I swear this is my last question on cams, I've got it narrowed down between the two for my 06' Street Bob 88" (no plans on big bore or heads), I hear lots of good about the 204's, but with the 525's they have the hydraulic tensioners. Any suggestions?

 

Why can't you put hydraulic tensioners on the 204s?

 

I can, I was thinking of a different cam. Looks like 204's are gonna be my choice!

 

What tuner do you have?

 

Right this second I have the pos V&H Fuelpak, but before cams I'll be getting and power commander V

 

Fueling 525 INTAKE 525" 4° 42° 226° .099° 109° 109 LC
EXHAUST 535" 51° 5° 236° .112° 113°

SE 204 INTAKE 508" 22° 34° 236° .208" 96°
EXHAUST 508" 59° 17° 240° .129" 111° 103 LC


I also have a 88 inch SB and I think the 525 is (would be) a better cam for it because of the wider lobe centers if you run them advanced... I would run the 525 advanced 8°.... for sure I would call and talk to them about it... I know exactly what's going on!... and probably why they are using this particular timing (their reasoning)... but too hard to explain everything here...

 

Hpw does your's preform? Right now just got a/c, soon PCV, so I'm hoping they cams will really wake her up!

 

oh, sorry!... I don't have them in my motor... just making an observation based on what I know... I'm an automotive machinist... our smaller motors have totally different cam/lobe center requirements because of the different R/S rod/stroke ratio in our 88 motors compared to the 96 and 103, and also because of the smaller CC...

for me it's about fuel mileage also!... they would both be great cams, I just think the 525 advanced would be better... broader, flatter torque curve.

 

So much more difficult of a decision than I thought it would be! I'd love to see dyno numbers of both on a 88" to see the tq curve...

 

Do either of them allow accurate timing adjustment? Both those cams have 8° of timing built in that you'll need to adjust for in the timing or the bike will run like crap after.