B10 Cam in 1100 Cali

[guzzista]

Is there any power delivery advantage in using a B10 Cam in a 1100 Cali ? Specs on lift are minor compared to the stock ( only referring to non Hydro). Mine is a carbed Cali currently  on PHM 40's so I thought a bit more cam might help and, as it stands ,  a forum member has some reground B10's that could make it a easy swap, albeit with reground or new lifters. Any ideas, comments or actual experience with a B10 on a Cali 11?

[rodekyll]

IMO it's a fun project that's wasted on a small valve cali -- waaaaay too much trouble for the meager return.  My big valve engine was more pleasing with the mod, but the economy dropped as the performance went up ( <30mpg as it spat miles out the rearview), and the power band narrowed and moved up the rpm range.  The performance was wasted on my aged suspension and mediocre riding skills.  YMMV.  I do not know what valves the cal II runs.

[rocker59]

  I do not know what valves the cal II runs.

Yeah, but I bet you know what valves a mid-90s California 1100 runs...

[rocker59]

Is there any power delivery advantage in using a B10 Cam in a 1100 Cali ? Specs on lift are minor compared to the stock ( only referring to non Hydro). Mine is a carbed Cali currently  on PHM 40's so I thought a bit more cam might help and, as it stands ,  a forum member has some reground B10's that could make it a easy swap, albeit with reground or new lifters. Any ideas, comments or actual experience with a B10 on a Cali 11?

Yeah. I think more cam would help...

Do it and report back with the results...

Have you got access to a dyno for before and after graphs ?

[rodekyll]

Yeah, but I bet you know what valves a mid-90s California 1100 runs...

I typo'd when I said I didn't know what valves his cal II runs.  What I meant was I don't know what valves his cal 1100 runs.  Sorry about that.

But you knew that, didn't you? 

[rocker59]

But you knew that, didn't you?

Thought you just mis-read his post.  You've had some '90s Calis.  I figured you'd know which valves they have...

[rodekyll]

I've played with the B10 in the V1000 stds and big valves and EFI 1100 Cali's of various flavors.  It's still around here in an oiled rag somewhere, so I'll probably shove it into whatever I get next just to see what happens.  I have not owned a 90s carbie, so no, I don't know what heads its got.  But based on the other comments from hands-on B-10 victims installers in this thread, my experience is typical.

The B-10 cam grind is supposed to be a mid performance mod -- still streetable, but lumpier at low rpm than stock.  I have heard that the early lemans had it or similar as oem.  Maybe guzziology has an answer to that.  It does prefer to team up better with bigger valves.  IIRC, I got mine from Dave Richardson back when he was making a Lemans/Convert by building up a big valve V1000 out of a standard 'vert.  I was younger and dumber back then and like a lot of folks thought that throwing a cam or a carb at an engine was instant, bolt-on power.

Basically, changing to a B10 cam qualifies a guy for any number of additional projects based on where he feels the B10-induced bottlenecks might be.  Those include modifying intake and exhaust properties, carburation/fuel delivery, distributor curves, etc -- all in an inflationary spiral of trial and error as what was once in balance becomes disharmoneous.  All the while he's narrowing the power band and moving the power band into higher rpms, making for a screamer between 7.5k and 10,500 . .. .. feet before running out of gas. Then comes the flywheel shaving, crank balancing, and perfect-circle rings.  It ends when the money runs out, and then all is returned to stock. 

Or maybe it's just me . . .

[jacksonracingcomau]

Not a B10 but I put a cam in my cal 1100, was profile I've been using is all Guzzis I'd built, goes straight in LM 1234 T3 etc etc no mods needed.
But Cali 1100 heads which are to all intents the same as LM 3 (same part number I believe)
ARE NOT
They have smaller chamber but same size valves
I had to pocket the seats to get valve to valve clearance, not difficult but very important to check.
If you do it , fit light valve springs for test, set clearance big (say ,030"), then approaching TDC on overlap measure (dial gauge) how far you have to press inlet before it touches exhaust valve. Tighten clearance gradually to avoid damage. Timing should give max overlap very close to true TDC, I wouldn't like to run with less than .040" v-v clearance checked with zero valve clearance, checked well before and after TDC.
Pocketing the valves has shown no downside, engine runs superbly, have just this week done first valve clearance check since initial 3 head re-torques
25K Km (15,600 miles) and  only adjusted one valve by half a thou, definitely didn't need looking at. Next check at 50K Km should be same.

Was well worth the effort I took building it, 40mm carbs, points, twin plugs, thin copper gaskets, alloy timing gears and flywheel, breather as V700, otherwise all factory bits. Pics in my old Luddite thread from a couple of years ago.

[guzzista]

Finally the B10 cam is in place( complete with resurfaced tappets), and after making sure there was no interference, got it broken in like any other flat tappet cam. On test ride, No staggering differences , but the engine seems smoother from 4000/ 5500 rpm. ( Other relevant bits on this bike: 40PHM carbs , tapered manifolds into head inlets, open airbox with Ferracci hold down frame, H crossover, Mistral reverse cone mufflers) . Soon enough the bike will visit a dyno , but for now the report is positive. Worth it? only from a all around riding perspective.