8 valve Harley?

[Kev m]

Each Milwaukee-Eight engine produces 10 percent more torque than the engine it replaces in Touring models.

The Milwaukee-Eight 107 accelerates 11 percent quicker 0-60 mph, equal to a two to three bike length improvement, and 11 percent quicker from 60-80 mph in top gear, equal to a one to two bike length improvement, compared to the Twin Cam High Output 103.

The Milwaukee-Eight 114 accelerates 8 percent quicker 0-60 and 12 percent quicker 60-80 than the Twin Cam 110™.



http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2016/08/harley-makes-new-milwaukee-eight-engines-official-with-video/

I'm thinking in reality the new 8 Valve will be a tad faster than the 4 valve, nothing earth shattering. 

Who was suggesting it would be earth shattering?

I read my earlier numbers comparatively and this snippet the same way, as a typical Harley evolutionary improvement not a revolutionary one. But I do like some of their design choices and improvements over the TC motors.

[Rough Edge racing]

OK,  8 valves, but what about the RPMs?  if it doesn't rev, then you're talking marginal power differences vs the standard bike.  Perhaps better emissions and gas mileage, smoother, stronger torque? 

When does the VTEC kick in?   

 A 4 valve head uses smaller lighter valves with less lift and duration and can allow a combustion chamber shaped more for a fast burn than a two valve head..

[atavar]

But will they get to keep their lumpy idle?  lol

[LowRyter]

The Milwaukee  Eight?

does it beat these guys?

[Kev m]

This is misleading -> The 2017 Ultra Classic will have a Milwaukee-Eightâ„¢ 107ci  with 111.4 ft-lb Engine Torque.

That number is before all the emission crap is installed. 

I'm not sure what you're going on about, but I'm finally at a desktop and have access to my data.

Here's the 2017 CARB data I posted earlier:

XG500: 36.3/7,250
XG750: 59/8,000

XL883: 53.6/6,000
XL1200: 67/5,500

V-Rod: 122-127/8,250

Twin-Cam 103: 80.5/4,000
Twin-Cam 110: 87.2/4,000

Milwaukee-Eight 107: 93/5,020
Milwaukee-Eight 114: 101/5,020

Here's some comparative RWHP data I've saved over the years from various sources but largely MCN:

Street 750 - 53-58
883 EVO (Rubbermount Carb) - 40-41 hp
883 EVO (Rubbermount EFI) - 48-50 hp
1200 EVO (Solidmount ) - 52-56 hp
1200 EVO (Rubbermount) - 57-60 hp
1200 EVO XR/XRX (Rubbermount) - 79-80 hp
1200 EVO CP (Rubbermount) - 69 hp
1340 EVO BT - 48-52 hp
TC88 - 60-63 hp
TC96 - 66-68 hp
TC103B - 71 hp
TC103 - 75-78 hp
TC110B - 80-82 hp
TC110 - 82-86 hp


Let's compare:


XL883: 53.6 vs 48-50
XL1200: 67 vs. 60 or 69 (if that's not a CP, and I don't think it is, it does seem a little high)

V-Rod: 122-127 vs (I just looked this one up) 103-107 (so yeah this one's a bit high)

Twin-Cam 103: 80.5 vs 71-78

Twin-Cam 110: 87.2 vs 80-86

So these two remain to be seen, but for frick's sake, if the TC103 is putting out mid to high 70s, then I'm thinking the M8 107 should be able to make mid to high 80s with a 4V head and larger intake/throttle body. Similarly I don't see the 114 being a stretch if it's got rwhp in the 90s.

So these figures seem to be crank, and a few hp high, but quite "likely":

Milwaukee-Eight 107: 93
Milwaukee-Eight 114: 101

[mjptexas]

The Sportster is a pretty different beast, a unitized, four camshaft, EVO. It never received any of the Twin Cam upgrades unless you consider they essentially both got feedback EFI and increased cooling capacities in 07.

I'd think it would be easier to '8 valve' the Sporty, given the current cam layout.

[Cool Runnings]

I'm not sure what you're going on about, but I'm finally at a desktop and have access to my data.

Here's the 2017 CARB data I posted earlier:

XG500: 36.3/7,250
XG750: 59/8,000

XL883: 53.6/6,000
XL1200: 67/5,500

V-Rod: 122-127/8,250

Twin-Cam 103: 80.5/4,000
Twin-Cam 110: 87.2/4,000

Milwaukee-Eight 107: 93/5,020
Milwaukee-Eight 114: 101/5,020

Here's some comparative RWHP data I've saved over the years from various sources but largely MCN:

Street 750 - 53-58
883 EVO (Rubbermount Carb) - 40-41 hp
883 EVO (Rubbermount EFI) - 48-50 hp
1200 EVO (Solidmount ) - 52-56 hp
1200 EVO (Rubbermount) - 57-60 hp
1200 EVO XR/XRX (Rubbermount) - 79-80 hp
1200 EVO CP (Rubbermount) - 69 hp
1340 EVO BT - 48-52 hp
TC88 - 60-63 hp
TC96 - 66-68 hp
TC103B - 71 hp
TC103 - 75-78 hp
TC110B - 80-82 hp
TC110 - 82-86 hp


Let's compare:


XL883: 53.6 vs 48-50
XL1200: 67 vs. 60 or 69 (if that's not a CP, and I don't think it is, it does seem a little high)

V-Rod: 122-127 vs (I just looked this one up) 103-107 (so yeah this one's a bit high)

Twin-Cam 103: 80.5 vs 71-78

Twin-Cam 110: 87.2 vs 80-86

So these two remain to be seen, but for frick's sake, if the TC103 is putting out mid to high 70s, then I'm thinking the M8 107 should be able to make mid to high 80s with a 4V head and larger intake/throttle body. Similarly I don't see the 114 being a stretch if it's got rwhp in the 90s.

So these figures seem to be crank, and a few hp high, but quite "likely":

Milwaukee-Eight 107: 93
Milwaukee-Eight 114: 101

Where is YOUR link?

Those numbers are NOT with Emissions Equipment installed.  Kind of misleading... 

[elvisboy77]

Big news!  Harley Davidson produces an 8 valve engine!  Like others did 100 years ago.

[bad Chad]

Of course it has hydraulic valve operation, they would have to have been smoking crack to think they could go mechanical at this point in their operations.

[Tom]

I love big bikes.  HD's included but it seems the best buy for horsepower to weight ratio would be the 750 bikes.

[mjptexas]

I love big bikes.  HD's included but it seems the best buy for horsepower to weight ratio would be the 750 bikes.

750s used to be big bikes. Now they are beginner bikes.

[Tom]

Even the 883 Sporty's.

[Rough Edge racing]

750s used to be big bikes. Now they are beginner bikes.

 I wouldn't call 600-750 sport bikes anything close to a beginner bike...

[Kev m]

Where is YOUR link?

Those numbers are NOT with Emissions Equipment installed.  Kind of misleading... 

Wtf are you talking about? What link? My rwhp numbers are from a spreadsheet kept for years. I compile data from various sources (which I already named) on rwhp.

I didn't dig into the CARB source data. I don't know if it's claimed crankshaft hp or rwhp without emissions equipment. I really don't give a crap cause I'm not publishing a scientific journal on the subject.

I simply noted how close most of the numbers were to rwhp numbers (with emissions equipment) that I've noted over the years so figured the comparative data might be of interest to some.

It's not "misleading" UNLESS some moron reads only half the post and draws his own wrong conclusions.

But one ironic point, if those are really RWHP figures without emissions equipment then they're MORE realistic than most data sets since that's exactly what most owners dump first.

[oldbike54]

 They are all gonna blow up anyway 

 Dusty

[Cool Runnings]

 

[sturgeon]

But will they get to keep their lumpy idle?  lol

I read somewhere that the answer is yes, deliberately. Something to do with counter-balancer designs. First go-around was deemed to be too smooth, so they made it smaller.

[Kev m]

I read somewhere that the answer is yes, deliberately. Something to do with counter-balancer designs. First go-around was deemed to be too smooth, so they made it smaller.

Well, no that's not the idle. The lumpy idle is a result of 3 possible factors:

1. More aggressive cams (least likely, but happens)
2. The staggered ignition timing on a Harley because of the 45 degree angle and the rear cylinder leading the front by 45 degrees, they fire at irregular intervals to each other. One description reads:

Front Bang, rotate 315 degrees - Rear Bang, rotate 405 degrees - Front Bang, rotate 315 degrees, - Rear Bang, etc.

http://www.wildwestcycle.com/f_firing.html

3. Idle speed - many "faithful" exaggerate the sound by purposely lowering idle speed.

As usual the engineers listened and idle speed is spec'd lower on the M8 motor - 850 vs. other previous models usually in the 1000-1200 range.

[oldbike54]

 Yep , and there is a joke in there regarding HD riders and idle speed , but being a gentleman precludes telling it 

 Dusty

[ITSec]

Yep , and there is a joke in there regarding HD riders and idle speed , but being a gentleman precludes telling it 

 Dusty

Gentleman? I suspect it's more that you want to set an example 

Besides, by saying it this way you get to let everyone write their own in their heads! 

[Cool Runnings]

Well, no that's not the idle. The lumpy idle is a result of 3 possible factors:

1. More aggressive cams (least likely, but happens)
2. The staggered ignition timing on a Harley because of the 45 degree angle and the rear cylinder leading the front by 45 degrees, they fire at irregular intervals to each other. One description reads:

3. Idle speed - many "faithful" exaggerate the sound by purposely lowering idle speed.

As usual the engineers listened and idle speed is spec'd lower on the M8 motor - 850 vs. other previous models usually in the 1000-1200 range.

The single pin crank gives a lumpier idle, a better exhaust note, a pulsing feel of power, and 'character' to the motor. V-twin cruiser buyers don't want a quite, smooth motor, they want that pulsing feel of torque between their legs and an exhaust note that is deep and roaring.

[rboe]

When it comes to engine design there is not much new under the sun. Folks don't need to copy another companies motor, just look in the engineering manuals from college.

Now if they put this motor in the Roadster..........

[Kev m]

The single pin crank gives a lumpier idle,

That would be integral to the design factors that caused my aforementioned description of the staggered ignition timing.

Or stated another way... Yes. 

[Cool Runnings]

That would be integral to the design factors that caused my aforementioned description of the staggered ignition timing.

Or stated another way... Yes. 

I sense some drooling coming from your mouth. 

[sturgeon]

Well, no that's not the idle. The lumpy idle is a result of 3 possible factors:

Lumpy idle, vibration, all the same to me.

[Kev m]

Lumpy idle, vibration, all the same to me.

Not really, I mean everything I've ever ridden vibrates in some way. Some are high frequency, some low, some are rubbermounted and hide it at speed or load, some cancel it very well with a counterbalance shaft.

Idle speed may exaggerate vibration by slowing speed/frequency of the curve, but that's really different than a lumpy idle which is the result of ignition timing.

[Tom]

I ended up getting stress cracks on my CB750.  So much for a smooth running engine.  Like Kev M says engines have vibrations.

[Cool Runnings]

California Dreamin' -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-aK6JnyFmk

[sturgeon]

Lumpy idle, vibration, all the same to me.

Not really, ...

I must say that I'm very impressed that you know so much about me.

[oldbike54]

 Lumpy was idle 

 Dusty