View Poll Results: Which cam for low end torque?
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 132. You may not vote on this poll
Cam poll: best low to mid torque
#122
#124
#125
Ummmm....the 48 was better under the curve for most of the run. Also, different exhaust and different day. Why pay the woods tax for what may or may not be a better cam. No thanks. The 222 is good, but it's not worth the $$ over the 48.
#127
The “Woods tax” got me at least an extra 5 HP, and at least 1 lbs. of TQ at 2,500 rpm’s. The 48’s best came on at 2,750 rpm’s. That’s with a free flowing 2-1-2 headpipe and mufflers that have a 2 1/8th” baffle. Not to mention a free’er flowing AC. Me? Yes, I’m glad I paid the additional $125.
And by the way, the 222’s were designed for stock compression as well. In fact, I was warned not to increase compression.
And by the way, the 222’s were designed for stock compression as well. In fact, I was warned not to increase compression.
#128
The “Woods tax” got me at least an extra 5 HP, and at least 1 lbs. of TQ at 2,500 rpm’s. The 48’s best came on at 2,750 rpm’s. That’s with a free flowing 2-1-2 headpipe and mufflers that have a 2 1/8th” baffle. Not to mention a free’er flowing AC. Me? Yes, I’m glad I paid the additional $125. And by the way, the 222’s were designed for stock compression as well. In fact, I was warned not to increase compression.
Both cams may be intended for "stock" static compression but the 48 has that advantage of the earlier intake close, higher CCP which usually translates to torque. So, the 48 will have the advantage over the 222 installed Stage I motors, all things being equal.
Does that mean the 48 is better than the 222? Maybe, depending on the intended goal of the user; it's all about how one rides the bike and where one wants the power. At the end of the day, if the user is happy, then whatever cam the user selected was probably the best cam.
The following users liked this post:
Bafflingbs (12-12-2017)
#129
Since getting the above dyno completed with the 48's, I have been down to the Dragon and back and the bike ran exceptionally well. Engine temperatures were the same as my Stage 1, fuel mileage was ~40-41 mpg when traveling 10-15 mph over the posted speed limit or through the curvy mountain back roads (~44-45 mpg on one 200 mile stretch of highway only going 65 mph and taking it easy; don't ask why), and passing on the highway or riding semi-aggressively through the major bike loops in TN/NC, this Stage 2 setup gave me everything I asked of it.
The real comparison for me would have been if I could have kept my Stage 1 exhaust. Due to the low hanging Power Duals and hitting the front of the pipe pretty hard in a curve, I changed out my exhaust at the same time as my cams. The guy I sold my Stage 1 exhaust to (V&H PD, Crusher Mellows) and he had the same A/C (FM) and tuning device (PV) as I but he added the TW-222's. He sent me his dyno but the SAE was at 0 vice my Stage 2 being recorded at SAE 5. I understand from reading here that there is a difference in graphs between the two but will post it for what it is worth. The guy is really happy with the exhaust he purchased from me as well as the 222's (Same bike as mine, 2015 Limited).
For me, did I give up a little bit by forgoing the PD and Crushers over the FM 2-1-2 (using stock crushed crossover) and E-Series, or 48's over the 222's? Maybe but after chasing this unicorn and spending a lot $$$, I have a bike that runs awesome, can hear the music at highway speeds at 50% volume (with BT amp/speaker upgrade) with a full face helmet, and much safer taking tight righthand curves now that my header is back to stock height.
Good luck with your quest and post up your dyno sheet once you have it tuned. This has definitely been a learning experience for me.
2015 Limited, V&H Power Duals, Crusher Mellow, FM high flow A/C, Power Vision tuner, TW-222's for the chart below (SAE 0).
Last edited by 2015UltraLimited; 12-11-2017 at 11:02 AM.
The following users liked this post:
Bafflingbs (12-11-2017)
#130
You are looking at peak numbers; not the best way to compare cams. To rhuff's point, the "area under the curve" tells the story; more with the 48 cam graph you posted previously. If one rode at WOT all the time, that extra 5HP might make a difference but the real difference is in how much "useable" TQ/HP is on tap across the whole power band. When are you going to post your dyno chart of have I missed that?
Both cams may be intended for "stock" static compression but the 48 has that advantage of the earlier intake close, higher CCP which usually translates to torque. So, the 48 will have the advantage over the 222 installed Stage I motors, all things being equal.
Does that mean the 48 is better than the 222? Maybe, depending on the intended goal of the user; it's all about how one rides the bike and where one wants the power. At the end of the day, if the user is happy, then whatever cam the user selected was probably the best cam.
Both cams may be intended for "stock" static compression but the 48 has that advantage of the earlier intake close, higher CCP which usually translates to torque. So, the 48 will have the advantage over the 222 installed Stage I motors, all things being equal.
Does that mean the 48 is better than the 222? Maybe, depending on the intended goal of the user; it's all about how one rides the bike and where one wants the power. At the end of the day, if the user is happy, then whatever cam the user selected was probably the best cam.
Regardless of which cam is better, I am very happy now. But, That required a slip-on change. The Rinehart's made the biggest difference for me.
Last edited by Bafflingbs; 12-11-2017 at 02:48 PM.