I love it when I hit some hot buttons.

To all the 255 fans that think I am dissing the 255s, I am not. You guys are a hyper sensitiv bunch. I was simply pointing out the differences between two cams. I realize there are some that think the best cam is the one they are running but there are other options. As I said, the 255 is a torque monster, to a point, and for some a great cam. Particularly for two up touring and those that spend most of their time between 2000-4000 rpms. I have recommended the 255 to some that have sought my input on cam selection and the builds turned out to be great runners and the owners very happy but it isn't the right cam for every application. A lot of guys running the 255 are running it because the build was a dealer build; a Stage II or whatever package. I don't know many that plan to build around the 255; hmmmmm, wonder why?

mtclassic, you can absolutely compare those two charts. Not saying that you can compare the numbers but you can certainly compare profiles. Both Stage I builds with a cam only upgrade, the differences beng the location of the dyno, exhaust and fuel management system. While I would agree that there would be differences if those three variables were eliminated but the basic profiles would not change. The profiles clearly show the difference in performance characteristics between the two cams and provide a picture that I believe suitable to make a choice on which of those two profiles best fit a riding style. Broader, flatter torque curves will be my choice every time.

I would like to know how many of the 255 fans have ridden, back to back, similar builds, the difference only being a 255 vs a 48? If you haven't then you should and you will understand. If I was scavenging trash bins looking for parts for my next build, I might go with a 255, after all, what's a purpose driven build plan compared to a magical cam!

Can't we all just get along? Lighten up!

 

I like my Crane 300-2. Revs free through the RPM range.
09 FLHX
SE-1
Rinehart 3-1/2" slip-on
TTS
80 - 96

 

Cams...........
I currently have SE 255 cams, and will run them for at least the next year until the factory warranty goes away. So far so good for now with my riding style.
After the warranty goes, I may look at other cams such as the 48.

 

That's some funny **** man!

 

Mike, I think you're description of the 255 cams is exaggerated, but I'm glad you like them so much.

 

What strikes me about the charts you've provided is that the 255 example is probably the least favorable that I've seen, and isn't representative of the results most people achieve. To balance things out, allow me to show the best chart that I've seen for a TC96/255 combo, so I would expect any given result to be somewhere between the two.



I will also submit that if you disregard the numbers and look only at the shape of the torque curve, this will represent the result of a well-tuned 96/255 setup. BTW, I don't see evidence for a "fall on its face" effect anywhere in the operating range.

I saw a chart on HTT that showed a comparison of the 48H and 255 in the same bike, and the difference wasn't nearly this great. The two matched well in the low-end and midrange but the 48H pulled ahead in the top-end, but not by much. When listing what I consider to be good bolt-in cams for Stage 1 96 and 103 engines, the 48H is always present. Had it been available when I did my cam upgrade it would've been on my short list. However, since I'm a cheap bastard I would've chosen the 255's anyway, as I rescued my 255's out of a CVO trash bin for virtually nothing. Comic relief lives on.

There's been a sticky in this section since Feb. '06.

 

If I may interrupt ... I'm still doing the research part...but I'm stumped on "whats my riding style" only minutes ago I took a short ride and tried to pay attention to my speed/gear (no tach) and watch the road too. This is what I arrived at: 1rst up to 25mph, 2nd to 40mph, 3rd to 50, 4th to 60, 5th to 70, then 6th on up. I find this fun...bike sounds great and feels good, like it's in the sweet spot. Given this...can anyone tell me my rpm's and/or riding style? Brisk? aggressive? li'l 'ol lady? umm If this is a dumb question...go ahead..slap me upside the head ...and If anyone else was wonderin the same thing..feel free to slap them too
SC

 

I think most simply don't agree that the power drop-off, which all cams exhibit to some degree, is as great as some of the descriptions that have been offered. Some prospective upgraders might think the engine almost quits above 4500 rpms, and this isn't the case.

That's well and good, but let's find a chart that's more representative of the cams' performance, not the worst available on the internet. I challenge anyone to find a worse example, although I'm sure there is one somewhere out there.

All joking aside for a moment, anyone who would throw 255 cams, or anything other than stock cams, in a trash bin is very dumb--or at least too rich or lazy to bother reselling them. Everyone knows that 255 cams are readily available on Ebay and forum classifieds as CVO pulls, and that in no way denigrates the worth of these cams toward some performance upgrades (like mine).

Figure out how to teleport one of those beers and I might feel a little better.

 

I don't disagree but I am betting that if the 48 was available when you installed the 255 and you looked at as many charts as there are now, you would have gone with the 48. And why wouldn't you, nearly identical performance on the bottom but more on top with the 48? Even if one doesn't ride in the upper ranges that much, it's nice to know the power is on tap if needed. If we could all get our bikes tuned by Herko, I suspect all our charts might look a little better.

I am putting my money on the 48 in a drag race. I had the opportunity to assist an acquaintance remove a set of 255s from a bone stock other than Stage I upgrades '10 Fatboy and replace them with a set of 48's. I also rode the bike before and after. I liked the 48s much better and that was with only a couple of Vtune runs; the bike wasn't completely tuned. Nothing but anecdotal testimony based on butt dyno results but it made a 48 believer out of me.

I have seen the sticky. Went through three pages and saw two charts and many build details missing from the build description. I believe a forum section dedicated to dyno results, like HTT, would be more informative. Of course, that is JMHO.

 

A short ride doesn't reveal much. When I step out for a ride, I am gone most of the day, usually roll up 300-400 miles. I don't have a tach but would guess that 60% of that time, I am running between 3000-4000 rpms in fourth and fifth gear. So, a cam that is developing peak torque in that range would appeal to me.

Look at the dyno chart that iclick posted. That engine is developing peak torque between 3000-4000 rpms; compatible with my riding style. You should be able to figure the rest out.