You will be soft on the bottom with the 211's unless you raise your compression especially on a heavy bike.

 

I would try a set of Head Quarters HQ-0034. At .500" lift, they are a bolt in cam with a fairly early intake close, so you will see a bump in cranking compression and torque will come on earlier. Off the top of my head, it is the only cam I can think of that will have the same characteristics of the 255, meaning early tq.

Zach

 

Try this for cam comparisons: http://www.bigboyzheadporting.com/tccams.htm

 

Slap in a set of SE204's, they're amazing cams. They're like an Andrews TW37 with a 4 degree advance built in. It's like adding high compression pistons. I'll copy you on my Cam memo I'm sending to TROOP, who's doing a cam change now. I assume you're looking for a bolt in and need low end torque? Head Quarters makes several, one bolt in, and one that needs valve springs and would be suited for a lighter bike (HQ-TC-500 bolt in, HQ-TC-575 needs springs for .575 lift, you'd need a set such as J&P pn 434-173 Manley ovate conical springs w/ keepers. $159. But with these cams you'd definatley notice a difference! You probably need a valve job anyway.

-Like he said, for the 88 try the HQ-0034 or (HQ-0039's which will also need the high lift springs and should wake it up a little more).
Or punch it to 95 and have some fun!

 

Dam shame the bike is tore open, cuz if you try the right map - you might like the 203's!!!!!!

If you are dead set on proceeding with change, the 204's are indeed better than the 203's. But they require a much different map than the 203's. Way more advance built into the 204's.

 

I don't see how you would increase cranking compression installing the HQ-0034 when the intake close is 36°. Stock is 30° and SE255's are 25°. I think the HQ-0034 cams will hurt the low-end somewhat compared to stock if no other changes are made. I also believe that most performance cams will have this effect if you retain stock compression, as almost none have an intake close near stock. The SE255's are actually earlier than stock, and the only other cam I know of is the new Andrews 48H, which has specs very close to the 255's.

 

While you are correct about the intake close timing and it's relation to ccp, IMO that comparison is really more suited to compare aftermarket cams to each other rather than an aftermarket cam to stock. The increased lift and duration alone from an aftermarket cam will allow the heads to flow more air than stock, filling the cylinders better, and increasing cylinder pressure while having a later intake close timing than stock (to a point of course). The 48H does look interesting for a stock application. Andrews finally updated their online catalog and there is also an 09H which looks to be really geared toward low end grunt even more so than the 21H.

Anyway, more and more offerings to heavy bike riders that just want to do a cam only swap these days.

 

I would keep the 203, call Jamie and get the correct map and take it from there. You might be pleased with the 203 with the correct map. Then you can take the money you saved and do another plan mod.

 

I stuck with the 203s. I got a map from Jamie, now I am just slowly putting it back together. Thanks all.

 

These are good points you're making. I had always thought of a stock cam as being the benchmark for low-end TQ, and installing almost any performance cams with stock compression would necessarily reduce it. That may be simplistic since there's more to it than the intake-close spec and duration. The SE255's are an exception since they're designed to increase low-end and midrange TQ. They have a very early intake close, very high lift, and a very modest increase in duration--all of which explain their reputation as TQ cams. The HQ-0034, OTOH, looks like it would harm the low-end with its modest increase in lift, more duration, and a relatively late intake close. These are all good for a modest increase in peak-HP over stock, which any aftermarket cam should do, but it seems that they would harm the low-end in the process. As always, I'm assuming no other changes to a stock engine, as I think more and more people are going this route as an easy and inexpensive way to increase performance. On the new bikes a cam change can be done without a hydraulic press or any special tools, except an inexpensive inner-bearing tool.

So how do we determine which cams will reduce low-end TQ and which will not? For example I questioned one respondent's statement that they would not harm the low-end, but with their specs I don't see how they would not.

The specs look very close to the SE255's, and it is obvious what Andrews is trying to do with it. The 255 has become a favorite bagger cam, and I think you'll see Wood and others follow the bandwagon. As for the 09H I can't see much difference between it and stock, and although it would be an improvement I'm not sure you'd get a big bang for the buck with it.

Yes, it is very good for us, or at least those of us still in the market. I made my choice based on what was available a year ago and it was right for me, but more to choose from is a good thing for the consumer.

Of course all of this is way off-topic since the OP has an early-TC. The SE255, 09H, and 48H only fit newer TC engines. For him I would say that a TW21 would be the best to emphasize the low-end and midrange.