1.725:1 rockers
Thread Starter
|
Cruiser
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 234
Likes: 3
From: ontario
1.725:1 rockers
Has anyone had experience with these running 204 cams?
If so what kind of gains would be expected?
im thinking of doing this over the winter
96 tc with true duals
i like the sound of the 204 cams so I’d like to keep them
thanks again
If so what kind of gains would be expected?
im thinking of doing this over the winter
96 tc with true duals
i like the sound of the 204 cams so I’d like to keep them
thanks again
The 1.725:1 rocker arms may put the Valves to close to the Pistons when fully opened.
The SE-204 cams lift is .510 of an inch, and with a high lift rocker arm like a 1.725:1
you will need to make sure there is enough piston clearance when the valves are opened.
I would forgo the high lift rocker arms, and go with a standard lift roller rocker arms for
less valve ware & friction. Less friction also means lower engine heat in a TC 96 engine.
The Se-204 cam will work well with a 103 engine too, as they say bigger is better.
John
The SE-204 cams lift is .510 of an inch, and with a high lift rocker arm like a 1.725:1
you will need to make sure there is enough piston clearance when the valves are opened.
I would forgo the high lift rocker arms, and go with a standard lift roller rocker arms for
less valve ware & friction. Less friction also means lower engine heat in a TC 96 engine.
The Se-204 cam will work well with a 103 engine too, as they say bigger is better.
John
Last edited by OldPhat; Oct 28, 2017 at 10:43 AM.
Banned
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,250
Likes: 136
From: Nomad
On the friction front, I'm not sure how it would transfer to the lower end, but would not rollers reduce friction as they are rolling over the valve tips rather than rubbing?
Ultimate HDF Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 8,251
Likes: 3,990
From: Windwardside, Saba N.A.
Trending Topics
Ultimate HDF Member
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,129
Likes: 143
From: Santa Cruz
You guys are seriously overthinking this. 225s, 48s, 222s all have more lift than 204s with 725 rockers. None cause any piston interference or spring problems in stock 96s or 103s.
Last edited by 0ldhippie; Oct 29, 2017 at 06:30 PM.
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Verdad Gallardo
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
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
Road Master
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,159
Likes: 120
From: pontotoc ms
On my last bike I had 204 cams with 1.725 rocker arms on stock 103.
it was a blast,26 to 28 thousands rpm is where they come in and they do like gang busters.
still pulled good down low,don’t think I lost anything at all there.
my dyno was 96 horsepower and 114 ft lbs of torque.
and they sounded wicked,I was running a 2/1/2 header pipe and jackpots with competition baffles.
it was a blast,26 to 28 thousands rpm is where they come in and they do like gang busters.
still pulled good down low,don’t think I lost anything at all there.
my dyno was 96 horsepower and 114 ft lbs of torque.
and they sounded wicked,I was running a 2/1/2 header pipe and jackpots with competition baffles.
