So, with the Woods 222 cams, I can do cams only? What's the difference between the Wood 222's and the Wood 48's?

TW-222

Read jeg1's signature

So, in a stock TC96, the SE-204's are a good fit? What else do you like about them, besides the sound?

There isn't a Woods 48. The 48 is by Andrews and was specifically designed for the 96(48X2=96). Not just a coincidence.

Oops! Just checked H-D's web-site and my 2011 FLHX is not listed in the fitment list for the SE-204's!

Sounds like you have you mind set on SE?

I say woods or andrews are the way to go. I've read the SE are more EPA compliant and that may effect their performance. The woods 222 are built for a 96. More pricey however.

SE cams are all going to be EPA compliant as required by EPA and engine manufacturers. Always going to be just a little less performance than a 3rd party like Andrews or Woods.

TW-222 and SE-204 are both good low torque cams. If you look at dyno charts on this forum for both the 222 will edge out the 204 on both torque and hp but not by much.

I run the TW-222 and really am pleased with it in my FLHTK.

A couple hundred dollars...

Fits '07 and later Touring: SE-204's P/N 25464-06. See the SE catalog pp. 45-47.

I've run SE 204 (2 bikes), 255 (2), and 254E's in one. The 204's offer better mid-range torque and aren't as noisy as the 255's. The 255's do pull off idle to about 4K, but can be hard on lifters and run hot. The 254E's are smooth runners and offer more HP than stock at higher rpm.

There are better cams available, however, but I stick with SE while under warranty.

I'm replacing a set of 255's with 204's on the current ride in a couple of weeks.

According to H-D's web-site, the SE-204 is not an option for my 2011 FLHX, so it looks like this boiling down to the Andrews-48 or the Wood-222.

I did a quick price check:

Andrews 48 = $273
Woods 222 = $390

I think I'm liking the price of the Andrews 48. Can I do "cams only" with it? Will it work in a stock TC96 motor?