255 vs tw6-6
Thread Starter
|
Road Captain
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
I have the dyno chart from my own eng. But for a fair comparison the cams need to be in the same eng. You can take two eng have the same man install parts and tune and get differant results. The differances in tolerances each eng can make a differance
Extreme HDF Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 11,615
Likes: 50
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Here's a thread from a rider who tried both in his 103, first the 255's followed by 6-6's with the 4°-advance gear, both using SEST. The gear essentially moves the TQ curve about 300rpm to the left, according to informed sources, helping the low-end a bit. Read beyond the first message, as he has more feedback as he rides the bike more. What I got from his experience was his statement that although peak-TQ and HP were higher with the Wood setup he felt that it was not a step forward, maybe slightly backward, in the RPM's where he rides the most, which is below 3500. This is only one opinion but is the only back-to-back comparison I've seen of these two cams.
What I noticed about his dyno chart for the 103 with 255's was that his HP/TQ numbers were lower than the chart I've posted above for a TC96 with no other mods. Since most TC96/255 combos I've seen do better than this, I suspect his tune was not optimal. He also did some minor head work which I don't think is either necessary or advisable with the 255's. This may affect the charts for the Wood cam more positively than the 255's, especially peak-HP. I also noted that the tuner didn't start the charting until >3000 rpms, leaving out the critical (for me) 2000-3000-rpm range. I would really like to have seen that included and it makes the comparison much less revealing for my needs.
Last edited by iclick; Apr 20, 2010 at 08:46 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
