I am running the old style spring tensioners and went with the 37 cause it had less of an aggressive profile/lift thinking it would be easier on the tensioner shoes. Im not sure how sound that logic is but its what i went with. Also read nothing but good things about the 37s.

Ive also been looking into a cam change. I didnt see a 57 cam listed on the early style tensioner list on their site. Now i have been reading about the 54 cam and have been debating trying it out. The Andrews 54 cam looks like a good choice. But a cam swap not super high on my list right now. Mainly cause i dont feel like replacing cams ATM. And dont want a set of perfectly good 37s sitting on the shelf with no use for them. My bagger already has a set of tw21 cams in it.

 

If the porting by Bean was his "street" port offering the heads have OEM springs and valves; Bean does not change those unless the customer requests. The last time I tried to pin Bean down on the flow of this "street" port, he told me that he does not flow every set but does flow one occasionally and flow is "about the same" as the early SE Performance heads. So, the OP can run cams with up to .590" lift with the beehive springs. A few years back, I ran a set of Bean's heads on a 95" motor with SE204 cams and CCP between 185-190 with V&H Side Shots (not the best choice) and that motor made 104TQ/94HP; SERT tuned.

My all bore 107 runs a CV44 with a 215 main with better flowing heads, .600" lift cams and better exhaust so I don't see a 235 main jet being right in a 95" with relatively low lift cams and moderate head flow. The OPs HP numbers should be at least 10 higher. Most 95" builds with 9.5 compression, ported heads and the 37 cams will typically generate 92-94HP/102-105TQ depending on tune and exhaust.

200psi CCP is a bit high for the 37 cams and I noted that the OP has set the DTT on the most aggressive setting he can run without pinging. I am also wondering if timing has been retarded enough to affect the performance. I know it's not an "apples to apples" compare but the 95" motor referenced above with the SE204 cams ran great until ambient temps hit 95* which is every summer in south Texas. I tried backing out timing but by the time I had eliminated pinging, the motor was a turd. I had to replace the cams to solve the problem. Like I said, not a fair comparison but just to make a point for the OP to consider.

If I was the OP I would pop for the $100 and get the bike back on the dyno; the tune isn't right; however, the small intake/exhaust valves and the exhaust is holding back on what the motor is capable of delivering. Another options would be a cam replacement to soften the CCP a bit; the S&S 570 would be perfect.

 

You can try, but at this stage of the game you are kinda shooting in the dark. I adjusted my A/F using jetting as well as ignition timing. The dyno or at least a wide band O2 will allow you to dial this in - without it I am afraid you will have a long road of trial and error.

When I swapped to the 585 cams from the TW8's, I had to start over again with timing, as the engine would now stand more advance and slope. With ignition changes, I also had to move jetting. They go hand in hand.

 

I just confirmed the 57 for the older 95" motors. You have to call Andrews. It is not listed... Just make sure your heads can handle the lift...

 

Micheal Feight, (Mayor) along with the help of Dwight Barry (Syke Performance) did a real good job of testing different heads with different carbs.. The BB heads if pre 06 likely flow close to the stock 06 up heads if you are lucky (not flow tested). Anyway the test can be found here..

https://www.hdforums.com/forum/engin...nch-study.html

Rough eyeballing it, you'll see about a 2% flow increase from stock cv40 to cv44 on stock pre 06 heads and 4% on 06 up heads.. That could translate to the same % power increase if there are no other restrictions in other places.. It will typically be less..

 

Bruce(Max Headflow), performed some carb flow testing at one time if I recall.
The 44 stacked up quite nicely.
Scott

 

I'd keep the CV40 and ditch the Andrews cam. I believe they leave a lot on the table. Their theory to airflow is like a table top. They rise quick, stay low, and close fast compared to the S&S and Woods options.

 

Sounds to me like they were trying to tune a carb based on AF ratio and you are too rich, But, you need to tune a carb based on power response to jetting and ending with the more/less air test. The AF ratio can let you know if you'e in a safe range - but you say their sniffer was incorrect so was it reading lean and you're over-jetted?

Also, timing affect fuel on a carb but fuel doesn't affect timing. I'd be dropping to a lower main and 48 pilot and seeing what happens.

 

Here is a copy of the dyno graph. Cell phone picture, sorry for the poor quality. You can see the AF ratio hardly made a move. It was so long ago my memory is hazy on what the jetting was on "run 002" i want to say possibly a 220?? But "run 010" had the 235 main jet in it.

I was in the room while the dyno runs were being performed and was changing jets and tweaking the carb as we went. You are right Ed, we were taking stabs at tuning the carb based off the AF ratio shown on the dyno and doing some spark plug reading. Now at the time we were unaware the sniffer was giving faulty readings. But the AF ratio was mainly what we were looking at. After all the input here Im fairly certain im over jetted. I will be making changes to the jetting here soon.


Ed can you elaborate on the "timing affect fuel on a carb but fuel doesn't affect timing."
If i advance timing to get a more aggressive spark, wouldn't i need more fuel to avoid pinging?

So right now im overly rich on the jets and aggressive on the spark. When i lean out this carb. Say to a 48 idle and a 205 main. I would need to retard timing a little to avoid issues?


Thanks so much for everybody's input. I really appreciate all the replies.

 

Well that there makes the CV44 not worth it to me. Seems I can do other things, mainly getting my carb jetted and setup properly and get more performance then wasting money on a larger carb.