"Andrews 48H" is the "only" other cam? What about the TW-555? or the S&S 551?

 

TW-5-6!!!! Woods cams are hard to beat!!! It will give you tq & horsepower!!

 

The proverbial can of worms thread. Many like myself will state they would not consider any other cam as the SE 255 performs very well and they are very satisfied with it's performance in a touring bike.

The other camp will talk about Woods, Andrews, Redshift, T Mann, and other manufacturers producing better numbers and avoiding the "nose over" they perceive from looking at SE 255 dyno charts. Problem is those dyno charts don't translate to the seat when you are riding the bike. I never feel my bagger nose over before I am ready to shift it.

As to performance, I chuckle as I read about guys riding baggers revved up and their builds with the torque and horsepower curves to the right of center so they "carry the power out further". For me, I will cruise on my bagger which has adequate power for an 800 to 900 pound behemoth that it is and save the hot rodding for my SE 120R street bob

 

It rolls off near 4k but it's a great pulling cam off the line and into 5th gear. I still love it. Had it about 2 years or a little less.

 

I meant that those two (255 and 48H) are the only two that will bolt-in to a TC96 Stage 1 without hurting low-end torque. The S&S 551 "Easy Start" would work well too, so thanks for reminding me about that one. I had only seen one very erratic dyno chart on that one in the past, which was underwhelming, but a new one on the S&S site looks very good indeed. The 555 would hurt the low-end below 2700rpm, and quite a bit in the lower-2k area, but I think would be a very good performer in a factory 103ci with 9.6:1 compression. The other cams mentioned here would also be good in that engine, IMO, and you would have stump-pulling low-end TQ with the three mentioned above.

 

While the 255 may not produce the top end power of other cams, every dyno run I've seen with them has shown at least ten more hp in the upper rpm range than a stock bike with stage one. That is a difinite impovement in power. Most dyno runs show them as making much more torque between 2000 and 2500, which translates as more hp in that part of the powerband. That is much more important to me than how much power it makes at 5000 rpm when I'm crusing in the mountains at 50 mph in fifth gear.

 

Fueling 525 cams for me.
That was after having the TW-6-6's and the 48H's both uninstalled and sold on this site. From the Fueling site:
525 Cams – A real workhorse, designed to increase torque band width and increase fuel economy. Great bolt in camshaft upgrade for stock engines. Produces strong low and mid range power with a linear horsepower and torque curve. Can be used with factory valve springs, pushrods and lifters. Increases throttle response and eases starting. Will also respond well to cylinder head work. RPM 1,750 – 5,800
Which is the RPM's where I ride.

 

What did you dislike about the 48H's?

 

Nothing really iclick. I never did install them, I just bought them, as well as the woods
6's, but when I started doing research I thought that the Fueling's would be the best for my needs/wants. That's what I meant by uninstalled.

My thinking or interpretation is I guess that the "Andrew's" is their version of the SE 255's but went out a little further than do the 255's do.

I also haven't installed the 525's yet but I have made up my mind on them that they will be the ones that I will use.

I am also contemplating the Rev Performance which I am very excited about as well. Just a little bit on the pricey side though, and my PC-V is only a year old which works well still. I do know some folks that have maps for the 525's that I could use in the event that I stay with the PC-V for a while.

I may get the RP yet though, and try to re-coup some $ from the PCV it to put towards the R P, whcih is like a PCV, AT and dyno wrapped into one is my understanding,of which their price reflects it as well.

 

Some guys get too wrapped over intake close, as if that were the sole indicator of how a cam is going to function. (probably due to a couple of articles Joe Minton wrote a few years ago). It's a cartoonishly simple view of cams, and ignores a whole lot of other elements, like duration, overlap, LSA and advance.

Comparing the Fueling 525 and Woods 6 cams is a good example of this. The Woods 6 cams have an intake close of 40*, the Fueling cams are 2* later at 42*. If Minton was correct, the Woods cams would have a slightly earlier torque band than the reaper cams, but they don't. Why? Partly because a few degrees one way or another doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Remember the fuel moto test where they advanced the woods 6 cams 4*? Some guys were predicting the torque band would shift to the left by several hundred rpms. But it didn't happen, because a few degrees one way or the other just doesn't matter all that much.

Compared to the Woods cams, the Fueling 525 cams have a little less duration and overlap, and a little more ground-in advance. That is just as telling as the 2* difference of intake close. As much as intake close has an effect on low rpm torque, duration and overlap does too. Long duration is required for high rpm performance because of the shorter length of time the valve is open as the motor spins faster. However, on the street, a long overlap combined with long duration will kill low rpm torque. Of course, you do need some overlap, even at low rpms, to promote scavenging. The lack of overlap in the stock cams is a big reason why they are so anemic.

Looking at a cam like the SE255, you'll see a very early intake close, a very short duration, a very narrow overlap, and a little more ground-in advance than normal. Combined, these elements would suggest that it's a torque cam, which it is, in spades. The downside to cams like this is an earlier powerband decline and less overall output (compared to other cams).

Cams are very much the sum of their parts. Guys who get too wrapped up over one particular spec will run the risk of missing the bigger picture.