i'm using the se non rollers on my 124 with s&s 640's, in use for over 4000miles at the moment. had the heads setup for them last winter. i know the heads were setup for .700 lift and some extra exhaust port work also. before this i always ran rollers on any perf. build, car or bike. the se pro's were recommended by the guy setting up my heads, and have to say no issues and quiet. last year i was running rollers 1.725 on the inktakes and the 1.65 rollers on the exhaust and it was noisy, not that i minded. ordered some se hurricane heads and will pull these this winter, and see how everything looks, then make a decision on what to use. i highly doubt that there will be any issues with them, the bike runs like a watch, is smooth, quiet, and best of all, it rips!

 

i highly doubt that there will be any issues with them

With only those miles I would agree. After 10k or so the stem tops will wear, or the rockers at the contact point will be worn. You will need to modify your heads (or the Hurricanes) correcting geometry to give the parts a chance, and that said I would be using rollers with that lift, unless it took a couple years to rack up the 4k miles.

 

when the se pro's were recommended, i was sceptical and until i was informed they go on most of his big inch builds and he has them out there with a lot more than 10k on them. another thing is, we're only spinning these engines barely over 6000rpm's.

 

I have run roller rockers on everything I have build for 40 years and not just Harley's.

If you spend a pile of money on this stuff just need to do the right thing.

Roller rockers go with high lift cams.

1.75 is OK if you have a smaller cam already in and have a set of 1.75 laying around. Other wise do it right.

 

Several years ago, Mike Steggman of Team Lattes HD wrote an article on FORUM regarding using the then new 1.725 rockers, w/ SE204 cams for a "performance increase" over the 204's and other cams available at that time. It was for a 103 build. I've built many motors, including Harleys, and I thought that I understood my cam physics fairly well. My last 103 build was aimed at HP, and I got it, at 113/109 (see signature for detail). I was in the process of building a Torque motor for my '08 FLHTCU Mototrike conversion, using 103 flats at 9.8 to 1, and the situation sounded similar. I needed to use all HD parts for warranty, and gathered that the additional lift along with a "bump" in duration would result in a strong motor. The 1.7 rockers bring the stock 204's 0.508 lift up to 0.539. It DEFINATLEY made a difference, as after TWO difficult Dyno tunes, we're still only at 68hp/91ft lbs, BUT with good, “smooth” torque from 1600 to 4000 RPM.. We tried the "Big Bore" profile first, and we got a much narrower curve, same numbers. The run shown is w/ the SE204 map, tweeked a bit. Torque's @ 83 Ft. Lbs, clear down at 1800 RPM, and it pulls my 500# camper well, it just runs out of steam at 4000, and lacks the big numbers others have gotten with 204’s. (My friend did an identical build, 204's & 1.7 rockers, except he used stock exhaust w/ slip-on s, his numbers were GT 95/105). I think I have a case here of Reversion and need to fine tune the exhaust (that’s what the Dyno tuner thinks), OR the cam timing has been advanced 4 degrees or more (from closing at 34 to maybe 30). If advanced that far, it would shift the power band down to something like 1000 to 4000 RPM (which is right where it runs really good). If you let out the clutch and nail the throttle from a roll at 1600 or 1700 RPM, it squeals the tires and moves out like a scared rabbit, a blast to ride! Sorry to be so long winded, but here's the complete build, intersting to say the least:

I decided to keep the intake runner and heads stock (other than 208# Beehive springs & forged rocker supports) to keep intake velocity high (smaller valves = faster flow, & fast is the word for good low end cylinder fill to make TQ). I didn't care about HUGE HP numbers, just TQ. The springs may be overkill, but I want those valves shutting FAST, plus I'm good for 0.585 lift, if I switch cams).We installed a Super-Tuner, V&H Duals to reduce radiated heat (a 2 into 1 exhaust will not fit or I'd be using one), and Sampson turn-outs w/ 1 inch spiral baffles (The shop had installed Python 3" baffled straight thru's first, NOT correct for a TQ. Build. It had a choppy low end & was too loud with the camper behind, but high end seemed better). I also added a Baker +1 oil pan, HD touring oil cooler (lowered oil temp. when pulling camper from 285 to 240). I broke it in carefully, and then had Dubuque HD Dyno it TWICE. The tuner was able to broaden the Hp/Tq curve somewhat the second time, but still couldn't get more than around 68Hp and 91Ft Lbs of torque. It pulls great from 1600 and up, Clutch out and rolling nice at 1500 RPM. BUT it's dead above 4000 RPM (TQ. drops fast, & it gains only 3 HP), and the numbers are nowhere near the 90hp+/100ft lbs+ I have seen with the 204's on stock 96ci motors and other 103's. The tuner is VERY determined, and told me to show up w/ a set of tunable Super Trapp Diffuser disk mufflers and he'll Dyno tune it again to try for better numbers (I found a set of 18 inch Supertrapp tunables, I may try to fit them). Heck, the NEW 103's are advertised at over 100 Ft. Lbs., and I spent big $. And I could use more torque on long upgrades in 6th (I run at 2500 RPM and above mostly, but it'll take most hills at 2200). I hope the '08 crank bearings aren't weak like in '07?

I know a Trike has more drag with the additional running gear, but something is wrong, is there a Map out there that'll help? I'm using a K&N A/C, and run 91 octane, non-alcohol gas (there's NO pinging). For robustness I have a 2 tooth under front pulley (=2830 RPM @ 75 in 6th), and a big Rivera clutch w/ ATF in the primary, plus a SE Big Twin Compensator. I am using non-synthetic HD 20W50, and standard Harley 75W90 oil in the Trans. Bike now has 5000 miles on it. Smooth runner, pulls my camper VERY well (but runs a bit hot with the weight). From 1600 to 4000 it's the best running low-end motor I've EVER had (better than my 2008 CVO 110” w/ SE 258 cams, it also went flat at 4000 RPM)! My cam had 30 deg. overlap w/o the 1.7's, that's fairly low, and means it should rev up well w/ good midrange. Andrews 21's only have 18 deg OVLP and the old timers Swear by them for low end. Maybe using the 1.7's has changed the cam timing enough to cause multiple side-effects. If there's a cam grind out there that will simply fix it, I may change the 204's out, and/or LOSE the 1.7's, rather than buy MORE pipes and DYNO my Poor Motor again! TOO MANY VARIABLES!!! And it Runs Great NOW (I seldom run above 4000 anyhow). Maybe I have just learned something! Any Ideas or Suggestions?
-Stoood

Ps. Will add Dyno chart later, must re-format to fit

 

I would take Hillsides advise on this one ,and ive been considering it for my andrews 54 with .550 lift

Not sure it works for every application and since they are made from the stock cores durability should not be that much of a problem unless you go overboard on a cam.

 

Wow, My head hurts.

What I think is the stock heads are holding things up.
But also
And the cam may be, as you said, it might be advanced.

HD just doesn't make a good Torque cam. the 255 comes closes. 251 and 257 are outside of this.

I am talking about high lift (.575 at least), intakes closing at around 40 and LSA of about 100-102.

If you want torque and not go higher that .585 lift get Woods 7H cam. Advance it 4 degrees. With your stock heads and compression. Would run easy to above 5800 RPM.
T-Man has something along these lines also

I ran the 7H fro 2 yearts and it is a great torque cam.
I had, have 10.5-10.8 or so compression. so I didn't advance.
With me it pulled very well from 1500 RPM on, in any gear, but of course just did 6 gear once to see. It did.

Get his lifters also.

 

Roller rockers go with high lift cams.

1.75 is OK if you have a smaller cam

You sure
Not every manufacturer increases the ratio the same. Check the geometry and how the roller rides on the stem you will see many will go right off the stem without some shop intervention before hand. This has nothing to do with the cam lift it is about the heads and relationship to the rocker.

 

Yep, rollers on anything above .600. I still maintain - if you want to increase lift, buy the right cam, less work and the geometry does not come into play as much.

 

I would love to see the results with that ratio on that cam.
I'm running that cam in a 103 and have always wondered what the increased rocker arm ratio would do for it.

Over the last year I have seen a few people consider it, but have yet to see actual results. It's tuff experimenting on something that hasn't been proven yet.