Cam Chest woe's

[dolt]

I have no stroker experience with TC platform, so I will have to check into the jugs and rods issues, if there is one. I doubt that I would add very much, 1/4 I am guessing.

There is no stroker issue with the TCs. Assuming you are working on the 2002SE Road King, the motor is 95", 3.875" x 4.00. Harley makes two stroker cranks that you can use, 4.375" and 4.625". 2002 was the last year for the Timken crank bearing which was replaced by a roller bearng in '03. So, you won't need to convert the roller to the Timken since your bike is a 2002 model.

The stroke is managed by relocating the crank pin, cylinders and rods are all the same length but pistons are different, i.e., stroker crank = compatible stroker pistons.

Of course, you can case bore to accomodate larger bore cylinders; you could bore to 3.932" for 98" displacement but I would not go there and increase the stroke as well. The combinations you can build vary with bore and stroke.

4.060 x 4.000 = 104" (not a stroker)
4.125 x 4.000 = 107" (not a stroker)
3.875 x 4.375 = 103"
3.875 x 4.625 = 110"
4.060 x 4.375 = 113"
4.060 x 4.625 = 120"
4.125 x 4.375 = 117"
4.125 x 4.625 = 124'

The reason I use 4.060 instead of 4.000 is that H-D offers a set of 4.060 cylinders, so I see no reason to consider a 4" bore. 4.250" cylinders are available in the aftermarket but, from what I have seen, those motors don't last too long; I don't consider 4.250" bore suitable for a "street" build. Nor do I like the long 4.625" stroke, although that crank is used in the H-D 120" motor and I haven't seen or heard of any issues associated with that long stroke.

I have two personal favorites; the 4.125 x 4.00 non stroker 107" and the 4.125 x 4.375 117". Of course, one has to split the cases and case bore for the larger cylinders for the 107", so one has to ask oneself "self, should I stroke this bad boy while I have the chance" or "self, can we afford a storker crank?". I, for one, assumin budget would allow, would buy the stroker crank and build a 117".

Another consideration is cost. You can buy the SE120R motor for about the same, probably less, than what building a 117" will cost. So, one has to ask oneself that question "build from scratch or go with the 120R?"

Lots of things to consider when planning a big bore build; just offering food for thought.

 

[HDDon]

There is no stroker issue with the TCs. Assuming you are working on the 2002SE Road King, the motor is 95", 3.875" x 4.00. Harley makes two stroker cranks that you can use, 4.375" and 4.625". 2002 was the last year for the Timken crank bearing which was replaced by a roller bearng in '03. So, you won't need to convert the roller to the Timken since your bike is a 2002 model.

The stroke is managed by relocating the crank pin, cylinders and rods are all the same length but pistons are different, i.e., stroker crank = compatible stroker pistons.

Of course, you can case bore to accomodate larger bore cylinders; you could bore to 3.932" for 98" displacement but I would not go there and increase the stroke as well. The combinations you can build vary with bore and stroke.

4.060 x 4.000 = 104" (not a stroker)
4.125 x 4.000 = 107" (not a stroker)
3.875 x 4.375 = 103"
3.875 x 4.625 = 110"
4.060 x 4.375 = 113"
4.060 x 4.625 = 120"
4.125 x 4.375 = 117"
4.125 x 4.625 = 124'

The reason I use 4.060 instead of 4.000 is that H-D offers a set of 4.060 cylinders, so I see no reason to consider a 4" bore. 4.250" cylinders are available in the aftermarket but, from what I have seen, those motors don't last too long; I don't consider 4.250" bore suitable for a "street" build. Nor do I like the long 4.625" stroke, although that crank is used in the H-D 120" motor and I haven't seen or heard of any issues associated with that long stroke.

I have two personal favorites; the 4.125 x 4.00 non stroker 107" and the 4.125 x 4.375 117". Of course, one has to split the cases and case bore for the larger cylinders for the 107", so one has to ask oneself "self, should I stroke this bad boy while I have the chance" or "self, can we afford a storker crank?". I, for one, assumin budget would allow, would buy the stroker crank and build a 117".

Another consideration is cost. You can buy the SE120R motor for about the same, probably less, than what building a 117" will cost. So, one has to ask oneself that question "build from scratch or go with the 120R?"

Lots of things to consider when planning a big bore build; just offering food for thought.

A lot more than food for thought this is a 7 course meal!!:majesty

 

[SEroadking]

I am reading a bikernet article that proposes going with the SE oil pump and SE conversion cam plate and eliminating cam bearings all together. It uses the '07 style chain set-up and hybrid cams. Sounds much cheaper than fueling bullet proof cam chest for $2K plus another $1-2K in head and cyl work with the parts. Actually hundreds and hundreds cheaper.
I will look in the forum history here too.

 

[dolt]

I am reading a bikernet article that proposes going with the SE oil pump and SE conversion cam plate and eliminating cam bearings all together. It uses the '07 style chain set-up and hybrid cams. Sounds much cheaper than fueling bullet proof cam chest for $2K plus another $1-2K in head and cyl work with the parts. Actually hundreds and hundreds cheaper. I will look in the forum history here too.

I believe you are referring to the SE Hybrid kit? That kit includes a billet plate with bronze bushings for the outer cam journals where the OEM plate does not. The OEM plate allows the outer cam journals to run in the parent material (cast aluminum) of the cam plate; JMHO, but I would not run the '07 OEM cam plate in a hipo motor. The inner chain is the SE kit is the old "silent" Morse link chain; to fit the early cam drive sprocket tooth configuration; I run that setup in my 107" '02 FLHT. PN 25284-11



Can't speak to cost compared to the Fueling setup.

 

[SEroadking]

I may have described the SE kit incorrectly. It is the 25284-11 that I am looking at. If you will indulge me a moment I can describe what I have.
A grenade went off in my cam chest, oddly the front outer cage. It has S&S gears on HQ cyclone cams in it now. With SE Heads running 10.5:1 Compression (9.67:1 corrected) I also have Direct link and now I have detuned it a bit to run the terrible fuel here in Texas. (I had no detonation problems for the first 5-6 years while I lived in Montana and it had 97Hp, 102TQ) But, it still is a fair runner in the high 80's for HP and 96TQ. Not sure I will use that guy anymore.
The gears I do not trust to run again because of all the milling they did on the bearing cage. I don't trust the lifters, besides they have almost 50K on them anyway. Obviously the oil pump must be replaced and the cam plate. I have great compression now but I am not sure how much of the millings got into the pistons and ring extrusion gaps or if any is imbedded into the soft skirts and waiting to score my bore. I have an Idea on how I may manage my risk on the upper end.
Is there a way to make up a Harley-hybrid kit to utilize the HQ cams?
My first up grade when the bike was new was TW21 Andrews, I still have that set-up(minus the inner chain). A much milder cam grind but if I get it back onto the Dyno I may be able to tune it some power into it, I just wont have as much, especially on above 4,000 rpm.

 

[SEroadking]

Sorry guys, I woke realizing my mistake on the geared cams. They appear to be ok so I'll bite the bullet and get a new set of gears for them.

 

[dolt]

With SE Heads running 10.5:1 Compression (9.67:1 corrected) I also have Direct link and now I have detuned it a bit to run the terrible fuel here in Texas. (I had no detonation problems for the first 5-6 years while I lived in Montana and it had 97Hp, 102TQ) But, it still is a fair runner in the high 80's for HP and 96TQ. Not sure I will use that guy anymore.

I would back off 9.67 corrected compression; a tad on the high side for a dependable "street" build, particularly for tourng model. Also, when you moved from the higher elevation in Montana to a lower elevation in east Texas, your CCP jumped up a bit as well. I have never lived in Montana but doubt that you see ambient temps above 85* in the hottest months. Combine 200+psi CCP, 9.67 corrected CR and 100* ambient temps and you are headed for ping city. When you rebuild, suggest that you set corrected CR about 9.3-9.4 and keep CCP between 185-190psi.

I don't think your detonation issues in Texas are related the quality of the fuel but more a result of high compression and high heat, but, that's JMHO.

 

[SEroadking]

I can use up a bit of seat life in the SE heads and/or do a bit of hand work in the chamber itself to produce a larger combustion area, it looks like my pressure is just a little too high. Looks like I need to loose 6cc total
Or, I still have the stock heads and could port them nicely, the chamber is larger. Perhaps a shorter head gasket or maybe mill them back down slightly to get some compression back.
The SE heads were free, sort of. I built a 4 1/2" crankcase assembly for a friend who built an injected 93"er. He had more money in it than I would have ever spent on a shovel of any kind.
I'll whip out my trusty calculator and crunch the numbers tonight.
Thank you, you input is appreciated.

 

[Jack Klarich]

I can use up a bit of seat life in the SE heads and/or do a bit of hand work in the chamber itself to produce a larger combustion area, it looks like my pressure is just a little too high. Looks like I need to loose 6cc total
Or, I still have the stock heads and could port them nicely, the chamber is larger. Perhaps a shorter head gasket or maybe mill them back down slightly to get some compression back.
The SE heads were free, sort of. I built a 4 1/2" crankcase assembly for a friend who built an injected 93"er. He had more money in it than I would have ever spent on a shovel of any kind.
I'll whip out my trusty calculator and crunch the numbers tonight.
Thank you, you input is appreciated.

You can change base and head gasket thickness to modify compression ratios with in reason:s

 

[SEroadking]

If the new head configuration with the seal on the lower spring collar and vacated ports could be used on top of my 2002 3.875" X 4.000" engine,
I see this ad and am confused,
"These are take offs from a 2006 HD softail 96cubic inches. All in excellent condition."
I wonder because I thought that the 96" were Dyna's only for 2006 and then soft tail and touring were updated in 2007.
What heads coukd this be?