Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fullsac Performance]

Here it is!
Andrews 54 VS stock 255 SE cam.
09 SE Road glide, 2.25 cores, Non cat headpipe, SE Heavy breather

The graph say it all. The 54 Andrews kills the stock SE 255s everywhere. Cranking pressure dropped 10 pounds.
Less chance of pinging, easier starting. Win win. The 54 was installed with stock pushrods. Easy bolt in.
Cams with matching Fuel map is available.

Special thanks to Mike Fedora "Machinegunner" for Sackin up and pulling the trigger on the 54 install!
I test rode this thing right out of the dyno room, Its a mid range monster!

Steve

[Hoist!]

Here it is!
Andrews 54 VS stock 255 SE cam.
09 SE Road glide, 2.25 cores, Non cat headpipe, SE Heavy breather

The graph say it all. The 54 Andrews kills the stock SE 255s everywhere. Cranking pressure dropped 10 pounds.
Less chance of pinging, easier starting. Win win. The 54 was installed with stock pushrods. Easy bolt in.
Fuel map is available.

Special thanks to Mike Fedora "Machinegunner" for Sackin up and pulling the trigger on the 54 install!
I test rode this thing right out of the dyno room, Its a mid range monster!

Steve

Remarkably identical profile Steve. Nice increase across the board. But have you found a cam to get the TQ up at the upper end above the classic 110 falloff at 4500 RPM. It drops like lead like the 255 does. Prolly can't find a bolt in for that. Needs a lil headwork, compression, and a TB I guess. Have you tried an S&S 585 with headwork and a lil compression, with your pipes yet?

Hoist!

[seroadglide]

Not to start any trouble but it would be interesting to see if the bike went through the gears as fast as it did with the 255s. 

[tlr]

thanks Steve.  Very impressive results for a drop in.  Question, what do you pressume it would do to the heat issues that several of have have mentioned.  Reduce it?  Same? worse?  Thanks.  Love myt 2.25's.  Get lots of compliments.

Ted

[Dan_Lockwood]

Not to start any trouble but it would be interesting to see if the bike went through the gears as fast as it did with the 255s.

Seroglide, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.  Or I should say I know what you're asking but I'm not sure why you would ask it.

With increases from about 2,500 rpms on up with the biggest increases in the 3,500 rpms on up, would one expect it to go through the gears slower than with the 255's?  

Horse Power is a calculation of work times speed.  Torque and rpms are all a dyno measures.  That is a VERY basic statement and I do not imply that's "ALL" the dyno measures, but for the charts we see here, that's what everyone is looking at.  So if the torque went up at certain rpms, as shown in the chart, the amount of work the motor can do increase and it gets done quicker; that's the sweet hp increase we see on the chart from about 2,200 rpms on up to red line.

Based on the question of going through the gears faster, I'm going way out on a limb here...  Your question would imply does it go through a 1/4 mile quicker and at a faster speed.  Yes it most definitely would be quicker and faster.  

I've thought about doing something to my cam on the '08 SERK that I just traded in, but I was NEVER real sure that bike was a keeper.  But now with the '09 SERG, I believe this one to be a keeper, at least for a few years.  The Andrews 54 cam would be a great swap for me with the type of riding I do.  I see really no downside even if you ride slower or at lower rpms most of the time.  The lower cranking pressure is a little bit of a help as well.

So after I do the 2" Fullsacs and the TTS tuner, I think this winter might be a great time to do some cam work.

Thanks Steve for the report.

     

[miker]

Nice drivable curve...

[Black Diamond]

Very nice set up for little $. Moves the power (100 ft lb tq) out to past 5200 rpm. Good cam switch.

JW

[Fullsac Performance]

thanks Steve.  Very impressive results for a drop in.  Question, what do you pressume it would do to the heat issues that several of have have mentioned.  Reduce it?  Same? worse?  Thanks.  Love myt 2.25's.  Get lots of compliments.

Ted

Hey Ted

The heat issues really stem from the Lean AFR and the Cat retaining that heat, as it is designed to do.
Once those issues are dealt with, adding the cams won't really have any noticeable cooling trends. The 54 was chosen to compliment the 110s smooth power delivery. It really delivered. Honestly can't find one negative side effect with the 54. Made more power everywhere. Just as quiet as stock. Lost 10 pounds cranking pressure, which was needed, stock cranking pressure was pushing 195. That real close to pinging territory if not already there.

Steve

[seroadglide]

dan it has been from my experience from dragracing cars for the past 25 years that just because a dyno sheet looks good that it is not really better.I have often seen higher horsepower motors go slower down the track.Remember these are very heavy bikes ,holding the intake valve open longer with less cranking compression may make it struggle reving through the rev range this is know as rate of accelration,btw great job steve!   

[Dan_Lockwood]

dan it has been from my experience from dragracing cars for the past 25 years that just because a dyno sheet looks good that it is not really better.I have often seen higher horsepower motors go slower down the track.Remember these are very heavy bikes ,holding the intake valve open longer with less cranking compression may make it struggle reving through the rev range this is know as rate of accelration,btw great job steve!   

Luckily we're talking about the same bike before and after the mods.  We're not limited on traction so as much as we can make in power, we're able to use.

I the case of my last streetrod, a '40 Willys coupe with a blown 392 hemi, I had too much hp for what I had to make it move down the strip.  Cars with less hp could out do me quite easily. 

As an example, if I increased my hp and torque by 10% to 15% on my '09 SERG, I would be one very pissed off person if my bike was not faster.  For all practical purposes and not limited by traction, which I think we're way from that point, it has to be faster.

You talk about lift and duration of the valves that it might make the motor struggle, if it were struggling, I can't see how it would show an improvement in the torque and or hp.

Good discussion though.  Maybe some others can add to this?

    

[jfh]

Dan,

Here is an excerpt from GMR on a different thread (http://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=18350.0) that explains how a less powerful motor can be quicker:

"Well first off you need to compare the runs as close as you can. But we like to look at time. As what we see is that if you put a sheet in sae and set it up you will see the 5150 cross on the line etc. Time will not show that way but what you get is a rate of acceleration. Now two bikes can make the same hp and tq ( have sheets to prove this) and one will make that same dyno pul 2.5 seconds faster. I have posted on this before. What you are seeing is VE. If you have more ve than the next engine you will be able to rev it faster. That is what we strive for a extremely fast revving engine. So these two bikes make it to the street one is much faster than the next.  As for time i have looked at hundres of sheets from stock to 155 fire breathing monsters.  

...there is no way for me to list all of this info. But take a 103 kit with 10.1 compression making in the teens for hp and tq. I have seen these kits running in the 7.5-9 second range. Now the same kit we did making a bit less hp and tq ran the same rpm range same dyno a 250I in 5.4 seconds. The bike that we tested against it made the pull in 6.9 seconds. Now they both run very good. But when you ride the 5.4 second bike you swear it was a larger engine that it was.   I will see if I can post up some of the timed runs I have."

Hope this helps.

John

[Dan_Lockwood]

Dan,

Here is an excerpt from GMR on a different thread (http://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=18350.0) that explains how a less powerful motor can be quicker:

"Well first off you need to compare the runs as close as you can. But we like to look at time. As what we see is that if you put a sheet in sae and set it up you will see the 5150 cross on the line etc. Time will not show that way but what you get is a rate of acceleration. Now two bikes can make the same hp and tq ( have sheets to prove this) and one will make that same dyno pul 2.5 seconds faster. I have posted on this before. What you are seeing is VE. If you have more ve than the next engine you will be able to rev it faster. That is what we strive for a extremely fast revving engine. So these two bikes make it to the street one is much faster than the next.  As for time i have looked at hundres of sheets from stock to 155 fire breathing monsters.  

...there is no way for me to list all of this info. But take a 103 kit with 10.1 compression making in the teens for hp and tq. I have seen these kits running in the 7.5-9 second range. Now the same kit we did making a bit less hp and tq ran the same rpm range same dyno a 250I in 5.4 seconds. The bike that we tested against it made the pull in 6.9 seconds. Now they both run very good. But when you ride the 5.4 second bike you swear it was a larger engine that it was.   I will see if I can post up some of the timed runs I have."

Hope this helps.

John

hdfr120, I appreciate the information very much.

Almost all performance modifications will increase high rpm VE while sacrificing some low rpm VE. Recalling earlier statements, this means that the high rpm torque will increase and low rpm torque will decrease, and where torque increase, so does power. http://www.bpinitiatives.com/articles.php

I understand that the VE is based on lots of things, some simple and some not so simple.

What I was referring to in my discuss was that you don't have two different bikes, you have the same bike with a before and after...  In that case I still stand my my opinion that the stock bike after modifications will be quicker and faster.

In Steve's case with the Andrew 54 cam changes, it was a comparison on the same bike with a before and after.  Without changing anything else, the VE had to increase a bit as well as a marked increase almost across the board.

Hey, I'm still open minded about this and really like looking at all the information I can get.

Thanks again for posting the information.  Also the link I posted in the second quote is very informative and is well worth reading.

    

[jfh]

Dan,

I agree that in Steve's example the bike is quicker and more powerful. I just wanted to point out as SEROADGLIDE implied, it is possible to be quicker with less total power.

Thanks for sharing. I too enjoy the discussion.

John

[seroadglide]

hdrf120 that is exactly where I was commong from

[GregKhougaz]

Read this thread with some interest.  After lots of reading and discussion with Steve, I went with the Andrews 54 CAM and swapped out to a Cat-less header pipe.  Steve also recommended a thinner head gasket which I had installed for a slight increase in compression.  After re-tune, I "mapped" 99 HP and 110 ft lbs.  Best, it's a very flat torque curve with  over 100 ft lbs between 2,400 and 5,100 rpms and the 110 peak at 3,700.  HP increase was very linear and consistent with 99 HP from 5,200 to 6,200. 

         Did not match fullsac's numbers but the bike runs much stronger now at all rpm's.        The only major difference is the 2" v. 2.25" cores.  I also kept in the HD packing when I installed the fullsac cores.  That may cost me some power but the bike is still not too loud.  Have to recommend this one.  Thanks Steve!