I recently had s&s 510g cams put in my 2008 lowrider.i noticed a little more umph but for the money spent Im somewhat disappointed.It seems I was a bit misguided and probably should have used different cams.I have decided to go ahead and do a 107 kit which I should have done in the first place.Are these cams a poor choice or was I just expecting too much? My bike has a pcIII,hi flow breather and v&h shortshot staggers.Ive been told the pipes are power robbers too.

 

While I am no expert, the tech that put my motor together last year got to ride it this year, 88 to 95 inch, big heads, .574 Fueling cams, 10.25-1 pistons, SE Super Turner and a few other things.

I needed more air in and away to get the exhaust out.....which we fixed. Now after riding the bike a years later he thinks it would smoke his 103 FB with big bucks in the motor.

Changing Cams you may need more air and upgrade the exhaust.

Karsten

 

Depends entirely on where you want the power. Someone else can't choose cams for you.

Where do you want your peak? Do you want off-the-line power for around town? Mid-range power (3000rpm) for highway use? Redline power (5000rpm) for tear-arsing about.

Your 510s are an excellent general-purpose cam that give a good boost across the piece. However, if you were looking for a peaky boost to power to match a particular riding style then they might not have been the best choice.

Beware over-camming though. This is putting in cams that shift the power outside the range of the revs you usually use. The peak power number on the dyno sounds fine and then you realise you have knackered the power where you ride.

 

...also, yes, Short Shots are strictly for looks and noise. Poor performance on the dyno compared to, say, some 2-1 systems.

As for the 107" kit and performance mods in general...You are chasing diminishing returns. You are not going to turn your HD into a Ducati no matter what you spend. You can spend $x000s and get a 20% peaky boost to power. If you truly want a quick bike then I suggest doing what many do and keep the Harley for what its good at and also get a sport bike for fast riding and thrashing through the bends.

 

That's an allrounder cam so would give a little bit more everywhere - basically you're just getting the type of cam the MoCo would fit if it wasn't for EPA restrictions. Also most aftermarket cams like more compression and when you go for the bore you should make sure you get the right amount of extra compression for the cam you have (you may go for a different cam with a 107). I'd also add to the point about over-camming to say that it can also refer to putting a cam in that the capacity, compression and flow characteristics of the rest of the engine won't enable the cam to function properly

 

thanks for the responses guys.kind of sounds like a 2 into 1 and a dyno tune might be in order? my pc just has a canned map in it now.Ive heard that adds horsepower but does the 2into one also add torque?I just dont want to make any more costly mistakes as the price of the cams and installation would have covered about half the cost of the entire bigbore kit.I ride 2up mostly in the 2500 to 4500 rpm range and am after that "snap" when I crack it open.

 

I've seen plenty of 107" builds that would leave a Ducati no problem. It's just not going to keep doing it past 100. For real world street purposes, it will be the victor every time though. A racetrack would be a different story. A 115-120hp 107" with 120 lbs. of torque will be quite the ride in a dyna. Not much more than headwork, the right cams, and tuning. Maybe bigger throttle body.

 

OOOoooK. Don't want to argue with you but you are comparing chalk and cheese. I had a ride on a Monster 1100 EVO a little while ago and its like a spaceship compared to a tractor. It weighs 2/3 of any Dyna, 0-60 is nothing, top speed is 140 MPH and that's an unmodified bike. Spend 1/2 what a 107" Dyna upgrade costs and it would be hard to keep it from taking off.

I love my Harley but I am realistic about it. Sure there's a ton of fun to be had on a Dyna and a bit more with big bore and cams but no way is it ever going to compare to the performance of a bike designed for performance. I mean, Jesus, you looked inside the rocker cover of a Harley? Its like something out of the Flintstones.

 

To join in the discussion on Ducati v tuned Harley - not the point of the thread but.... On paper the Harley always suffers from a power to weight disadvantage but in the real world (and until there's some twisties) it's often the Harley gets the holeshot up to about 60mph. It seems to me that it's so easy to get to the power on a Harley compared to sport bikes, many guys on the sport bikes can't get the power on the ground nearly as well. In my experience a good sport bike rider will win off the line or within the first few yards but most of them can't - I recently holeshot a ZX10 on my RKC (which is at 107") and he then screamed past me on the back tyre in first or second, panicked, slowed down and got the front down, straightened the bike up just in time for me to get past him again in third so he had to do it all again. Funny stuff.

 

Check the real world stats. The 1100 Evo is actually on the low side of HP for a bike of its size. Only makes about 85+ at the wheels. It is very light weight though, I'll give it that. It is not that quick compared to other bikes in its range. Moat Ducatis are in that same boat other than the Panigale. The Evo 1100 was tested against the XR1200X and was only a tad quicker. It's pretty much as quick as a big bore Dyna that had headwork. That is why I commented because you said Ducati. If you said GSX or FZR, I would say youre right. A buddy of mine has a Ducati 916. He rides with an 1100 Evo. He blows the doors off of him. I can run with the 916 up to 35 or so. Mine is a stage 1 88" with lower gearing. You can do the math from there. Definitely not challenging a legit superbike, but Monsters are not Superbikes.