'12 WG 103ci im wanting to cam it but not do head work. Which ones?

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Nov 5, 2015 | 11:15 AM

#11

oneshot2stop

Thread Starter

5th Gear

Joined: Nov 2015

Posts: 9

Likes: 0

From: Arkansas

Also another ignorant ? Here, whats the difference between the andrews 48 & 57? 57 more thump?

Nov 5, 2015 | 01:29 PM

#12

djl

HDF Community Team

Joined: Jun 2006

Posts: 12,773

Likes: 2,603

From: san antonio

The 57 is identical to the 37 but with more lift; the 37 has long been the "go to" cam for 95" builds. The 57 has a longer intake duration than the 48; exhaust duration is about the same; 57 had more lift than the 48 and a later intake close. Both are cams intended for baggers. The 48 was introduced in the 2010 model year for the 96" motor and the 57 was introduced in the 2012 model year for the 103" motor.

Kury cams require that they be matched up with Kury heads or heads ported by someone that understands Kury cams.

Nov 5, 2015 | 06:23 PM

#13

oneshot2stop

Thread Starter

5th Gear

Joined: Nov 2015

Posts: 9

Likes: 0

From: Arkansas

Ok. So will the 57 drop right in without any mods? & will it have real good take off & keep pulling throughout?

Nov 5, 2015 | 06:55 PM

#14

cdonis

Outstanding HDF Member

Joined: Jul 2013

Posts: 3,245

Likes: 297

From: Escalon ca

Oddball here but I went with mr103 cams by s & s. No headwork and it runs good.Bout the same result as 57 from what I've seen.

Nov 5, 2015 | 09:09 PM

#15

djl

HDF Community Team

Joined: Jun 2006

Posts: 12,773

Likes: 2,603

From: san antonio

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneshot2stop

Ok. So will the 57 drop right in without any mods? & will it have real good take off & keep pulling throughout?

I think you would be happy with the 57 but prefer to let other forum members that have installed the 57 in a Stage I 103 motor chime in and share their experience.

Nov 5, 2015 | 10:09 PM

#16

98hotrodfatboy

Seasoned HDF Member

Joined: Mar 2010

Posts: 21,064

Likes: 7,591

From: Poolville

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hillsidecyclecom

If wanting low-mid power an Andrews 48 or Wood 222.
If wanting it to carry further into the rpm curve, an Andrews 57 would work well.
Scott

For real the first two is what came to my mind the 48 or 222 in a stocker, then I saw scott's reply. yup that's the one...

One thing you need to realize is that the weight difference between the two bikes is a lot and so will the performance be, so don't look for a miracle cam..

Last edited by 98hotrodfatboy; Nov 5, 2015 at 10:12 PM.

Nov 5, 2015 | 10:34 PM

#17

Pigbacon

Road Captain

Joined: Aug 2014

Posts: 624

Likes: 0

From: Central Arkansas

My 57's start to pull about 2800. They work well throughout the rpm range. They start later than 48's but carry out farther also.

Nov 5, 2015 | 11:15 PM

#18

rgr357

Tourer

Joined: Jul 2013

Posts: 389

Likes: 9

From: MT

I have a similar setup as seen in my sig below. When dropping the 57s in I went with a .027 mls head gasket to bump the compression back up. I didn't like what bigboyz calculator was showing between stock & 57s. Pushed it as far as I could without doing head work and at that have a measured 185 ccp at 3000ft. Would have liked it to be around 195 but that's where it turned out.

If you like the kick right out out of the gate I'd go with the 48s. Certainly no need to change the head gasket that way either. If you like to rip on it & get into all the time, then the 57 is likely a better choice, at least that's my take.