Your logic is very solid, IMO. You did it right, by riding a bike with the 255's and studying the pros and cons of both in an objective manner. You wanted more top-end performance and for that you made the right choice. I wanted an emphasis on the low-end and midrange and that's what I got, and we're both happy.

 

IMO "kicked butt" wouldn't be the phrase I would use to describe the comparison. The 255's were stronger <2700 and had a flatter TQ curve overall, peaking lower than the 555's, and the Wood cams did provide more HP and TQ above that point. It's all in what you want out of a cam upgrade. Be advised that TQ in the low-end is less for the 555's than stock cams, which for some would not be acceptable. That is the trade-off.

Some looked at that comparison and liked the 255 curves better, and I'm in that group. I also look at the fact that you can buy a 255 on Ebay (low-mileage CVO pull) for $150 or less, while the Wood cams cost ~$400. Do you get what you pay for with the 555's? For some, yes--but I prefer the characteristics of the 255's for my kind of riding.

Remember that the FM tests were done with a TC96 with stock 9.2 compression. If the base engine was a factory 103 with 9.6 compression I think there would be a clearer distinction to buy the 555's, as the displacement and increased compression will make up for some of the loss the 555's have in the low-end. OTOH this will also mean the 255's will be even stronger in that area.

 

Ok been out riding all day, still haven't reveiwed the Dyno Graphs on the 255 vs 555 will try to tonight, in the mean time. Am I not remembering correct. The woods 555's low end torque on the graph showed that it matched and crossed the 255 se cams at somewhere near 26 or 2700 rpm's Correct??? Anybody checked today?

 

According to Fuelmotos dyno the 555s do best the 255 above 2700 rpm by an average of 3 to 4 foot pounds all the way to well past 5500 rpm, but below 2700 rpm the 255 have the edge, beating the 555 by 10 or 11 foot pounds of torque at 2300 rpm. To some of us, that extra torque in the lower end of the range, meaning less shifting two up on mountion roads, is more important than an extra 10 horsepower at 6000 rpm. If you are into dragracing, maximum power may mean mean more but for mountain touring low end power is more usable to a great many riders.

 

I agree with Allen, but everyone has their priorities about where the power needs to be. Below is the FM chart:

Run 078* (dark blue) Stock headpipe, Jackpot muffers, Stage 1 air cleaner, PC-V
Run 021 (green) SE 255 cams, Jackpot headpipe, Jackpot mufflers, Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision
Run 006 (red) Wood TW-555 cams, Jackpot headpipe, Jackpot mufflers, Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision
Run 048* (dk blue) Fuel Moto 107 kit, Wood TW-555 cams, Jackpot headpipe, Jackpot mufflers, Stage 1 air cleaner, Dynojet Power Vision

For representation only, not run on same day.

 

I just dropped the se204's in my stock 04 EGC TC88 when I upgraded the tensioners, oil pump, breathers, and the Stage 1 and REALLY notice the extra!!!! I mainly ride solo, but from time to time the OL tags along. That and we pull a trailer to rallys and I wanted the extra while I was in there.
I have never rode any other HD scoots with mods other than a Hard Products 125" a friend owns and built and WOW!!!! I notice it from 2700 and up. I have to get it dyno'd yet but am in the process to finish it out.

 

When I look at the curves (keep in mind, I've got SE204's), it seems to me the TW-555's offer more power and torque in the usable rpm range. Usable you say? Yes... If I'm having to apply more than half throttle or so at 2200 to 2300 rpms, in all likelihood, I'm approaching the range of lugging the engine and am in need of a downshift. Quite frankly as I'm rolling on the throttle, the transition from 2200 to 2700 is happening more quickly and under acceleration at 3/4 throttle and above, I'm then above the point where the SE255's offer more. Again, you have to look at your riding style and make the choice that works well for you.

 

It is misleading to generalize about a particular cam's performance. The SE204s, setup at higher compression like thatjusthappened posted in #21 is a totally different animal from 204s with the lower "stock" compression in a 96" or a 103". This thread also includes post from 103" guys and from 96" guys and that just adds to the confusion because the increase in displacement from 96" to 103" increases static CR which is often overlooked. The increase in compression with a performance cam will have more impact on performance than the increase in displacement. I have run the 204s at near 10:1 and they ran great but I had to be careful selecting fuel in the summer. I would still like to know how thatjusthappened is able to run the 204s at 10.5:1. He did say he was running 10.5:1 pistons but that doesn't mean that his static CR is 10.5:1.

IMHO, the 204s are very underrated cams. Not throwing rocks at Woods 6-6 or the new 555, just saying that it is important to include the cam setup when comparing cam performance. It seems that some 103 guys are just now discovering what a great bolt in cam the 204 is; have seen some pretty impressive dyno charts recently.

 

I see the 555s offering more HP and TQ in a usable RPM range, if I might nitpick a bit and call a distinction between "a" and "the" in this context. The peak-TQ for the 555's is 3.26 higher than the 255's, not something that would likely be a night-and-day difference to anyone, and it stays there throughout the important 2600-4500 RPM range. OTOH the 255's are quite a bit stronger <2600, very noticeably so as you approach 2000 RPM. I think that's an important range, but others may not. What you've said about individual riding style is very important in choosing the right cams. I don't see the TQ curve, which is my primary interest, as being much lower with the 255's in any practical sense, and I think if you look at bang-for-the-buck effect you are in paydirt with the 255's. You can routinely find these as CVO pulls on Ebay for $150 or less, and if you DIY you can do a cam upgrade for $200-300. The Wood cams are $400 MSRP the last time I looked, a bit lower at Fuel Moto.

I'll also repeat what I've said before that I believe the 255's provide a better effect than you can see on the dyno chart--indeed a very practical effect. The TQ is very smooth with no area that I would call a "band," like you feel in many other cams. It's just a smooth transition between about 2200 to the redline, and there's no area that feels like it has "run out of breath." Most who run the 255s agree with this, but for some reason this accusation pops-up too frequently. I think those who suggest it haven't ridden a bike with these cams installed.

Now, if the starting point was a 103 with 9.6 compression I think the appeal of 255's is not quite as great and there are more options to choose from. I believe 204's and 555's would be a good choice for those, but I also think the 255's would do well in that environment for the same reasons as they do for the 96" motors. I've seen 255s in State II builds that provide very impressive, flat TQ curves. Again, different strokes....

For me 2000-2600 is a very usable range, and the retention of power in that area is important to me. The 2200-2300 range at >50% isn't lugging the engine in a textbook sense, IMO, except perhaps if you were loaded-down and going up a steep grade in a higher gear. That said, if I was passing a truck I would likely try to start above that point, probably around 2500rpms.

 

What cam comes in the stock 2011 Limited??
Thanks in advance Ripp