I was able to snag a 10 mile set of CVO 255's to install in a upcoming 103" build. I'd really like to see/hear about some thoughts about 204's in 103" bikes. I have the opportunity to go this route in lieu of the 255's if I decide. Just don't hear so much about the103"/204 combo.What is the reasoning ??
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.
SE-255 and HQ-500 cam comparison
- Thread starter Alissa P
- Start date
I<3 Sarcasm!
New member
I have a 2007 Road Glide with a V&N fuel pack, K&N HP air filter and true duals. I want to put to upgrade the cam and a SE 255 was suggested but I was told this may be to big for stock. Might want to use an S&S 510.
Any advice?
Any advice?
I (along with lots of other folks on here) am running the SE 255's in an otherwise stock, (other than Stage 1) engine. I have a SE A/C, Rinehart TD's & a PCV/AT. I also had the V&H Fuel Pack pryor to the cam swap but, V&H offers no maps for the 255's. The PCV/AT, purchased from & mapped by Fuel Moto, has worked out great and will continue to work for future engine mods w/ Fuel Moto's support commitment.
It is true that 255's have a lope similar to stock. OTOH the exhaust note is louder, and in the words of friends "more intense," than with the stock cams, which have a smoother, lazier tone to them. Each piston firing is more pronounced, and idling next to a Stage 1 bike there is no doubt which one has the cams installed. I think this is characteristic of any cam upgrade, however.
quixoticparadox
New member
So if the 255s don't have much of it, besides the HQ500, what other low-midrange cams would give me HP, ft/lbs and lope I'm looking for?
I'm primarily interested in HP and ft/lbs between 1,250 and 3,750 rpm.
I have a 96" with SE-AC, PC-V, Bagger Duals and CFRs.
I'm primarily interested in HP and ft/lbs between 1,250 and 3,750 rpm.
I have a 96" with SE-AC, PC-V, Bagger Duals and CFRs.
What's more important to you, torque or idle lope? And secondly, how often do you actually ride at dead idle.
In a stock 96, at 9.2:1 compression, the SE255 is probably the best choice for making torque below 4000. If you need the lope, go with a Woods 5, HQ500, or SE204. Any of those will hit harder than stock cams off idle, have a nice lope.
Some guys think they won't use rpms over 4000 because they've never ridden anything other than stock cams. Put some cams in that are happy to spin a little faster, and you might find yourself going up there more often.
In a stock 96, at 9.2:1 compression, the SE255 is probably the best choice for making torque below 4000. If you need the lope, go with a Woods 5, HQ500, or SE204. Any of those will hit harder than stock cams off idle, have a nice lope.
Some guys think they won't use rpms over 4000 because they've never ridden anything other than stock cams. Put some cams in that are happy to spin a little faster, and you might find yourself going up there more often.
Josh Banerjee
New member
Here you go, HQ500 cam with a 2-1 pipe. It makes torque practically from off idle all the way to the red line.
The local indys here in Boise don't like using the 255 because of the starting problems it creates.
The HQ500 cams sounds great and runs like gang busters no matter what you are doing.
This chart is from a 96" it doesn't have as high a peak torque figure as some but it does have make 90HP to boot and it makes the bike very ride able.
The local indys here in Boise don't like using the 255 because of the starting problems it creates.
The HQ500 cams sounds great and runs like gang busters no matter what you are doing.
This chart is from a 96" it doesn't have as high a peak torque figure as some but it does have make 90HP to boot and it makes the bike very ride able.