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    I remember that, because it's why I put the Vortec setup on my Vette. It was a three (I think?) part series called "Something Old, Something New" and it was in Super Chevy.

    Amazing results. Computerized engine management. Vortec heads. Blueprinted to the extent they even bushed the lifter bores to correct their geometry. Basically, it was a NASCAR quality build for a street engine. A fortune in machine work. I actually talked to the shop that did it once, years ago. They say they've done a number of them over the years and the bill is about 20K for their machining.

    Just incredible results, though.

  14. #34
    Member

    Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

    Get Adobe Flash player


    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by confab View Post
    I remember that, because it's why I put the Vortec setup on my Vette. It was a three (I think?) part series called "Something Old, Something New" and it was in Super Chevy.

    Amazing results. Computerized engine management. Vortec heads. Blueprinted to the extent they even bushed the lifter bores to correct their geometry. Basically, it was a NASCAR quality build for a street engine. A fortune in machine work. I actually talked to the shop that did it once, years ago. They say they've done a number of them over the years and the bill is about 20K for their machining.

    Just incredible results, though.
    Sounds like different build from what I remember

    Nothing special here, just kinda lo-buck results

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ofi...ichardHoldener

Share This



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in