Currently run a se204 and se 1.725 rocker arms. Did a search with out real answers.
So what about one of the 555 cams with the high ratio rocker arms since i already have them. the lift would be around .589 would the se valve spring rated to .585 be ok with this set-up? Do you think it would run good I have se cnc heads willing to send heads out for work.

 

I imagine that you are refering to a Wood 555(not fm).
But that said, the 204 with those rockers set at the proper compression, and headwork WILL run very well indeed, and really could not try to put my sales-man hat on here to try to sell a client either one of those cams vs your current set up.
Want a big jump in overall power, step up to a Wood 8, 9B, S&S .585, or .625, Crane 296-2, etc.(which we have great expierience with all of those, and more) and set it up accordingly.
Scott

 

Hi,

I would put the se259e that came in the kit(if you got original kit), if havent got them you will get them for a song on ebay, a lot of riders like them

A rider here in Aus put the woods555 in same spec as yout bike and results the same as with the se cam, it didnt go WOW theres 10HP and 10Tq

Thanks
Mirrmu

 

The SE CNC heads are not bad out of the box but any factory head could benefit from some work. I would send the heads out for work and build around one of the two S&S cams Scott suggested or two of my favorites the TMan 577 or 590; just pick the cam first and have the head porter work around that cam. Any of those cam choices will be better than any SE cam.

Having said that, your setup is not bad; JMHO but the SE204 is an often maligned and underrated cam. As SE cams go, the 204 on stilts with the right compression is probably the best SE/OEM setup. A couple of years back a buddy and I built a 103" motor around the SE204 and 1.7 rockers with a set of worked heads and the motor made 113TQ/106HP (don't recall the exact numbers but those are pretty close); pulled from the bottom to the rev limiter and had a nasty idle. It was an experiment that worked. You might just need to work the heads for better flow and a bit more compression. Just have to be careful with the compression with the 204; it can get tricky to tune and prone to detonation when CCP gets much above 190psi; might get away with 195psi but I would keep it between 185-190psi and use compression releases.

 

My current set-up does rock. I am very interested in the TMAN 590.
But I was just curious about the stilts/1.725 with the Woods 555 or the TMAN 555. Thanks for all the input.

 

Pardon my ignorance but what is the benifit to using the high ratio rockers ( or stilts )? Wouldnt using a cam with a higher lift be the same difference?

 

We've used 1.725 rockers here many times, 204's, Wood 6 cams, S&S .585's, Wood 9F's, etc.
They effectively create another .030" lift, and according to Crane Cams create another 2-3 degrees duration.
Low-cost bump on a cam(not all cams really like this) when looking for more.
Scott

 

Ignorance pardoned! if starting from scratch, selecting a cam with the desired lift would be preferred but if one has a cam, rockers are cheaper than new cams and easier to install;see Scott's reply. In the case of the example I posted, it was an experiment that worked; the 204 cams like the added lift and dyno results bear that out.

 

We used those several years back on a 204 for a client in Saratoga Lake, NY, 98", with quite amazing results as well.
Built a 107" a while back also, that had a Wood 6.
Results were quite impressive.
Scott