| Author | Message | ||
     Vr1203 |
Roc, I called Aerocharger,If I install a turbo with different internals(bigger impellers)But with the same castings,I can get up to 150hp.Maybe Roc, yours has been modified? | ||
| Blake |
Skulley, Yes.  | ||
| M2cyclone00 |
Skulley, if money is the concern, do the heads & skip the big bore. Good heads will do a lot more for performance than the big bore. Look at Aaron's M2 with over 119hp. That bike has stock cylinders overbored by .010 with great pistons. Dave | ||
| Blake |
Just one clarification to Dave's advice... Aaron had a very good professional overbore performed on his stock cylinders. That makes all the difference in the long term integrity of the rings/cyl wall seal. | ||
| Skulley |
Money is of concern as always. I am in the middle of rocker box gasket changing and paused for thought. Figured I would change base and head gaskets also. Well, if I am that far down I should just install the big bore kit for now. Do the heads and cams when the funds appear. | ||
| Roc |
VR1203 - I don't know. I will have a better idea of the power soon. | ||
| Predius |
Has anyone offered a split pin crank and matching cam combo for an HD mill? I realize that will wreck the classic sound and character of the mill, but from what I know, in a v twin engine it should smooth things out, allowing for higher reving and tighter tolerances? | ||
| M2cyclone00 |
Predius, No, not that I've ever seen. You would need an entirely different crankcase since the cylinders would have to be offset. The single pin crank allows the cylinders to be aligned in the same plane, directly in front & behind each other. Although, the single pin design does not have perfect primary balance (by any means) it does, as a result of the alignment of the cylinders, have almost all of the vibration is in the same plane. That is why the isolators work so well on Buells, Dynas, etc. If a dual pin crank was used the cylinders would no longer be aligned. Look at the Honda Shadows that use a dual pin. Their cylinders are slightly offset. Dave | ||
| Predius |
M2cyclone00: Thats a detail I never caught, I just assumed the heads 'hid' the offset inside making them like every other vtwin I've looked at. Back to the quick and dirty power drawing board I guess. : ) | ||
| Predius |
Bah, somehow munged my first post... anyways... Has anyone looked into doubling up either the 1200 thats in the tube framed Buells or the new XB9 series mill into a 45deg V4? I realize the rear bank of cylnders won't get much air, but ignoring that one detail... How much would need to be done to take a second set of jugs, pistons, rods, crank, etc and 'bolt' it up beside the existing setup. Based on what little I know you'd want to line the crank pins up so each bank rises and falls together. On a 90 deg V4 this leads to natural primary balance, not sure what it'll do to a 45deg V4. The firing order can be setup for 'twin twingle' duty by running the cams in phase with eachother, basically giving you a mill that runs like a twin but with less stress on the individual pistons, which should in turn allow you to shoot for a higer output. The setup I'm more familiar with would be to turn the cam 180 deg clockwise, such that the two halfs fire one rotation out of sync. This should help calm some primary imbalance I hope. Ignigtion would be easily carried out by duplicating the components for the second set of pistons. Breathing could be done via a custom single carb to four port header as you should have enough cfm that idle throttle responce wouldn't be an issue. Or for simplicity, run dual EFI and some breather plumbing. Without knowing the internals of the Buell mills all that well this is 100% wild speculation, but it seems to me to be an interesting thought process at the very least. | ||
| Blake |
I prefer two cylinders. Why four when you can simply go to a larger twin? | ||
| Predius |
'cause everyone and their uncle can buy big bore bolt up kits. How many people have a homemade V4? Think of the geek value! | ||
| Tripper |
because it's there... | ||
| M2cyclone00 |
That might be a damn wide engine. I think you would need to design new cases that would probably be significantly wider even if you reduced the bore of each cylinder. That would impact other factors such as maximum lean angles. Sounds like a complex change to me, but infinitely better than a Boss Hoss! | ||
| Predius |
I could spout herrasy and start talking overhead cams, watercooled, but might as well start from a clean slate if going that far. As far as width, there has got to be some room to narrow it up if going V4. First thought is put the alternate jugs on backwards, so the pushrods face the other way, for the second V, then put the two sets side by side with the rods on the outside. You could then machine off the fins on the insides to get the jugs as close together as possible. If heat becomes a problem, space them out with a thin labyrynth oil block and make sure the design includes extra oil capacity, pressure, and a cooler. As far as cases, I have no idea how much is involved in making custom ones. I've really got to either tear an old clapped out ruined HD mill apart so I can see just whats in there. | ||
| Blake |
I like the Fueling W-triple better. | ||
| Xgecko |
Why 4 sets of rods???if your going to twin fire it (like the Duc V4) why not just link the valves. Saves space and complexity. The Idea of a relatively small (say 1000cc) aircooled V4 is rather interesting. I wonder if it's something the boys at Buell have thought of. the Fueling W triple is cool but tooo big | ||
| Predius |
Blake: I agree with Xgecko, the W3 is a cool mill, but damn does it take up space! A V4 on the otherhand is just a widening of the existing mill, should be easier to adapt an existing frame to take it. Xgecko: You could, but then you'd have that much more mass to operate in the top end via those overworked rods, you'd have to cut back the redline even more. It would let you get an awfully narrow design together quick though... I think you'd have to have the rods inbetween the jugs to balance the forces on the valves. I'm pretty sure Erik's heard of the Nova project and has contemplated V4's, V6's, etc. I just don't think Buell's at the point where they could develop that radical a departure from the EVO/88B base on their own yet so they are sticking with whats available quickly and reliably. | ||
| Roc |
Aerocharger troubles - After running my S2 with an Aerocharger on Aaron's dyno last weekend, than you Aaron, and finding some trouble I spoke with Jim at Aerocharger. The bike made 125 HP but cut out at befor 5,600 RPM. The bike ran very inconsistantly on the dyno and the street, but had previously ran great. Jim said that they previously had trouble with the Dyna 2000 ignition modules, which I am using, and that they no longer supply them with that unit for that reason. He thought that was probably the source of my problems. He recommended that I try a stock ignition module to see if that cleared things up, as a test. For long term use he said to use a Crane HI-4E, he was not sure on the product number but thought that was it. The Crane system has a "soft rev limiter", as does the Dyna 2000, which is much easier on the turbo unit. He also said that I need to run 100 octane if I'm going to put 15 pounds of boost in my engine. He was suprised I didn't have problems at Aaron's, I was fueled with 92 octane and added some octane booster, and thought the elevation may have been my saving grace. At Aaron's I changed spark plug gaps from .43" to .23". Aaron said this was needed with his NO2 set ups to get them to ignite properly. Jim had no input on this, maybe he learned somthing. I will be shopping for a new rev limiter in the future. Any input on the selection, and anything else that may help out here, is welcome. | ||
| Pammy |
Crane HI4E or Daytona Twin Tech, both are great ignitions and both were designed by the same engineer(Chris Schroeder). | ||
| Blake |
Roc, Too much power corrupts anything. When the turbo kicked in, your bike sure got that dyno spinning in a hurry. The CF intercooler scoop is too cool. Was great meeting you and your dad. | ||
| Vr1203 |
Roc, I have a Dyna 2000 on mine and was running to 7000RPM+.I love that ignition.But if you are getting 125hp at around 5500rpm you should see about 150hp at 7000rpm.I'm wondering if your intercooler is restrictive. | ||
| Roc |
Thanks Blake, it was great meeting you too. Did Rocket keep you up? Vr1203, I was told the innercooler core was good for about 150HP and that after that it would be a restriction. The bike would run smooth on the street to around maybe 7-8 pounds of boost and 85-100MPH. It would seem to starve of fuel after that, but the A/F ratio guage would read ok. The Dyno readings were all over the place too. I think it was a few runs in the 90's, 125, 90's, and then 120, 115, 110. The plug gap was changed just before the 120. Before the 125 run it blew smoke and shot fire, probably not too good for a turbo. In the end it was fouling the front plug too, probably why it started to loose HP. | ||
| Skulley |
Yuck, where to post this? The heads look worse. Cause? The valve seals look intact.  | ||
| Bucky |
Does any one have a PC map for my set up, Stock bore 2000 x-1, Nallin stage 3 heads, 536 SE cams, Nallin signature series big bore pipe, gutted box, race ecm. Dawg, save it. The carb will come with next years tax return. Next spring I'll be going to a 88 inch set up. That probably means my FI will take a hike too. But I need to ask anyway, has anyone heard of this set up retaining the FI? Thanks much... | ||
| Rempss |
Buck, Yes, the "zero map" , or better yet remove the PCIII if you have the race ECM. I have ranted ad nauseam about the PCIII, others have suggested that I am crazy, but some of my info (opinion)is here, scroll down from there. Jeff | ||
| Predius |
Ok, more crazy ideas. What do people think of using an inverse desmo design to help bring up the rev limit on the HD mill while maintaining cam in block, 'pushrod' operation? Basically, the cams would have twice the lobes, two per valve. One lobe opes the valve, the other closes it. The push rods are replaced with rods hard attatched to the rockers by a pivot at the top, and at the bottom they have a shoe above and below the cam to 'ride the lobes. At all times either the top or bottom shoe is in contact, constraining the rod's motion. There is no room for float in the cam/rod/rocker setup as it's all directly attatched to eachother. You could then directly run the valve off the rocker, and remove or really size down the valve spring, and theoretically no valve float. Sound reasonable? | ||
| Littledog1 |
Predius, Looks like a lot of reciprocating mass with extra parts to wear and break, especially since conventional valve sping technology will let the HD enging rev WAY beyong what the lower end will take. It would probably make interesting sounds though. Mickey | ||
| Blake |
Desmo works great. If you could figure out a way to maintain the zero maintenance hydraulics while incorporating a desmo valvetrain, you would really have something. Didn't already I see this same idea proposed not too long ago?  | ||
| Benm2 |
Predius: I was thinking the same thing! In fact, posted it in another spot today, before I read your post. Apparently, its been posted before, as noted. As Blake says, incorporating hydraulic lifters would be tough, though. This, of course, will bother me for days... |
