Has anyone installed Andrews 21H cams in a TC96? I'm asking because I have the opportunity to buy a set of 21H's for $210. Here is my present configuration:

Stock TC96 except:

1. Jackpot mufflers
2. PCV with Auto-Tune
3. SE AC w/cleanable element

Conditions and what I want to accomplish:

1. Will replace lifters with stock, pushrods with time-saver adjustables (probably SE), no other engine mods.
2. No loss of low-end or midrange anywhere in the chart.
3. An increase of 5 ft. lbs. of TQ or more from 2300-4000 RPM.
4. I'm not concerned with peak HP, just TQ between 2300 and 4000 RPM. I would basically like to see my TQ chart move up without skewing to the right, and looking like a long rolling hill instead of Pike's Peak.

Questions:

1. Will this cam accomplish this? Has anyone installed these cams without other engine mods?
2. What will be the effect on peak HP, although not my primary concern. I wouldn't think it would change HP much.
3. How would these cams work with a +4° gear? I'm thinking this would not be advisable with this cam and its 40° intake close.
4. Does anyone have a before-after dyno chart on a TC96 (stock comp. and heads) with these cams?
5. Is it necessary to replace the stock inner bearings with either new stock or Torrington B-168? I don't have a bearing puller/installer for this engine, only for the B-148's (TC88).

Here is the dyno chart for my existing setup:

 

Go to American Rider's web site, and read Joe Minton's tech articles about cams.

The Andrew's 21's meet his criteria for increasing low end torque and gas mileage by closing the intake valve sooner, increasing cylinder pressure, giving more power where we ride the majority of our time, which is below 3500 rpm.

Just sayin.... The rest of the bar horsepower guys can brag about the dyno charts at 5500 rpm....

 

I saw two of Joe's articles that pertain to cams, the most pertinent being his discussion of torque and how to get it. He seems to think the TW21 is the best Andrews cam for touring bikes, so it sounds like I'm on the right track. What I would really like is to find someone who's actually installed the TW21H on a stock bike with pipes and AC, preferably with a dyno chart showing before and after.

 

iclick I read your write up (thank you for that by the way, it really makes me think I can do this in my garage and not have anything to worry about, "slow and deliberate", I do have a couple of questions to ask but I'll do that via a PM once I see your response to this) and I see you decided on the SE255's, did you ever find any information on these cams? I've been reading alot about cam choices and I think these cams would accomplish exactly what I'm looking for; lower the heat, get me moving without breathing hard and have excellent throttle response from 1800 to 4500 RPM's. I can't find any information where these were installed in a stock 96", I found info where they were installed in 88" and people that had the gonads to think outside the box really like these cams but like you I'm reluctant to pull the trigger on something that I can't find any information on.
Maybe I'll be the first

 

I looked into the 21H but decided against them, mainly because I found no feedback on installs in TC96's. Also, I was persuaded by a conversation I had with Andrews tech support. I told them I wanted a cam set that would raise my TQ curve without skewing it to the right at the expense of low-end performance. I was told "I don't think we have a cam that will do what you want." Good enough, so I moved on. Further, he said the 21H would probably not provide a meaningful improvement over stock, especially in the low-end.

More research had me leaning toward the 255's, which have excellent low-end and midrange characteristics, and most of this feedback came from a few threads at Harley Tech Talk. I found a good used set of 255's from an HDForums member for a very good price and installed them about a month ago. I can tell you that this choice was the correct one for my needs. The basic feel is that of the stock cam, i.e. good low-end with a flat TQ curve, except performance across the board is higher, and there is no loss even at the extreme low-end (below 2k RPM). A few notes:

1. Performance is excellent, exactly what I was looking for.

2. Because of the very early intake close spec on the SE255's I expected detonation problems at roll-on from low RPM's, but this has not occurred.

3. I expected increased top-end noise due to the higher lift, but this has also not occurred.

4. These cams are a bit less tolerant of the very lean mixtures I was running with the stock cam in the cruise range, but not enough to matter.

5. The engine now has the ability to run smoothly down below 2K RPM without feeling like it's being stressed. I can cruise at 55mph in 6th or even lower, although I usually use 5th below about 58 mph.

6. Gas mileage is about the same as before.

7. I expected a louder exhaust tone and that has occurred, but not enough to be of any concern.

I recommend the SE255's for heavy touring bikes with tall gearing, assuming the rider doesn't spend a lot of time above 4K RPM. OTOH the performance remains strong up to 5500, at which time the curve begins to fall off, but they don't have the peaky nature of most aftermarket cams.

 

I realize this is an older THREAD, but here is some information that will in part answer the poster's original question:

CAM CHOICE: A PRACTICAL GUIDE
How To Increase Power On A Budget By Joe Minton
American Rider February 2010

With simple and relatively inexpensive modifications, any Big Twin, from the Evo to the TC96, can realize a power gain of 25-40 percent in the 2,000-5,000 rpm range. Some of these gains are a result of correcting the emission-related air/fuel mixtures that have plagued Harleys for more than 30 years. Some come from fitting free-flowing air filters and mufflers. Many of you already are aware of these factors and have taken advantage of them.

However, there remains one area for bolt-on improvement that is most often associated with racing, whether street racing, barstool racing or actual drag racing, and that is camshaft design.

Stock Big Twin engine performance has been somewhat limited by cam design. Like restrictive air cleaners, stuffy mufflers and lean mixtures, those limits are related to mandatory emission standards. Stock cams close the exhaust valves too soon and open the intakes too late for optimum performance. To make the finer point, these late-opening intake valves severely limit the total volume of air that can enter a cylinder in the short time allowed.

Why is this so? Low exhaust emissions require that the amount of unburned air/fuel mixture escaping the mufflers is small to non-existent. Other factors aside, unburned mixture can travel from the intake port into the exhaust port if valves are open at the same time. Stock TC96 cams have both valves closed when the piston is at top dead center at the beginning of the intake stroke; no raw mixture escapes down the pipe. Let's examine the effect of this situation for power production.

The amount of power your Harley engine makes is determined by how much air/fuel it burns. If the amount is limited, power is limited to the same degree. It's all about filling cylinders as full as possible with each intake stroke. Lazy (short-duration) cam action limits filling; stock Big Twins have lazy cams.

Short-duration cam timing can severely limit power in the upper half of a Big Twin engine's operating range. As the rpm increases, time to fill goes down. Stock cams begin to choke their engines by 4,000 rpm. If you have been following our dyno testing, you might have noticed that our test engines, except the CVO 110, begin to drop torque after 4,000 rpm no matter which parts we have bolted on. A carefully selected cam can extend this drop-off rpm to over 5,000.

It doesn't help much to read cam-specification charts. They are filled with numbers, most of which have no useful meaning as far as making a choice is concerned. Some of them give advice I know to be incorrect. One important number isn't available at all. So, what do you do?

Well, hopefully you'll consider my experience, accept my argument and take my advice. It is successful advice; many thousands have taken it and no one seems to be looking for me with malice in their hearts or tire irons in their hands.

WHY TRUST THE WIZARD?

I started dyno/street testing Harley cams almost 28 years ago. In an extended series of iron Sportster dyno tests with Jerry Branch, I learned that a bigger cam might produce less power, not more. We both learned, for instance, that the stock 1982 Sportster cam set was the best available and it was considered "mild".

Later, in 1985, Jerry and I spent several weeks, and two engines, coaxing 103 horsepower out of 57 horsepower Evo engines. I paid particular attention to the varying effects of the seven or eight cam designs we tested.

A couple of years later, we again collaborated to do extensive developmental work with the Evo Sportster engine. That work included cam testing on the dyno, out in the street and on twisty mountainous roads.

By the time I'd gotten around to the Sportster, I had developed a pretty good idea of what was most important about Harley cams. John Andrews and I worked on Evo Big Twin and Sportster cam designs; I tested, reported and requested; he calculated, questioned and ground prototypes. We changed and perhaps defined what Evo Harley cams out to be. That may sound arrogant; well. perhaps it is.

We pioneered and, as far as I know, remain the only ones who methodically developed camshafts for the Evo engines. What we learned affected the Andrews catalogue and the offerings of most other cam grinders, many of whom--including Harley Davidson--have their cams ground by Andrews. Subsequent to my testing, I specified Evo cam designs for CCI with Harvey Crane, Mikuni American, and Bartels' Performance Products with John Andrews.

WHAT MATTERS

The rpm at which your Big Twin starts to make useful power is determined by when the intake valves close. The later they close, the higher that rpm will be. I have said this many times and for a long time now.

I recommend cams that close the intake valves at or near 30 degrees after bottom dead center for any purpose short of racing. Useful responsive power will start at around 2,400 rpm with this timing. You can read more on this subject at Mikuni's website in an article I wrote 10 years ago (www.mikuni.com/fs-performance_guide.html).

How well the cylinders fill depends on the effective intake-valve opening time. Harley's lazy stock cams open the intake valve slowly and as C.R. Axtel put it, the air is left chasing the piston. They should open quickly. My rule of thumb is that Big Twin valves need to be open 0.400-inch by the time the piston is at its maximum speed, which occurs at 76 degrees after top-dead center. This sort of specification does not appear on any cam chart I know of.

What with all the other numbers on a cam specification chart, one of the most important is ignored. Take a look at the Andrews Twin Cam page. (http://www.andrewsproducts.com/PDF_f...ainCam0708.pdf). Most of the numbers are not very useful nor is the advice. There is hope, though.

BOTTOM LINE

All the TC96 cams you'll find on the Andrews website page come very close to my recommendations of .400-inch lift by 76 degrees. However, only the 21H also closes the intake valves at 30 degrees after bottom dead-center. This is the cam I would use for almost any purpose. It will begin to increase power over the stock cam by 2,200 rpm and make a much larger difference by 4,000.

In comparison, the 26H doesn't begin to work really well until 600 rpm later at 3,000. The 26H may do a little better at 5,500, but what do we care about that? Why give away 600 rpm at the bottom for nothing useful on top? You spend most of your riding time below 3,000, so buy the cam that gives the best performance where you ride.

You can find cams equivalent to the 21H for the other Big Twins on the Andrews website. The first of this type was the EV13 for the EVO. The picture featured in the article is of the EV13 prototype I keep on a shelf in my garage. The EV13 cam prototype was the first cam equivalent to Joe's current cam of choice, the 21H.

TECH TIP:
For any purpose short of racing, cams should close their intake valves at or near 30 degrees after bottom dead center. Useful, responsive power will start at around 2,400 rpm.

---Joe Minton

Regards,

"Classic"

 

I just put some andrews 21's in my 96 inch '08 with 18k miles a few hours ago.
New B-168's, new HD lifters, K&N air filter in stock air box, adj. push rods, SE comp, SEST.
I'm not done puttin' it back together yet, but I hope to have it done and sittin' on a dyno next week.
I think these cams will work a lot better than most people here think.
As soon as I get it tuned, I'll post the dyno sheet in the dyno thread along with the dyno sheet from my stock motor.
Crank run-out is .0025 to .003 TIR

 

Here you go Iclick,this was when it was a 96 yet.

 

Here you go Iclick,this was when it was still a 96 with stock heads,I used the same cams when I went 103.I had the same bull from Andrews tech about not using these cams in my 07,I'm sorry I listened to them instead of myself. These numbers may look low to some but Dave doesn't enhance his numbers like some other tuners do.

 

Could you post the chart when you do your dyno-tune? I still haven't seen one for a TW21 in a TC96.