Are you getting anymore valve train noise with this cam. I looked at that one and also the TW555, I like the numbers but the lift seem too high.

 

as quiet as stock, i think a lot of valve train noise complaints with woods cams come from poorly adjusted pushrods. i also have stock lifters.

i did a lot of research on these cams and seems the stock heads would handle up to 590 lift.

 

So are you running the adjustable pushrods from HD

 

On my 2011 Ultra Limited, I'm getting 100+trq starting at 2300 rpm thru 5000 rpm.

Here is Boogaloodudes response regarding 4* advanced gear;
Quote:
Originally Posted by ny2az
what is the advantage of using the 1.725 rockers over stock with the 204 cams...how about the +4 degree gear in a 103 with 204 cams...thx

The SE rockers give the cams a little more effective lift, speeds up the ramps and extends the duration a couple of degrees. They're a way to add lift without doing it all with the cam lobes. They give the se204 cams a lift of .539. By adding lift via higher ratio rockers, you help relieve side loads on the rockers. Faster ramps speeds up the transitions, which, along with the faster acting rockers, adds to the effective duration.

As far as a +4 advance key with the 204, it would be a bad idea. The 204 cams already have 8* advance ground in, adding 4 more would bring them to 12* advanced, which would make them pretty difficult to tune and prone to detonation.

I like the 204s for the 103 motors, and there are quite a few of them running around now with good results. I'm not sure that the se rockers are necessary, but they were recommended to me by a builder that I have a great deal of respect for, and so I added them to my bike. The Cycle Rama 575 cams have similar valve timing, but with .575 lift on the intake side, and .560 on the exhaust side.
__________________

 

Adjustable pushrods from fuelmoto at 4 turns.

 

Todd's original post was two years ago, and he did in fact pull the 255's in favor of Wood 6-6 along with making a bunch of other mods, including head-work. Also, his 255's are now in my bike.

Here is a thread, also quite old, where he talks about the difference--as well as provides some suspect dyno charts for comparison. The problem with the charts is that the tuner, for whatever reason, started the runs at around 3k RPM--which doesn't show a part of the range important to many of us. Overall the numbers are also considerably lower than you would expect for the 255 setup and probably the 6-6 as well. Todd did get a peak-TQ and -HP increase by the changes he made, but mentioned in the linked thread as well as in emails to me that he thought the increases were not very noticeable and that power "where he rode" was actually not as usable as before. He mentioned that low-end TQ suffered with the changes, too, which would be expected--but you couldn't see that on the provided charts.

 

I read the other thread and it said nothing about the 204 cam. And I am wondering how the Wood -555cam compairs to the SE255, as they did not exist in 2007 when this thread was created. It looks like the 555 will give you torque and hp from idle until around 6000rpm the best of both worlds based on the numbers. I still prefer the SE204 due to the whole compression ratio and valve lift thing.

 

Yes, that thread was started two months later and he evidently decided in favor of the 6-6 over the 204. There is a recent thread where Fuel Moto tested a TC96 bike with 255's and 555's on the same day.

 

Thanks iclick, that was helpfull. I am wondering if anyone has a dyno chart showing the Se255 vs. the Se204's or at least the Se204 with a similar setup.

 

Click on this thread. Then about 1/3 way down the page on the right you will see a link that says, "search this thread," click on that and type 204. Then knock yourself out reading. There are several stock 96" with 204s near the top.

https://www.hdforums.com/forum/touri...r-baggers.html

This might work.
https://www.hdforums.com/forum/touri...ml#post6979850

https://www.hdforums.com/forum/touri...ml#post6775307