cam confusion
Thread Starter
|
Cruiser
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 226
Likes: 4
From: Indiana
cam confusion
I know there are many cam discussions, and I have read through many of them, just wanting some fresh opinions. 2012 RK 103 I've done the AC and decatted, and running a map from Fuelmoto and auto-tuned with my powervision. I run from Idle to 4000, rare to go to 4500. Just wanted more low end and better use of 6th gear. I was looking at the Andrews 26, and the S&S 551c. I called Gary at Andrews and he said I should look at the 57. I would loose some of the low end, but it worked better in a 103, and if I wanted low end I should look at gearing. I called S&S, and they recommended going with the MR103, here again saying it did not have as much low end as the 551, but worked better in the 103. Most people say they get great low end and overall good results with the SE255, and it seems to be better suited for me. I wasn't wanting to stick with a compliant cam. Anyone have any reports on these cams? I'm not doing any head work, or wanting a race bike. I have read that the Andrews 57 makes the bike a little harder to start, don't know if it's true.
Road Captain
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 704
Likes: 45
From: Western Washington
I know there are many cam discussions, and I have read through many of them, just wanting some fresh opinions. 2012 RK 103 I've done the AC and decatted, and running a map from Fuelmoto and auto-tuned with my powervision. I run from Idle to 4000, rare to go to 4500. Just wanted more low end and better use of 6th gear. I was looking at the Andrews 26, and the S&S 551c. I called Gary at Andrews and he said I should look at the 57. I would loose some of the low end, but it worked better in a 103, and if I wanted low end I should look at gearing. I called S&S, and they recommended going with the MR103, here again saying it did not have as much low end as the 551, but worked better in the 103. Most people say they get great low end and overall good results with the SE255, and it seems to be better suited for me. I wasn't wanting to stick with a compliant cam. Anyone have any reports on these cams? I'm not doing any head work, or wanting a race bike. I have read that the Andrews 57 makes the bike a little harder to start, don't know if it's true.
Road Master
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
From: Elgin IL
[QUOTE=dawg;13476076]Have you thought of the TW-222?[/
++1 on the TW-222 cams great low end torque and don't run out of steam until 5200 rpm.
Talk the guys at fuel motor or call Bob Wood from woods cams.
They are ground by Andrews to Bob wood specs.
++1 on the TW-222 cams great low end torque and don't run out of steam until 5200 rpm.
Talk the guys at fuel motor or call Bob Wood from woods cams.
They are ground by Andrews to Bob wood specs.
Road Master
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 191
From: Boise, Idaho
I am running the 255 cams and am very happy. I have plenty of low end torque. I'm like you in that I run up to around 4k rpm but rarely over. Good luck with your decision.
Trending Topics
Road Master
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 992
Likes: 2
From: TN
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Harley-Davidson Needs to Fix in 2026
Verdad Gallardo
Southpaw Super Glide: A Left-Hand-Drive 1979 Harley FXE Built to Fit the Rider
Verdad Gallardo
