i have the 204's in a 103 w/10.5:1 pistons, heavy breather, SERT , rinehart true duals, its making 94/114. the torque stays over 100 from about 2650 - 4700. it pulls very hard. im very pleased with it.

 

I have 204's and I ride 2 up when my wife has time and I couldn't have made a better choice IMO,pulls hard down low and rocks up top, these cams compare to a andrews 37 but have just a little more bottom due to the intake closing at 34, my bike dynoed 90/101 and 92/104 in a not so smart 6th gear pull, anyways I've had several cams before, 203's, HQ 0034's, Andrews 37's and I like the 204's over all of them, they just work and seem to be a great combo for the 96 or 103 engines.

 

Interesting! I didn't think the 204's could handle that much compression. Any detonation issues?

 

no detonation problems. put manual compression releases in when i did the build. I was trying to decide over the 255's vs 204's as well, and a friend of mine convinced me to try the 204's. (although everyone else said they were junk). I made the right choice. i do a lot of 2 up riding and never have any issues. she pulls very hard. riding solo, its not uncommon for me to roll on the throttle and break the back tire loose. lots of torque.
another note, everyone that told me NOT to run the 204's never ran em or drove a bike with them.
Put a 4 degree advanced gear on a woods 5 and you basically have a 204 with more lift.
I think they a harley's best kept secret. JMO

 

.

 

I suspect most detractors of the 255's have never ridden a bike with them installed either. I haven't heard many negatives on the 204's, except some say they don't like compression above the mid-9's (static). Like with 255's, people who have the 204's seem to like them. Harley has some very good grinds in their inventory, IMO, and these two are in that group.

 

i did in fact ride a bike with 255's and everyone tried talking me into running them. and do agree that they are good cam. i loved the bottom end torque they produced but didnt care for the way they fell off fast. with the 204 it comes in a little later but it will hang in there longer. they fit my riding style a little better than the 255's.

 

i gotta say, i dont understand why anyone would do a comparison of the 555 vs the 255. the 255 is a low end torque cam, it has a intake closure of 25 degrees and the 555 looking at the specs looks like a high rpm hp cam with an intake closure of 41 degrees.

as far as the specs of a 555 being similar to a 204 ? i dont see it. looks closer to the specs of a 211 41 intake closure on 555 and 45 on the 211.

i had the 211's in my previous bike and it didnt start coming alive until 3500 rpms. i personally hated it. i dont ride around at 3500 - 5500 rpms

204 specs
intake duration lift overlap
22/34 236 508 30
exhaust
52 / 8 240 508

woods 5 with 4 degree advance gear

intake duration lift overlap
21 /33 234 575 32
exhaust
43 /11 234 575

basically a 204 with more lift.

 

I was talking to Herko about the 204's and he said he really liked them because they were really advanced on the intake from the get go, look, all I know is they are a great cam, I'd put them up against the the andrews 37 or the woods 6 any day of the week, now alot of guys say buy the woods 6 and put a 4 degree advanced gear on and I've seen dyno sheet after dyno sheet of this and it ain't worth it, just ask Steve at GMR who did some of the testing, by the way the 204's cost alot less money than most of the other cams, hope you make the right decision.

 

[QUOTE=thatjusthappened;8037635]i gotta say, i dont understand why anyone would do a comparison of the 555 vs the 255. the 255 is a low end torque cam, it has a intake closure of 25 degrees and the 555 looking at the specs looks like a high rpm hp cam with an intake closure of 41 degrees.


I didn't take the time to review the thread just now, but didn't the Dyno chart from FuelMoto show that the torque of the Woods 555 kicked in pretty low, as in matched the 255's about 2600 rpm's and kicked it butt from then on up?
I believe thats what i remembered from reading it a month ago.