I have run the 204 and the 509. I had the 509 in a 88 (2004) and I didn't really care for it. Was running a FLHTCU with True duals and better intake filter. I just didn't warm up to the torque curve for that application. Had the 204 in a 2008 103 street bob with lighty ported heads and almost stock compression...it was a good match. Running the 525 Fueling in a FLHTK 2012....Like it ! Haven't tried the 525 in a 88 though.... would like to hear. I just run the chain drives ....

 

I just caught this and felt the need to reply. Actually, opening the valves past max flow lift can be a good thing. For instance, assume you have a head that has max flow at .500" valve lift, with a cam that lifts the valve .500". The valve is only going to flow it's max for the relatively short time that the lifter is on the nose of the cam. If, however, you replace the cam with a cam that has, say, .575" lift, with all else about the cam being equal, you now have a situation where the cam opens the valve .500" well before max lift is achieved, and then the valve reaches .500" again at some point after max lift. This lets the valve stay open for a longer period of time at or above max flow lift, which can have some performance benefits. Assuming, of course, reversion isn't an issue at higher lifts.

 

Well, you took more space to say the same thing I said in my last post; "valve is open but not much happening"; appears we agree........:icon_wink".

However, lifting the intake valve higher than the point where head flow goes flat can introduce reversion, so why take the chance? If the difference between max flow and max lift is marginal, say .510 vs .525, no issue; .510 vs .570 could have negative impact on performance. We have left exhaust out of the equation which should also be taken into consideration.