255 cams /ultra limited
#1
255 cams /ultra limited
I have a 2013 ultra limited with 255 cams and a stage 1...
The bike has been tuned and dynoed.Runs very well..
Dynoed at 101 tq and 85 hp...The previous owner had this done..
What would be a better choice of cams for more tq in the low to mid range..
2500-4500 rpm's.. Should i just leave it alone and ride it..
Again the bike pulls really well..
Peace and Prayers
The bike has been tuned and dynoed.Runs very well..
Dynoed at 101 tq and 85 hp...The previous owner had this done..
What would be a better choice of cams for more tq in the low to mid range..
2500-4500 rpm's.. Should i just leave it alone and ride it..
Again the bike pulls really well..
Peace and Prayers
#3
#4
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mount Airy, North Carolina
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 40 Likes
on
30 Posts
You could look into the woods tw-222. You can look on fuel moto's website for dyno charts. With their 2-1-2 head pipe and slip-ons, on a 103 it makes 112 tq, 95 hp in the 2000-4500 rpm range with 100 tq at 2000 rpms. Better numbers that the SE 255 for sure. But it would all depend on your exhaust setup.
#5
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southeast Michigan 15 Minutes East Of Hell
Posts: 147,603
Received 47,791 Likes
on
18,561 Posts
#6
#7
Trending Topics
#8
Stick with what you have. You won't make any more perceivable gains without spending an *** load of money.
But to answer your question, for a 103" stock motor, the Andrews 57H is in my opinion the best in terms of performance and cost. The Woods cams are way too expensive...and Andrews grinds all of the cams for Woods, so why not go with Andrews in the first place?
But to answer your question, for a 103" stock motor, the Andrews 57H is in my opinion the best in terms of performance and cost. The Woods cams are way too expensive...and Andrews grinds all of the cams for Woods, so why not go with Andrews in the first place?
Last edited by Lowcountry Joe; 06-12-2016 at 02:21 PM.
#9
#10