Not Happy with New Cams
Thread Starter
|
Tourer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 457
Likes: 6
From: Woodstock, Ga
Not Happy with New Cams
Hello
I have a 99flhr and with 37k on it so I said it's about time to do a cam swap Glad I did as the tensioner shoes and old 203 cams were pretty wore out
Don't know if I rushed into putting the Fueling 543 cams on my 95 kit (I'm thinking maybe the cam is to big for the 95 ) Dont have the smilin grin like I did bfore
All as I know is I have a huge trq dip right where it counts
Could it be the Thunderheader or is it the wrong cam ??
as far as numbers go there not to bad
Got 91hp and 102 tq on
Can anyone reccomend me a better pipe Someone was saying go with a stock head pipe and a better slip on
I have a 99flhr and with 37k on it so I said it's about time to do a cam swap Glad I did as the tensioner shoes and old 203 cams were pretty wore out
Don't know if I rushed into putting the Fueling 543 cams on my 95 kit (I'm thinking maybe the cam is to big for the 95 ) Dont have the smilin grin like I did bfore
All as I know is I have a huge trq dip right where it counts
Could it be the Thunderheader or is it the wrong cam ??
as far as numbers go there not to bad
Got 91hp and 102 tq on
Can anyone reccomend me a better pipe Someone was saying go with a stock head pipe and a better slip on
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,216
Likes: 102
From: Central Illinois
The Fueling site seems to to be very low on specs for that cam, but they state it needs performance valve springs, works better with higher compression and works best in the 1900-6000 rpm range. That tells me it isn't going to be good at torque down low and probably has a lot of overlap cutting cylinder pressure at lower rpm's. However I would think the compression jumped somewhat when you put the 95 kit in, if you used the original heads.
Thread Starter
|
Tourer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 457
Likes: 6
From: Woodstock, Ga
Whats a better pipe.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
