Author Topic: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER  (Read 8045 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HDMDD

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« on: Friday, April 17, 2009. 04:44:44 PM. »
What's the best cam for low end torque in a 96" FLHTCU with SE breather and D&D Fatcat 2-1?

Anybody tried the SE255?

Andrews 21?

Recommendations??

SERT or PCV?

Offline ClassicRider2002

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1546
  • THE MIGHTY MOUSE CAM
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #1 on: Friday, April 17, 2009. 04:55:53 PM. »
What applies logically to the 88" / 95" Twin Cam can also apply logically to the 96" Twin Cam in my opinion, although if wanting to make it a 110" I am not sure at that point.....but if your goal is to stay at a 96" size:

CLICK HERE

Regards,

"Classic"
MIGHTY MOUSE CAM
LOW END TORQUE JUNKIE 2

Offline Deye76

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6724
  • Country: 00
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #2 on: Friday, April 17, 2009. 05:18:06 PM. »
"Best" cam will garner 10 different recommendations from 10 people. I'd give the 255's a whirl.
East Tenn.

Offline crazycalvin

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 254
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #3 on: Friday, April 17, 2009. 07:04:07 PM. »
SE255 cams and SEST or TTS.  Later, Calvin.

Offline Hawg Holler

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 196
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #4 on: Friday, April 17, 2009. 07:51:38 PM. »
The Andrews 21s close the intake valves sooner than just about anything out there and are a guaranteed way to make torque down low if you have a stock heavy bike. Andrews 26s are right behind and tend to stay with you into higher rpms.
Keep on ridin
Ridin our blues away
 Hawg Holler 2005 Road King Classic

Offline Glide-Rider

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 242
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #5 on: Friday, April 17, 2009. 11:03:06 PM. »
I am running S&S 570's and love them...  I tried the 510's and not for me...  and yes expect 10 different answers on cams...  LOL  It is just the nature of the beast...

Pete
Pete
Warner Springs Ca.

Offline Scott P

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6587
  • Country: 00
  • Munnsville, N.Y., between Syracuse, & Utica.
    • www.hillsidecycle.com
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #6 on: Saturday, April 18, 2009. 04:07:29 AM. »
As already mentioned, if the "low end" is absolutely the only concern whatsoever, then perhaps the 255's are your man.
"If I parrot or google information, folks will suspect I really know."

Offline SE113

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 206
  • Country: 00
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #7 on: Saturday, April 18, 2009. 04:48:09 AM. »
255 are the best Low end Cam on the market for a stock bike TQ TQ TQ.
SESG

Offline TOMCENTRAL

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 260
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #8 on: Saturday, April 18, 2009. 09:08:36 AM. »
To echo the previous comments........For a stock bike,I would say the Andrews 21 or 26.I ran the 26s in a 2005 FLHT & it was one of my favorite bikes I've owned.Regards,Tom 

Offline harleyrider703

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 97
  • 2007 flhx
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #9 on: Saturday, April 18, 2009. 10:24:08 AM. »
how about for a 103 with heads?

Offline iclick

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 554
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #10 on: Saturday, April 18, 2009. 06:39:48 PM. »
What's the best cam for low end torque in a 96" FLHTCU with SE breather and D&D Fatcat 2-1?

Anybody tried the SE255?

Andrews 21?

Recommendations??

SERT or PCV?

Yes, I installed 255's in my TC96 only one month ago and the results were very favorable for my kind of riding.  I wanted my TQ curve to move up, not shifted to the right at the expense of low-end TQ, and that's what I got.  I think it's ideal for a heavy bagger with tall gearing that rarely revs past 4K RPM if low-end and midrange TQ is the goal.  It is not a peak-HP cam set and won't generate big numbers on the top-end, but if TQ is your goal I doubt if you can do better for bolt-in cams using otherwise stock parts (except mufflers, AC, and EFI controller). 

As a side-effect, the cams allow the engine to run at lower RPM's without stress.  Running 55mph in 6-gear with the 255's is no problem, while it always felt stressed with the stock cams.  I expected some detonation at roll-on due to the expected increase in CCR, but have not noticed any.  I also expected additional top-end noise because of the high lift (.55"), but didn't get that either--very quiet.  On a very minor negative note, the 255's are a bit more intolerant of the lean AFR's I was running in the cruise range (14.7:1), so I richened that area up a bit to 14.5:1 with no noticeable mileage penalty.  Gas mileage is the same as stock as long as I keep my wrist movement in control.

I might also mention that before deciding on the 255's I gave Andrews a call, described what I was looking for and their response was "I don't think we have a cam that will do what you want."  Before that I was considering the 21H's.  BTW, I bought these 255's slightly used but perfect for $110, and I've seen them offered occasionally on Ebay usually for $150 or less. 
« Last Edit: Saturday, April 18, 2009. 06:48:41 PM. by iclick »

Offline 03deuce

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 667
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #11 on: Saturday, April 18, 2009. 07:25:08 PM. »
Another vote for the 255's.    :up:

Offline FLTRI

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6096
  • Country: us
  • I LOVE BOTTOM END TORQUE!!!
    • RC Cycles
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #12 on: Saturday, April 18, 2009. 08:03:00 PM. »
......the cams allow the engine to run at lower RPM's without stress.  Running 55mph in 6-gear with the 255's is no problem, while it always felt stressed with the stock cams.  ......BTW, I bought these 255's slightly used but perfect for $110, and I've seen them offered occasionally on Ebay usually for $150 or less. 
:up: :up:
The best we've experienced is the best we know
Always keep eyes and mind open

Offline 05RK1

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 89
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #13 on: Saturday, April 18, 2009. 08:07:29 PM. »
what differance do you notice differant with the ss 570 compared to the 510

Offline softailroy

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 102
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #14 on: Sunday, April 19, 2009. 04:41:42 AM. »
I have rode a 103" bagger with a SE 255, and I built a bagger with 103", with a .570 lift,ACR heads and a race tuner. For most of us riding, you will not NEED any thing other than the 255, the 21 or the 26. And IF mileage is an issue, stay low on the lift. My ULTRA suffered dearly in mileage and noise after the build. I since have sold it, and gone back to an '09 Heritage Softail. I am going for the 255, the 21, or the 26 as well. I am leaving the engine as a 96. The 103's are fun, but if just plain cruising is what you want with some more Torque, then either of these 3 will do you. And you may or may not need a tuner on the Dyno. It is a chance we all take while seeking more. Just my experience and opinion.:smiled:

Offline Glide-Rider

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 242
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #15 on: Sunday, April 19, 2009. 11:12:36 AM. »
A big difference when riding two up.  The 570's just had more power to them.. I noticed for example I am at 3000 rpm doing 60 mph in 4th gear.  I have to be on the hwy generally before I put the bike in 5th gear..  02 FLHT with 95" build by Hippo with SBC heads.  Went to San Diego yesterday went 133 miles and topped of tank with 3.3 gallons..  I asked Hippo and Charley for a hwy build on my bike and have been very happy with it.  Charley called me and told me to come on over to Az. that my bike was done, that is as soon as Hippo stops riding it....  Hippo also made a few simple suggestions like get ride of that stock exhaust and go either two into one or true duals.  I went with Rinehart true duals to keep it a bagger look that I like.  510's are ok but if your on hwy and had to pass a car or had to get out of the way of one the power was just not there.....  Hope this helps you...

Pete
Pete
Warner Springs Ca.

Offline harleyrider703

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 97
  • 2007 flhx
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #16 on: Sunday, April 26, 2009. 04:35:20 AM. »
does any one have a dyno sheet for the 255 cams? i would realy like to see one

Offline Sonny S.

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3347
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #17 on: Sunday, April 26, 2009. 04:50:20 AM. »
does any one have a dyno sheet for the 255 cams? i would realy like to see one

in the dyno section

Offline egc04

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 243
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #18 on: Sunday, April 26, 2009. 05:12:18 AM. »
woods tw5g

Offline roadchaser

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 65
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #19 on: Sunday, April 26, 2009. 05:44:21 AM. »
I just bought an 09 HD Streetglide.The bike is still at the dealer.I talked about cams with the technichian and he recomended the 211 cams and never once suggested the 255's.Which of these 2 cams will produce the most low end tq.
Thanks

Offline Herko

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
  • Country: us
  • Southern Indiana (Louisville KY Metro Area)
    • NRA.ORG
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #20 on: Sunday, April 26, 2009. 06:35:38 AM. »
does any one have a dyno sheet for the 255 cams? i would realy like to see one

Attached.

It's one thing to bolt in cam x or y.
A good tune is another.



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
NOW MORE THAN EVER, JOIN THE NRA.
http://WWW.NRA.ORG/

Offline 05FLHTC

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4618
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #21 on: Sunday, April 26, 2009. 08:12:38 AM. »
Wonder how the Woods 5 would compare to all stock 96" or is it even something that you could consider?
Illinois the Corruption Capitol of USA

Offline iclick

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 554
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #22 on: Sunday, April 26, 2009. 10:37:02 AM. »
I just bought an 09 HD Streetglide.The bike is still at the dealer.I talked about cams with the technichian and he recomended the 211 cams and never once suggested the 255's.Which of these 2 cams will produce the most low end tq.
Thanks

The 211's are excellent cams but with stock compression I think the low-end will suffer compared to the 255's, while peak HP will increase.  It all depends on what you're looking for.  I think the 255's will be the best choice if performance below 4K RPM is your priority.  The 255's peak at about 5K, leveling off 'til 5500, then begin to decrease thereafter.  I'm rarely above 4K anyway and am really liking the increased low-end and midrange I have with the 255's. 

Offline HD Street Performance

  • Premium Vendor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5789
  • Country: 00
    • HD Street Performance
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #23 on: Sunday, April 26, 2009. 10:41:32 AM. »
I have seen a TW7 and SE255 before and after on a stock  110. The 7 of course out pulled the 255 but the torque down low was right with it. On a 96" I would expect similar results with the 5

Offline iclick

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 554
Re: BEST LOW END TORQUE CAM FOR A 96" BAGGER
« Reply #24 on: Sunday, April 26, 2009. 10:45:04 AM. »
It's one thing to bolt in cam x or y.
A good tune is another.


Thanks for posting that chart!  That's a good curve and think it would be even better in the low-end without the TD's.  Based on my buttometer and knowing the dyno characteristics prior to changing cams, I would've guess that with the PCV-AT and Jackpot mufflers HP would've been 82-84 with TQ at or near 100.  Your chart supports that notion.  One of the things that encouraged me to make the cam swap was that using a PCV-AT I would have no need for a dyno tune.  Otherwise I probably would've stayed with the status quo.