Ok, re-dyno'd with some changes;
1st set of numbers has D&D slipons, SE AC kit for sporty, factory ignition and N2's and some head work.
2nd set of numbers has Cycle shacks, SE AC big twin kit with K&N filter, Twin Tech module and N2's and the same head work.

example; At 3k the 66 is the first set and 70 second set

At 3K TQ up from 66 to 70 - up 5.8% / HP 38 to 40 - up 5%
At 3.5K TQ up from 70 to 72 - up 2.8% / HP 47 to 47 - even
At 4K TQ up from 75 to 76 - up 1.4% / HP 57 to 58 - 1.8%
At 4.5K TQ up from 78 to 79 - up 1.3% / HP 67 to 67 - even
At 5K TQ from 78 to 78 - even / HP 75 to 75 - even
At 5.5K TQ up from 75 to 76 - up 1.4% / HP 79 to 79 - even
At 6K TQ up from 71 to 73 - up 2.8% / HP 82 to 83 - up 1.3%
At 6.3K NOT TESTED / TQ at 72 / HP at 84
An over all Tq gain of 2.2% and HP 1.15%.

The torque numbers at the bottom prove the seat of the pants fell. It felt more responsive.
These numbers strickly represent a change in the above mentioned items.

Next went in the new Andrews cams marked N3's on the end.

At this point the cycle shacks, Twin Tech and big twin ac kit are still on. All I did was switch the N2's for N3's.

At 3k Tq was 70 to 70/ Hp was 38 to 40
At 3.5K Tq was 72 to 74/ Hp was 47 to 50
At 4K Tq was 76 to 80/ Hp was 58 to 62
aT 4100 TQ peaked at 82 until 4400 up from 77
At 4.5K Tq was 79 to 81/ Hp was 67 to 69
At 5K Tq was 78 to 78/ Hp was 75 to 75
At 5.5K Tq was 76 to 76/ Hp was 79 to 81
At 6K Tq was 73 to 73/ Hp was 83 to 82
At 6.3K Tq was 70 Hp was 83

Overall the N3's made about 2.85% more Tq and 2.8% more HP. However the biggest gain was from 3.5K to 4.8K .It was up 4ftlb at a couple points of the graph. It definately feels better on the bottom. My overall impression is not bad. I like the pull of tq lower but the couple extra Hp on top are nice too. Wasa it worth the work. It cost me nothing but my time. I did the work at the shop and they let me use their tools and thier lift. I had a good time doing it.

The Tq curve moved down the power band about 600rpm's less than before.
I basically have almost 3% more power but it happens sooner.
Don't know where to go from here but I am deffinately not done.


REMEMBER THE LAST TEST, CAM SWAP COST ME NOTHING EXCEPT MY TIME WORKING ON MY OWN BIKE. AND I LIKE DOING THAT.

I'm a bit cornfuzed. The first two sets were basically Stage I with an ignition upgrade? The last was with N3 cams?

Did you ever dyno it w/out the ignition?

Mid 80s is about what I'd expect from a new 1200. Glad to see you're there. Any chance you could post the graphs?

I am confused why a good set of cams only gives 2.8% improvement. Help me out crim. Does not seem like much for the work. Is there a better way to spend your four hundred bucks like headwork or milled heads or something else. Not much for the money I think. I think maybe my n-8's might be more in oreder. Mild cam changes don't do much for the money if you ask me. Is there something he can do to make the bike optimize the new cams. Rottenralph

According to what I've read a Stock 1200 should net about 65 Hp?? Up to 2003!!

Could be wrong!!!!

Sorry for any confusion. The first set of numbers was when I switched from ;
D&D slip-ons, N2's, factory ignition and a SE ac kit for sportser to

Cycle Shacks, N2's, SE big twin ac kit and a Twin Tech module.
Thats where the first set of %'s came from.

The second set of numbers was strickly a cam change from N2's to N3's all thi stuff still on, Cycle shacks, Se big twin ac kit and TwinTech module.

I will edit it.

I am confused why a good set of cams only gives 2.8% improvement. Help me out crim. Does not seem like much for the work. Is there a better way to spend your four hundred bucks like headwork or milled heads or something else. Not much for the money I think. I think maybe my n-8's might be more in oreder. Mild cam changes don't do much for the money if you ask me. Is there something he can do to make the bike optimize the new cams. Rottenralph

I've always believed that headwork is money better spent than cams. But from the HP #s I'm seeing from the new XB heads, I think maybe a set of HQ wild 883 heads are about as good as you can get! Doug Coffey can get pretty respectible numbers (low to mid 80s I think) from stock cams with a great set of 883 heads and a CV carb.

Mild cam changes don't do much for the money if you ask me.

And that's what most people do. Look at Redshift cams if you want a dramatic change.

I've always believed that headwork is money better spent than cams. But from the HP #s I'm seeing from the new XB heads, I think maybe a set of HQ wild 883 heads are about as good as you can get! Doug Coffey can get pretty respectible numbers (low to mid 80s I think) from stock cams with a great set of 883 heads and a CV carb.

I'll second that. IMO, the 883 heads are one of HD's best heads for street bikes. These new XB style heads are good heads too, but they just perform much differently. Since they are a more open port design, with larger valves, they have lower velocity and therefore really start to show their potential in the higher rpms. Since the stock cams were designed with a pwerband in the mid range, I don't think you are seeing the potential of these heads until you change the cams. I haven't looks at the cam specs of the N3's, but they sound a little more high lift and short duration than say the N4's or N6's...I'll bounce over to the Andrews singht in a minute:)

What I am getting at is like I've said on here many times.....it's performance package that is comprised of matched components that will give you a synergetic power curve. Putting N2's under these XB heads is not a great combination. These heads are just begging to breathe, but you are going to have to spin the engine to let them breathe. N2's (and maybe N3's) are not long enough duration cams to allow the engine to spin up and still make power.

I would love to see your dyno sheets as well. After I look at teh Andrews specs, I'll post again. Also, ever wonder why the sportster with XB heads aren't making the over 100 hp that the Buells are???? Cams???? Compression???

I don't think you'll find the N3's at andrews. They made them for my engine guy as a test set for a 04 1200. He explained to John Andrews and understood the problem of the big valves and ports and tried to compensate for it. Don't have the specs yet but with a dial indicator he got about 480ish intake and 470ish exhaust with a shorter duration exhaust than the N4's. I will try to get the full specs.Again those numbers are quesstimates because I don't remember for sure.

Barry, you must live at the dyno shop or have you had one fitted in your living room!?

Well done for the increasing horsepower though!

My mate got 95BHP out of his Buell Lightning way back in '99 (he works for the Harley dealer as Service Manager, so got the parts cheap!) and that was the figure I was hoping to get near to with my run.

QUOTE from Shu: "Also, ever wonder why the sportster with XB heads aren't making the over 100 hp that the Buells are???? Cams???? Compression???"
__________________________________________________ _

Now, that's the million dollar question!

I was going to have the Nallin stage 2 "Big Valve" headwork done to my 04 1200 heads, but the more I keep hearing about the already large ports and valves on these stock 04-05 Buell heads, I am getting second thoughts. Jeeeze, it appears that the ports are already so large that port velocity is kinda slow to begin with.

I don't know if I really want to spin this stock bottom end motor up around 7,000 revs to take advantage of even larger valves and ports than what the heads now have in them.

With that said, maybe there is a set of cams out there in 'Cam Land' that would work great with the stock 04-05 1200 heads that just have been milled to up the compression ratio? .... A cam that would peak it's HP to somewhere around 6,300 - 6,400 revs, but still pull well above 2,500 revs.

I think the 'Jury is still out' on that set of 04-05 specific SE cam that's now available through H-D ... I don't think anyone has of yet really found out what [cams] work best on these Buell headed 04-05 Sportys. :confused:

Bottom line ... In a stock 04-05 1200, there is probably more head than the stock cams can fully support to begin with. Starting to look alot like that.

If you want to 'try' something, go to your local Buell dealer and get a set of cams for the Buell X12 Lightning and throw those in there.

The Buell's have 10:1 compression. I do not have the actual specs on the XB12 cams, so I'm not sure how much you could mill the heads with thos cams and still have clearance, but it would take much to figure out once you had the cam specs.

These cams, under the same heads, with only slightly higher compression make 84 ft lbs @ 6,000 rpms and 103 hp @ 6800 rpms.

The risk you take is spinning the XL engine those rpms all the time. I do not know if the Buell lower end is that much lighter than the the new sportsters, but it could possibly be. One other change I'd make would be to put the 883 drive pulley on at the same time so you can get into the cam quicker:)

I know Nallin's and HQ's are working on some very stout Sportster setups with these XB/XL heads and I'm sure they have some impressive numbers. I, on the other hand, have been looking for a totalled Buell XB12 that I can scavenge the engine, trans, FI, computer, etc so that I can bolt it in my Sportster:)

That is the same assumption the engine shop told me. The 1200 heads are to big. The are great heads for bigger engines like 84-88in. The 883 heads are the best for streetable power ie; under 6500rpms and make great HP and Tq numbers. I have not yet decided whether to go with the 84cu in set up or 883 heads. Cost is about the same, 1200-1400 for the 84cu in or 883 heads done up. I figure a couple hundred for the heads and then 900 or so for the work, It's 900 for the sleeves, pistons and labor to install them and the about 300 to bore the cases plus gaskets and oil etc.for 84cu in. The 883 heads would be the easier route to take but the gaines would not be close to the 84in setup. However, the 84 in setup requires removing and splitting the cases, A lot more work. Decisions...Decisions...

Well, at this point, I think before doing anything major to my heads, I am just going to dyno the bike for a base line.

Then decide on a set of cams, change out the cams, install an ignition module with a higher rev limit ... And then see how it does back on the dyno.

(It may be wise to also have the heads milled at the same time, just to make up for the loss of compression a bigger set of cams will loose) ... I just don't know!

To give you an idea of baseline, with D&D slip-ons, SE ac sporty kit and a jetted carb I got 74.5HP at 6000 and 77ft lbs at 4300.

How did you get 6,000 rpm out of the engine? My stock rev limiter is set to around 5,800 on my bike (at least that's what the stock tach shows) ... Just won't allow it to go any higher.

Don't know. That's when it stopped going any higher. Right up to 6K on the dyno. I'm sure these factory tachs may have a little leway. It could be because of the body weight/wind resistance factor. Who knows.

I don't underdstand how the new heads can be too big. If the Buells are using them, they are'nt too big. I think there just is not enough info out there on the new Sporty's yet. I think Harley should know how to get more horsepower than what they show in the catalog. Can it be that if Harley had a kit to produce 90HP from a Sporty, big twin sales may suffer a little bit? When Harley redid the new motor, why did'nt they think about a big bore kit, just like the big twins? They should have done that. I am convinced big twin sales had a lot to do with it.

Man, I read all of the first two pages of post and couldnt wait to get a post up, and then blueglide88 stole my thunder. I totally agree with you.

It's simple.
I like a lot of other riders don't want to spin our sporties up to 6800-7000rpm. If I did I would have bought a Buell or a Honda. I want as much low end grunt as I can get.
I like HP too, but not at the expense of my bottom end.
Hence the term to big.
Big ports, big valves equals high rpm HP. 883 heads with smaller ports and valves work better for bottom end power. Smaller valves and smaller ports, higher velocity, equals more torque.
That's why the heads are to big.

Look at any companys making tons of power with these 1200 heads and see where they make the power. 6500,7000 and even 7500.

That's not where I want to be with my bike.

I don't underdstand how the new heads can be too big. If the Buells are using them, they are'nt too big.

Well if the heads were designed for a Buell, they could be too big. Buells have lighter flywheels and would rev higher and quicker. It sure wouldn't be the first time HD made heads with ports and valves too big.

Interesting thread...

If the stock 1200 heads have ports and valves a little on the big side(which would favor high RPM power), wouldn't a switch to the 7000 RPM ignition module (on a stage 1 bike) show a power increase on the dyno, if for no other reason than letting the heads get to their sweet spot in airflow?

Or do the factory cams peter out at 6K?

Has anyone tested the 7000 RPM ignition module independent of any other mods?

Well my stage 1 peaked at 74.5 at 6K. At 5K=72...at 5.5K=73 and 74.5 At 6K. I didn't notice a whole lot left on top between 5500-6000.

If that math worked with a 7K module, maybe you could gain 1 to 1.5HP if the factory cams could do it.Which I doubt. Torque starts to fall off fast though. Down 11ft lbs from 4500-6000

I think all the SE module does is increase rpm. It offers no benefit to timing or advance whatsoever. You would be better with a Twin Tech that is adjustable. I did see an A/B test between a factory module and a Twin Tech module and there was a nice difference.

Do the other stuff instead. You will blow your engine to bits a whole lot sooner trying to get power at 7000. The engine can do it but con rods on a long stroke motor like this can stretch and crack and then it is terminal engine failure. Piston head speed is to high for stock pieces. Better to figure out how to boost power in the 3500 to 5500 range where you will get the biggest bang for your buck.

Red, stock bottom ends aren't really suited to 7000 RPM use. I toasted mine w/a 6800 rev limit. Stock cams aren't good for that either. In order to have a 7000 RPM engine, you need to do LOTS of work.

Sounds like good advice guys. Thanks for the input.

I think all the SE module does is increase rpm. It offers no benefit to timing or advance whatsoever. You would be better with a Twin Tech that is adjustable. I did see an A/B test between a factory module and a Twin Tech module and there was a nice difference.

Barry1967,
What settings did you end up with on your Twin Tech Module?

According to the new 05 Screamin Eagle catalogue the SE ignition module does retard the ignition timing by 5 degrees as well as upping the red line to 7000 rpm. When I had mine dyno'd with this module the power peaked at around 6600 rpm and cut out at around 7100 rpm. There seemed to be no strain on the engine because it was over so quickly. On the road, though I take it nowhere near that.
As a point, if you look at pages 18 & 19 in that catalogue it does give various power graphs for the 04/05 Sportsters.

Scooter, 5-5-6500 and welcome to the forum.

Barry...actually, I was on the old forum too and had to sign up again so it looks like my first post. Ahhh to remember the first time...
Anyway, I was reading the Twin Tech website and it states that the "5" setting was basically the stock setting. Did you have a chance to experiment with the module's settings? Does your speedo read properly?

Well, the sportster I mentioned earler was set at the same settings and it put out more power and torque than the factory module, so by them saying 5's are factory specs seems odd. I did try slope 6 but 5 made more power. Did not try 4. The shop said the other bike made the best power on 5. I may cut back the initial timing 1 click due to the fact I get a twinge of pinging from a dead stop.

Thanks for the input. Did you notice if the speedo reads correctly?
There is a good review of this module in this month's "Iron Works" mag.

If anyone is interested, I took the data off the Twin Tec site and plotted the 0-5-9 settings compared to a stock 883 up to 5000 RPM so I could get a visual on what I was buying (TC88A should be UPS tomorrow)
I see if it will attach….

Hey TechRep,
Where did you find the factory advance slope?

I don't remember the site. The stuff I have won't attach. If you want I can e-mail it to you as an attachment. It has some stock 1200 data also.

I'd be interested if you want to email it to me. Do you know if the info is 04+ or 03 and earlier?

my email: DFL733@CS.com

Thanks!

I sent you a bunch of stuff.. hope you have broadband... :clap

Got it! thanks, TechRep!

I sent an email to Daytona Twin Tech asking the question about the speedometer calibration and here's the response...

"We use an average calibration and you may notice a slight error - about 2
MPH at 60 MPH. However, if you tell us what model you have when you order,
we can program the unit to read 100% correct."

On the dyno, my speedo was accurate with the speedo in the dyno.