Ah ha moment.
Road Warrior
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,575
Likes: 7
From: Wisconsin
I'm putting a TW-222 in my RGC. I don't have anything against the SE255, its just that the TW-222 makes more power everywhere. The SE255 is still a good cam and can be found cheap.
The SE204 is a good cam too. I really like it and it has a great sound at idle, but again the TW-222 makes more power everywhere. There is no down side to running the TW-222 vs. either of the SE cams.
The only deciding factor with my decision is if I'm going to simply install the cam in my stock 103 or add the 0.030 head gasket or do the cam and heads. That all depends on my budget when I am ready to do the cam install.
The SE204 is a good cam too. I really like it and it has a great sound at idle, but again the TW-222 makes more power everywhere. There is no down side to running the TW-222 vs. either of the SE cams.
The only deciding factor with my decision is if I'm going to simply install the cam in my stock 103 or add the 0.030 head gasket or do the cam and heads. That all depends on my budget when I am ready to do the cam install.
Tourer
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 416
Likes: 24
From: Dubuque, IA USA
I have the 255 and like it. I don't feel it die at 4000, but maybe it does on a dyno, not sure. Never had it dyno'd, just use the map Jamie at FM gave me with my power vision.
I like low end torque. I typically don't pass people that are runnin 80 tho. That's my top freeway speed, I'm more typically setting the cruise at 75.
Hope that helps
I like low end torque. I typically don't pass people that are runnin 80 tho. That's my top freeway speed, I'm more typically setting the cruise at 75.
Hope that helps
Are there better cams? No doubt about it. But I imagine you originally chose the 255 for a reason. I had my reasons and am satisfied.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
