Author Topic: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams  (Read 9180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jon1550

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« on: Wednesday, December 16, 2009. 04:58:41 PM. »
Currently running TW55 cams in a CVO-103 B-motor w/ Zippers 50mm TB, Thunderheader 2:1 pipes
resulting in 96.2 hp/ 102 lb. tq. Nothing to brag about, but bike runs decent with no head work,
and has a 9:1 CR. After installing TW 55 (22/46, 248-252 dur., 550 lift; Andrews came out with the
TW5 (16/42, 238 duration, .555 lift, designed for engines producing under 10.1:1 CR; and performs
best between 2200-5600 rpm. The TW55 recommends a minimum 9.8:1 CR; and best performance
is in the 2600-6200 rpm range. I ride mostly 1-up, and enjoy the mid-range performance. Will I be
sacrificing more than I gain by switching to the TW54? I'd appreciate any feed back on these cams.

Offline HD Street Performance

  • Premium Vendor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Country: 00
    • HD Street Performance
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #1 on: Wednesday, December 16, 2009. 05:58:33 PM. »
Just more torque under the curve not a dramatic differance. Get some HC pistons or better yet some 20° pistons and cut the heads to get it to 10/1 and those 55 will take on a new personality.

Offline BAKON

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2092
  • Country: us
  • Pittsburgh
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #2 on: Wednesday, December 16, 2009. 06:49:47 PM. »
Heard 54 is not a good performer in 103. Never tried it but thinking you could use some compression in your build if you want mid to upper range.
wasting time

Offline Max Headflow

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17752
  • Country: tr
  • Not Admin
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday, December 16, 2009. 08:40:57 PM. »
Quote
Heard 54 is not a good performer in 103.

I guess this is how the inaccurate rumor  rumors get started.. Was this told to you buy an experienced builder or some back yard shade tree??

Max
Aka Mousinator, Another Wasted Minute With Max,
No Collar to the Bone

Offline Tattoo

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1376
  • Country: 00
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #4 on: Wednesday, December 16, 2009. 08:46:59 PM. »
I ran the tw55 in a 103" for awhile great cam I had around 10:5.1 compression and headwork.
"You can have anything you want
But you better not take it from me"

Offline geezerglide

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 164
  • Country: ca
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #5 on: Wednesday, December 16, 2009. 09:41:54 PM. »
I used the 54H Cams rather than the SE 255, se results in the dyno section. Dyno results 103" 2010 ULTRA Limited. I like what I got, may change down the road to 2:1.

geezerglide

Offline BAKON

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2092
  • Country: us
  • Pittsburgh
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #6 on: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 05:07:33 AM. »
Quote
Heard 54 is not a good performer in 103.

I guess this is how the inaccurate rumor  rumors get started.. Was this told to you buy an experienced builder or some back yard shade tree??

Max
Very reliable source, Service manager at local dealer. Says he will try the internet builds to see what they do. Without going into his experience in detail, races every weekend at national events with a VROD, VROD Destroyer and two twin cams. All work and dynos done in house.
wasting time

Offline rigidthumper

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1689
  • Country: us
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #7 on: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 05:40:54 AM. »
CVO-103B motor- sounds like a perfect candidate for an HQ0039 or Woods 5.
Amazing difference, IME, between either of these and the SE253 that came in that bike. Numbers won't be tremendously different, but the bike will feel much better because the power will come on sooner.
HTH

Offline redmtrckl

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 799
  • Country: us
  • Nooki Red
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #8 on: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 05:52:34 AM. »
Quote
Heard 54 is not a good performer in 103.

I guess this is how the inaccurate rumor  rumors get started.. Was this told to you buy an experienced builder or some back yard shade tree??

That's strange?
Why would the 54's recipe work well in a 96" and 107" but not in a 103"?
Must be the cook?

Max

Museum quality all original 1984 Iron Head XLH1000, 5400 mi. 
817 320-027

Offline TarheelBagger

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Deals Gap - Home of the Dragon
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #9 on: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 05:57:45 AM. »
CVO-103B motor- sounds like a perfect candidate for an HQ0039 or Woods 5.
Amazing difference, IME, between either of these and the SE253 that came in that bike. Numbers won't be tremendously different, but the bike will feel much better because the power will come on sooner.
HTH
I definitely agree with this. I put a set of Dave Mackie 510’s in my SE Electra Glide with the 103 CVO engine, put on a set of Rinehart duals and had it tuned. Never even pulled the heads. The numbers weren’t great (99hp / 112tq STD) but it will flat walk away from my friends stock bike which is the twin sister to mine.
2005 CVO Electra Glide
Charlotte, North Carolina

Offline HD Street Performance

  • Premium Vendor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Country: 00
    • HD Street Performance
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #10 on: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 06:12:46 AM. »
Remember this has open chamber heads, and bigger valves and different flow characteristics than the OEM casting. Cams need to be changed to roll with that and the ones Rigidthumper suggests are good ones, as would be the S&S 570 or 585 with the appropriate amount of compression added. Impossible to make a comment about a cam being wrong for a motor size without adding in the supporting equipment into the evaluation.

Offline Max Headflow

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17752
  • Country: tr
  • Not Admin
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #11 on: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 07:18:19 AM. »
Why is it when the some guy asks about cams you want to rebuilt his motor.. I agree it's an option but that could get expensive. While I thik that the 54 would be an improvement with nothing else done. Not sure how much..

Quote
Very reliable source, Service manager at local dealer. Says he will try the internet builds to see what they do. Without going into his experience in detail, races every weekend at national events with a VROD, VROD Destroyer and two twin cams. All work and dynos done in house.

Again, where's the beef.. Without concrete examples all you have is innuendo. BTW, I've met a number of racers in the past, some of their theories are pretty interesting..

Max
Aka Mousinator, Another Wasted Minute With Max,
No Collar to the Bone

Offline BAKON

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2092
  • Country: us
  • Pittsburgh
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #12 on: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 07:35:12 AM. »
Quote
Heard 54 is not a good performer in 103.


I guess this is how the inaccurate rumor  rumors get started.. Was this told to you buy an experienced builder or some back yard shade tree??

Max

You asked if its an experienced builder. I said yes.
Now you say even if experienced, he may have bad ideas?

The post asked for opinions, not just yours. An opinion I heard was the 54 did not do well in CVO 103's.

Anyone who knows me, knows who I am referring to, and would listen to him. His experience is good.

Plenty of other cams to choose here. Woods, Zippers.

http://www.steelcitymotorcycles.com/

Want beef, click link, get phone number, call and ask for Dan in Service.

John1550, I would call him and ask what he used and what results he got. Tell him he was mentioned on a internet group, he will give you a straight answer. He has no problem sending guys to other shops for machine or performance work. Doesn't hide behind all SE parts and is up to date on the "newest and greatest" parts which come out all the time.
« Last Edit: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 08:00:17 AM. by SHOStreetglide »
wasting time

Offline Max Headflow

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17752
  • Country: tr
  • Not Admin
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #13 on: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 08:33:56 AM. »
Quote
Now you say even if experienced, he may have bad ideas?

Absolutely..

There is a big difference between learnin' and experience.. Experience is only half the equation.

Thanks for the website... Like the steel city girls..

Might give the guy a call.

Max


Aka Mousinator, Another Wasted Minute With Max,
No Collar to the Bone

Offline BAKON

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2092
  • Country: us
  • Pittsburgh
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #14 on: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 09:03:00 AM. »
Well his experience was the 54 didn't work well. He learned not to use it. Like I said, I wanted to use it for a mild bagger build. Like the specs, but I won't, just on his word.

Steel City girls are smoking in real life.
wasting time

Offline drhooligan

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: 00
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #15 on: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 02:14:16 PM. »
I'll second SHOstreetglides source of info on the 54s. Dan is a super solid guy with a long list of satisfied customers.
2007 FXDWG 107, Hillside Stage 3 Heads, 10.5:1, TW777, V&H  2:1, HPI55mmTB

Offline HD Street Performance

  • Premium Vendor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Country: 00
    • HD Street Performance
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #16 on: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 02:26:31 PM. »
It works superb in some applications (read: heads, bore, stroke). the SE103 CVO head has different flow characteristics than the OEM head and just because this cam may not work well in this application is not a reason to throw out the baby with the bath water, it has another place. There are better cams for that application.

Offline BAKON

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2092
  • Country: us
  • Pittsburgh
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #17 on: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 02:35:06 PM. »
 :agree:
wasting time

Offline jimlibo

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 79
    • www.mega-flo.com
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #18 on: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 02:58:56 PM. »
Forget the tw 55 cam change to a 54 not enough differance. I'd never run a tw55 with Thunderheader and 9:1 especially in a heavy bike. I'm surprised it feels good SOP (I'm assuming by you're original post) at 2600 rpm. Are you sure you're not confusing peak dyno numbers with desired SOP performance? IF that is the case and not not wishing to readdress the entire build. Then I'd opt for a shorter cam, pay close attention to raising corrected compression, without an early exhaust valve opening time. That would kind of steer you into the Wood realm (Bobby not Tiger). Your Peak HP number would drop down but average power production in 2000-4500 rpm range much higher. Sometimes ya gots to ride yer motorcycle on the street and not on a dyno!
« Last Edit: Thursday, December 17, 2009. 03:14:34 PM. by jimlibo »

Offline HD99FXR3

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 353
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #19 on: Friday, December 18, 2009. 06:33:01 AM. »
IMHO the 54 is as close to a do it all cam that there is, it starts making power early (2200)and pulls to the red line.  I just got this together and broke in, the numbers aren't impressive ( 250i ) but look at the TQ curve from 2200-5900rpm. Especially where I ride ( '07 RG ) 2500-300rpm. I haven't gotten the numbers I was hoping for, but the SOP tells me it is exactly what I was hoping for.


Offline HD Street Performance

  • Premium Vendor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Country: 00
    • HD Street Performance
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #20 on: Friday, December 18, 2009. 06:42:40 AM. »
Fine and dandy but the CVO 103" heads have larger valves, larger port cross sectional area and less exhaust flow VS intake than yours. The cam is not a lone player, the supporting cast matters. Guys get touchy about cams and want to defend but the reality is one may work well in one motor combination and not as well in another. The cam is like the brain but the rest of the body has to support to get the result we want. Some other good CVO cams include Crane 296 Woods 400, Woods 6H.
« Last Edit: Friday, December 18, 2009. 06:45:44 AM. by Deweysheads »

Offline 05FLHTC

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4563
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #21 on: Friday, December 18, 2009. 07:42:57 AM. »
Woods 5, HQ 39 both would increase cylinder pressure, you should select a cam that will increase the the cylinder pressure, just don't go over 9.3 corrected CR & you will gain some usable power without breaking the bank with a cam swap only.

My 2 cents
Illinois the Corruption Capitol of USA

Offline HD Street Performance

  • Premium Vendor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Country: 00
    • HD Street Performance
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #22 on: Friday, December 18, 2009. 09:36:21 AM. »
OK but remember these are 98cc heads in a 103" with flatops. It is low on compression and HD HC pistons are obsolete. These ports are related to the HTCC CNC ports but as-cast, large. Zippers tried to bridge the gap with a bolt-in 575" lift cam, same with Yuill Bros. Both better than the slug SE253, heck even a SE255 would be an improvement but the inner cam bearing size would have to be fixed and all the 07up cam stuff purchased

Offline Deye76

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6701
  • Country: 00
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #23 on: Friday, December 18, 2009. 10:42:09 AM. »
SHO, you gotta take Max with a grain of salt :wink:, ask him how his WT-26 is doing? :hyst:
« Last Edit: Friday, December 18, 2009. 10:54:01 AM. by Deye76 »
East Tenn.

Offline BAKON

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2092
  • Country: us
  • Pittsburgh
Re: Andrews 54 Versus TW55 Cams
« Reply #24 on: Friday, December 18, 2009. 12:01:09 PM. »
 :duel:
wasting time