You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Help needed with a Cam choice
- Thread starter Colby V
- Start date
The easy answer is the Woods 6. It's got almost everything in perfect balance, and will give you increased performance through the entire rpm range. It's the cam to beat right now.
I've got SE204 along with 1.725 rockers in my bike. They're similar to the Woods 6, but with a slightly earlier torque profile. Either way, you get good overall performance, and a bike that's lots of fun to ride.
As you've probably seen, there's lots of guys who are passionate about their se255 cams. They are in my top three cams for a stock 96, but I think the higher compression of a 103 makes other cams not only viable, but more desireable. However, there's lots of 103s running around with SE255 cams in them, and just about any tuner you find will have experience with that configuration.
I've got SE204 along with 1.725 rockers in my bike. They're similar to the Woods 6, but with a slightly earlier torque profile. Either way, you get good overall performance, and a bike that's lots of fun to ride.
As you've probably seen, there's lots of guys who are passionate about their se255 cams. They are in my top three cams for a stock 96, but I think the higher compression of a 103 makes other cams not only viable, but more desireable. However, there's lots of 103s running around with SE255 cams in them, and just about any tuner you find will have experience with that configuration.
Guillermo L
New member
I was basing my statement on the numerous dyno charts I've seen, and the 255's retain the extreme low-end better than any of the others given stock compression (9.2). I'm referring to 2000-2500rpms, which is a range that admittedly not everyone holds dear like I do.
Also what seems to be lost in these conversations is the cost factor. You can buy these easily as CVO pulls for $150 or less, and an upgrade can be made for ~$200 if you DIY and have the proper tools. For this outlay they are a bargain DIY performance upgrade, perhaps the best available for the money spent. Can you do better by throwing more money and mods at the motor? Of course, but I didn't want to do that.
Anyway, I would still repeat the statement of Mike Stedman of Latus HD that "No cam can beat the 255's to 3500rpms." That's his opinion, of course, but he's a knowledgeable source.
No problem on the concern that I'm offended, as I'm not, and don't take any of this personally. I engage in these conversations because I always learn something in the process. I appreciate your thoughts on the dynamic processes involved in cam engineering, as I consider this a very complex science that I don't fully understand.
Let me try again. They pull to the redline, but the definition of "hard" is nebulous and I don't think I ever used that term. In my last post I said they "make power up to the extended redline" and that is an accurate statement. I do take issue with some who say they "hit a wall" or "run out of steam" above 4000 (or whatever) RPM's, and this is not true. They also produce more peak-HP than stock, although not as much as most other performance cams. I don't care about peak-HP, so that is not a concern for me, as I don't need to venture into that territory often. I'm primarily concerned with the 2000-4500 rpm range.
I have ridden many Harleys at all levels of the performance spectrum and I'm very acquainted with what you are describing, but that's not what I want for my bike. For one thing I don't want to invade an already good-running engine, nor do I want to spend more money on performance upgrades. I'm aware of what can be done but I don't need it, as I'm happy where I am.
I agree with you, but I was looking for a painless, non-evasive, and inexpensive upgrade that would move my TQ curve up about 10 ft/lbs. but not to the right. I feel that I achieved that, so the mission was accomplished.
The point was the OP's original statements. One of these was "My ride style is shift fast and get to cruise without hitting 6000 rpm." That sounds like the needs of many touring-bike riders, which is to increase low-end and midrange TQ with peak-HP not a big concern. I don't normally even enter cam threads unless this is the stated goal, but the OP of this thread seems to fit a niche for which I thought I might be able to help, and I don't think I've hijacked the thread.
I don't think we disagree that much on this topic but rather have different ideas on what a cam-upgrade should do to make us happy. Where we do differ slightly is that I think typical 103 compression (~9.6) is ideal for the 255 cams, while you think it is a bit high. Okay, fine--I haven't seen any evidence yet that this wouldn't work well, and they do work fine (i.e. no CR's) for most people who have installed the full SE Stage II kits with 10:1 flat-tops. I also differ with you on typical HP/TQ numbers, as I've seen at least four charts for stock TC96/Stage 1 where they hit 100TQ with HP in the low-to-mid 80's. Some do chart lower, but I would submit to you that this is a tuning issue, and that with a good tune they will hit the numbers stated above in a stock TC96/Stage 1.
Also what seems to be lost in these conversations is the cost factor. You can buy these easily as CVO pulls for $150 or less, and an upgrade can be made for ~$200 if you DIY and have the proper tools. For this outlay they are a bargain DIY performance upgrade, perhaps the best available for the money spent. Can you do better by throwing more money and mods at the motor? Of course, but I didn't want to do that.
Anyway, I would still repeat the statement of Mike Stedman of Latus HD that "No cam can beat the 255's to 3500rpms." That's his opinion, of course, but he's a knowledgeable source.
No problem on the concern that I'm offended, as I'm not, and don't take any of this personally. I engage in these conversations because I always learn something in the process. I appreciate your thoughts on the dynamic processes involved in cam engineering, as I consider this a very complex science that I don't fully understand.
Let me try again. They pull to the redline, but the definition of "hard" is nebulous and I don't think I ever used that term. In my last post I said they "make power up to the extended redline" and that is an accurate statement. I do take issue with some who say they "hit a wall" or "run out of steam" above 4000 (or whatever) RPM's, and this is not true. They also produce more peak-HP than stock, although not as much as most other performance cams. I don't care about peak-HP, so that is not a concern for me, as I don't need to venture into that territory often. I'm primarily concerned with the 2000-4500 rpm range.
I have ridden many Harleys at all levels of the performance spectrum and I'm very acquainted with what you are describing, but that's not what I want for my bike. For one thing I don't want to invade an already good-running engine, nor do I want to spend more money on performance upgrades. I'm aware of what can be done but I don't need it, as I'm happy where I am.
I agree with you, but I was looking for a painless, non-evasive, and inexpensive upgrade that would move my TQ curve up about 10 ft/lbs. but not to the right. I feel that I achieved that, so the mission was accomplished.
The point was the OP's original statements. One of these was "My ride style is shift fast and get to cruise without hitting 6000 rpm." That sounds like the needs of many touring-bike riders, which is to increase low-end and midrange TQ with peak-HP not a big concern. I don't normally even enter cam threads unless this is the stated goal, but the OP of this thread seems to fit a niche for which I thought I might be able to help, and I don't think I've hijacked the thread.
I don't think we disagree that much on this topic but rather have different ideas on what a cam-upgrade should do to make us happy. Where we do differ slightly is that I think typical 103 compression (~9.6) is ideal for the 255 cams, while you think it is a bit high. Okay, fine--I haven't seen any evidence yet that this wouldn't work well, and they do work fine (i.e. no CR's) for most people who have installed the full SE Stage II kits with 10:1 flat-tops. I also differ with you on typical HP/TQ numbers, as I've seen at least four charts for stock TC96/Stage 1 where they hit 100TQ with HP in the low-to-mid 80's. Some do chart lower, but I would submit to you that this is a tuning issue, and that with a good tune they will hit the numbers stated above in a stock TC96/Stage 1.
periwinkle135
New member
I was being just a bit sarcastic here, iclick....LOL Yes, I am elated!! I was told last Fall that the head work would really make those 255's jump!! They weren't lying!
I will add that when I was running the standard 103" BB kit, with the 9.5:1 compression, the bike seemed to run a lot smoother - I just got greedy over the Winter. But I have to admit, that due to the high compression, I'm getting some pinging in the 2700-3000 RPM range in 5th and 6th gear that can't be entirely tuned out. My compression numbers are really high now with the head work and SE-255's.... in the 225-230 psi range. It's got to be corrected.....
I will add that when I was running the standard 103" BB kit, with the 9.5:1 compression, the bike seemed to run a lot smoother - I just got greedy over the Winter. But I have to admit, that due to the high compression, I'm getting some pinging in the 2700-3000 RPM range in 5th and 6th gear that can't be entirely tuned out. My compression numbers are really high now with the head work and SE-255's.... in the 225-230 psi range. It's got to be corrected.....
I can only suggest that even HD's literature on the 255 shows it dying quickly above 4000rpms. My personal experience with the 255s was just that (with a dyno that shows it dying very early) and that's why I sold them to an HDF member and replaced them with Woods 408-6 cam. Best decision I could have made but clearly a cam decision is very rider preference dependent. If you don't run out the throttle very often and are only interested in low end performance, the 255 is a reasonable cost efficient alternative.
xclusive_4xxx_u
New member
I had se255 cams in my flhtk and switched to Woods TW6-6 on recommendation of some on this board; this thursday I'm going back to the 255's....seat of the pants pull clearly goes to the 255's.....the tw6-6 makes noise below 3k but that doesn't translate to the power of the 255's in my bike....day in and day out I much prefer the 255's; I don't ride around above 3500.....when I got the tw6-6's I used the custom map provided by fuel moto for my mods...you could tell it needed a dyno tune....when I rolled on the throttle you could hear the single ping then the computer would retard the fuel and it wouldn't ping further....i had it dyno tuned and it behaved a lot better but still couldn't match the 255 in low end....and quite frankly I can't tell that much difference above 3k......I think the tw6-6 would be better in a lighter bike...like a dyna...it just doesn't feel like it likes the weight of my flhtk...and I weigh about 200 and don't ride two up......
drinkcoasters
New member
I got my 255s on ebay for $200, never been used. I need torque so these are the ones I went with. I am sure there are better and faster, there are always better and faster. It all depends on what you want and what you can afford and what you can live with. I am happy with mine, hope you will be happy with yours.
Well, "dying above 4000 rpms" is just not the seat-of-the-pants sensation I get when riding my bike. I would describe the 255's as a stock cam only more, where the torque curve is roughly the same shape (very flat) but just moves straight up. These cams are not conventional and do not perform as well as most performance cams above 4500 rpms. They do provide more peak-HP than stock cams, so it isn't like you will have a HP decrease compared to stock, but the real boost is more in the low-end and midrange.
You cite the HD literature, and you must look at their charts in context (see attached). First, it is a "street legal" tune, which is the HD download, and the dyno-chart is obtained with SE mufflers, not the most free-flowing on the market. Even under these sub-optimal conditions the HP peak is around 5k and at 5500 rpm there is very little reduction from the peak. Looking at that chart, which is obviously not a reflection of what the cams can do with a good tune, it is producing about 8hp more at 5k than at 4k, so I don't know where you get the "dying above 4000 rpm" idea. If you look at any of the dyno charts resulting from a good tune you'll see that HP peaks at ~5200 and the torque curve is much flatter, typically holding TQ above 90 from 2500-4500 rpm in a stock TC96.
The 255's are torque monsters below 4500 rpms and the key to riding with them is to run where they work best. In fact, some say changing your riding habits is necessary. I almost never exceed 4500, and I don't need to go beyond that point since the power is available below it. I've said repeatedly that if you want to drag-race or you otherwise value peak-HP the 255's are not the right choice for you. Something else I've said repeatedly is that "you don't ride dyno charts."
You cite the HD literature, and you must look at their charts in context (see attached). First, it is a "street legal" tune, which is the HD download, and the dyno-chart is obtained with SE mufflers, not the most free-flowing on the market. Even under these sub-optimal conditions the HP peak is around 5k and at 5500 rpm there is very little reduction from the peak. Looking at that chart, which is obviously not a reflection of what the cams can do with a good tune, it is producing about 8hp more at 5k than at 4k, so I don't know where you get the "dying above 4000 rpm" idea. If you look at any of the dyno charts resulting from a good tune you'll see that HP peaks at ~5200 and the torque curve is much flatter, typically holding TQ above 90 from 2500-4500 rpm in a stock TC96.
The 255's are torque monsters below 4500 rpms and the key to riding with them is to run where they work best. In fact, some say changing your riding habits is necessary. I almost never exceed 4500, and I don't need to go beyond that point since the power is available below it. I've said repeatedly that if you want to drag-race or you otherwise value peak-HP the 255's are not the right choice for you. Something else I've said repeatedly is that "you don't ride dyno charts."
Georgio87ss
New member
With all due respect, the torque curve for the 255 is anything but flat. It's strong upto 4000 rpms and then it plummets. In every dyno I've ever seen where a bike uses the 255 cam, the ft-lbs drop off at a rate far greater than most other cams. That is the trade-off this cam design makes in order to move the torque curve lower into the rpms. Even the HD dyno you just included in your last post proves that point.
Here's the dyno on my stock 110 with the 255 and it performs just as the HD catalog shows this cam, it literally falls off a cliff at 4k rpms. For alot of guys that works just fine since they typically shift before 4000rpms. That's not my style and anyone that has an upgraded engine is generally looking to "have their cake and eat it too", meaning both low end performance as well as HP builds out to the limiter and TQ that holds on for as long as possible.
The 255 does NOT achieve that end. For the modest or stock engine that isn't going to breathe well above 4000 rpms anyways, then this cam may be just right for the guy that shifts early or does alot of riding 2-up. If you can show me any dyno graph where a 255 cam "pulls" all the wait to 5+k rpms, I stand ready to learn something new. Otherwise I stand by my comment (and HD's dynos) that the 255 cams dies early (4000rpms) and fast.
Here's the dyno on my stock 110 with the 255 and it performs just as the HD catalog shows this cam, it literally falls off a cliff at 4k rpms. For alot of guys that works just fine since they typically shift before 4000rpms. That's not my style and anyone that has an upgraded engine is generally looking to "have their cake and eat it too", meaning both low end performance as well as HP builds out to the limiter and TQ that holds on for as long as possible.
The 255 does NOT achieve that end. For the modest or stock engine that isn't going to breathe well above 4000 rpms anyways, then this cam may be just right for the guy that shifts early or does alot of riding 2-up. If you can show me any dyno graph where a 255 cam "pulls" all the wait to 5+k rpms, I stand ready to learn something new. Otherwise I stand by my comment (and HD's dynos) that the 255 cams dies early (4000rpms) and fast.