Topic: Would like to have some opinions about the Tman SM600 cam in a SESG (Read 9076 times)

SE113 · « **on:** October 23, 2012, 01:31:42 PM »

I would like to have some opinion about the Tmans SM600 cam in a CVO 110 touring bike with a 9.9 compression vs all the others cams like the Andrew 54, woods 555, 777, 7H, CR575.

White Lite · « **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2012, 07:57:34 PM »

I'm installing the Tman SM600 cams in my stock 2012 SG. Just waiting the heads to return from Tman. If you are interested in how they perform in it, I can post some info?

HD Street Performance · « **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2012, 08:03:06 PM »

No experience with them in a 110 but in the 103 with OEM heads they work OK as a bolt in but others (other Tman cams) work better with ported heads. It's the 600 lift that has guys expecting more. Let's see what they do in the 110.

SE113 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 15, 2012, 10:02:46 AM »

I already have the SM600 cam in a 110 with Tman stage 2 CVO headwork milled to give me 9.9 comp. I was really wanting to find out if there was a Better cam for my setup or just leave it lone not spend any more on bike. I'll post dyno sheet a pretty good TQ line. sm600 cam, stage 2 headwork, true 9.9 comp, V&H power duals with fulsac 2.25 cores. The final pull was in 4th gear I keep hearing that the numbers would be a little higher if it would have been done in 5th or 6th gear.

HD Street Performance · « **Reply #4 on:** November 16, 2012, 08:57:20 AM »

A head mill and a tman 625, 10.3:1

hd-dude · « **Reply #5 on:** November 16, 2012, 11:27:59 AM »

Quote from: Deweysheads on November 16, 2012, 08:57:20 AM

A head mill and a tman 625, 10.3:1

, Yep! I have a build in process now......

HD Street Performance · « **Reply #6 on:** November 16, 2012, 02:03:41 PM »

FYI the 660sm hasn't been a real big hit for me either. The ends doesn't justify the means. If I recommend 660 lift and prep everything for that then why not get the duration up to make it all play out. So that has been instead the 662-1 or -2 depending on the motor size,heads, and the intended use/hp goals.

Smitty2u · « **Reply #7 on:** November 21, 2012, 09:00:21 PM »

I went with the 660SM and have been happy with the results. Here' the dyne from the final tune.

HD Street Performance · « **Reply #8 on:** November 22, 2012, 10:27:45 AM »

That looks real good an does reopen my mind to that grind in a 110 with worked heads. My comments were in the context of 103 builds I have been involved with; OEM ported heads which have less airflow potential and piston flow demand. When using ported heads, SE 10.5 pistons, and even the SE259 I have had equal results with a 110 and the cost for the heads is lower than preparing them for .660 lift.

hd-dude · « **Reply #9 on:** November 22, 2012, 11:37:52 AM »

Quote from: Smitty2u on November 21, 2012, 09:00:21 PM

I went with the 660SM and have been happy with the results. Here' the dyne from the final tune.

Is that in a 110? Your sig line shows a 4 5/8 stroke and a 4.060 bore...120"

Smitty2u · « **Reply #10 on:** November 22, 2012, 11:47:25 AM »

That's correct. It is a 120.

HD Street Performance · « **Reply #11 on:** November 22, 2012, 12:03:32 PM »

That changes things doesn't it.

hd-dude · « **Reply #12 on:** November 22, 2012, 11:10:03 PM »

Quote from: Deweysheads on November 22, 2012, 12:03:32 PM

That changes things doesn't it.

Yes, just a bit...

North Star · « **Reply #13 on:** November 23, 2012, 07:25:05 AM »

Are you stuck on T Man? There are a few others that have shown good results in the 110.

geezerglide · « **Reply #14 on:** November 23, 2012, 02:01:04 PM »

Jim (hd-dude) installed the 120R using the TMan TR 625 cams, 58 mm TB, 5.3 injectors, ventilator air cleaner. Exhaust, header Ful Sac C X Pipe, SE HD muffler and Ful Sac 2.0" cores.

Picke up bike in Jim's shop in Oakland and drove it over to Phoenix. Bike ran great, no problems.

See attached Dyno.

geezerglide

HD Street Performance · « **Reply #15 on:** November 23, 2012, 02:33:42 PM »

Right on the money for what I would expect for the 625 and proof positive it provides a wide high torque curve in a reasonable compression 110. I still carry the same opinion of the 660sm. In the .660 lift cams the first one that pops up usually is the 662-2. I can usually cover well most of the builds with the 590, 625 of the 662-2, cubic inch and motor intended use requirements become the drivers. In my experience some of the 600sm users are disgruntled tw54 users and they expect a huge change. What they find is a little more punch down low and butt dyno improvement. The 625 is the choice there or a 590 depends on the owners goal, head characteristics and compression.

Unbalanced · « **Reply #16 on:** November 25, 2012, 05:53:26 PM »

Quote from: Deweysheads on November 23, 2012, 02:33:42 PM

Right on the money for what I would expect for the 625 and proof positive it provides a wide high torque curve in a reasonable compression 110. I still carry the same opinion of the 660sm. In the .660 lift cams the first one that pops up usually is the 662-2. I can usually cover well most of the builds with the 590, 625 of the 662-2, cubic inch and motor intended use requirements become the drivers. In my experience some of the 600sm users are disgruntled tw54 users and they expect a huge change. What they find is a little more punch down low and butt dyno improvement. The 625 is the choice there or a 590 depends on the owners goal, head characteristics and compression.

Dewey you might want to slow down and read the commentary and digest it if you are going to use it as the bases for the commentary. 2nd time in the same thread you missed the important details. In this case it was a 120R that they put the 625 is in NOT a 110.

Quote

Jim (hd-dude) installed the 120R using the TMan TR 625 cams, 58 mm TB, 5.3 injectors, ventilator air cleaner. Exhaust, header Ful Sac C X Pipe, SE HD muffler and Ful Sac 2.0" cores.

Rooster · « **Reply #17 on:** November 26, 2012, 11:54:07 AM »

Very nice Leo. Hope you have many trouble free and fun miles.

geezerglide · « **Reply #18 on:** November 26, 2012, 05:12:10 PM »

Quote from: Rooster on November 26, 2012, 11:54:07 AM

Very nice Leo. Hope you have many trouble free and fun miles.

Rooster,

So far only mileage from Oakland to Phoenix approx. (780) and I like it better than the JIMS 120 I had in the 2003 RG.

geezerglide

Unbalanced · « **Reply #19 on:** November 26, 2012, 05:42:20 PM »

Leo,

Can you explain a little bit about what it is / why you like it more as there are some significant changes like frame that are in here as well.

geezerglide · « **Reply #20 on:** November 26, 2012, 08:33:55 PM »

Quote from: Unbalanced on November 26, 2012, 05:42:20 PM

Leo,

Can you explain a little bit about what it is / why you like it more as there are some significant changes like frame that are in here as well.

So far what I like is the piece of mind to this point is hopefully the Lifters not failing The JIMS SE Lifters failing on a trip from Phoenix destroyed the engine, to JIMS credit they did give me a new engine N/C, however I had to wait some time that is why on the Nelson CVO GTG I was riding my BMW R1150 GSA.

Jim installed the S&S Limited Travel Lifters.

The JIMS 120 the way it was set up dynod at 130HP and 130TQ, however it had more work done to it, 57mm Kuraykyn, 6.3 gm injectors, higher lift cam (forgot whose) etc. And having that HP and TQ doesn't really impress me anymore, guess I am getting older, riding I think a little saner.

Also, I think the piece of mind comes from knowing that Jim set the engine up and installed it.

In regards to the different frames (2003 vs. 2010) I can't say I notice it having a bearing on the engine, I do notice it in the handling of the bike which of course is a lot better. however on the 2010 I have Bitubos on the rear and Progressive MonoTubes up front, so of course it handles better than the stock 2010. On the 2004 I had Progressive 440s on the rear and the Tace Tech Emulators up front and it handled well also.

I will provide an update when I get some more miles on the bike, won't be until January when I am back in Phoenix next.

geezerglide.

Unbalanced · « **Reply #21 on:** November 27, 2012, 09:58:28 AM »

I understand piece of mind, can't wait to hear your ride report on the motor differences / power bands etc. Bet its going to be a long winter waiting for the return to Phoenix

White Lite · « **Reply #22 on:** December 02, 2012, 10:59:20 AM »

2012 Street Glide 103 motor with: T-Man 600SM cams, T-Man street performer heads, woods directional lifters, SE adjustable push rods, big sucker (Renegade wheels) intake, fullsac "X" header pipe, CVO mufflers with fullsac 2.25 cores...max HP=108.47, max torque=121.17. The shop also had two other bikes in the shop, with the same stock motor. They both had head work from another shop, and TTS tuner, but one bike had 255 cams and the other, woods 555. They post all three dynos on the same sheet, they were really overall pretty close in the numbers, mine had the overall best performance. The tech, that did the dyno, also stated T-Man was great to talk to when discussing options with exhaust cores and head work, and what type of riding I do in relationship to power band needs. Oh yeah, bike sounds awesome, and rides like a dream too. T-Man and Fullsac have my thumbs up!! Peace out.

SE113 · « **Reply #23 on:** December 03, 2012, 01:52:23 PM »

Quote from: White Lite on December 02, 2012, 10:59:20 AM

2012 Street Glide 103 motor with: T-Man 600SM cams, T-Man street performer heads, woods directional lifters, SE adjustable push rods, big sucker (Renegade wheels) intake, fullsac "X" header pipe, CVO mufflers with fullsac 2.25 cores...max HP=108.47, max torque=121.17. The shop also had two other bikes in the shop, with the same stock motor. They both had head work from another shop, and TTS tuner, but one bike had 255 cams and the other, woods 555. They post all three dynos on the same sheet, they were really overall pretty close in the numbers, mine had the overall best performance. The tech, that did the dyno, also stated T-Man was great to talk to when discussing options with exhaust cores and head work, and what type of riding I do in relationship to power band needs. Oh yeah, bike sounds awesome, and rides like a dream too. T-Man and Fullsac have my thumbs up!! Peace out.

could you post your dyno sheet would like to compare to mine basically the same setup.

White Lite · « **Reply #24 on:** December 04, 2012, 12:30:10 AM »

Sure thing, tomorrow evening. I didn't get a copy of the 3 bikes results on the same sheet; I'll call the tuner and see if he can fax it to my office. If I'm able to get the second dyno sheet, I will post it as well.

White Lite · « **Reply #25 on:** December 04, 2012, 07:53:32 PM »

Here is the Dyno sheet for just my bike. I did call for the second sheet to be faxed, but it did not come through yet.

flhxi2go · « **Reply #26 on:** December 05, 2012, 12:01:23 PM »

Have them send you a copy with sae correction factor

Unbalanced · « **Reply #27 on:** December 05, 2012, 04:44:07 PM »

Quote from: White Lite on December 04, 2012, 07:53:32 PM

Here is the Dyno sheet for just my bike. I did call for the second sheet to be faxed, but it did not come through yet.

White Lite,

FWIW The dynosheet in the pdf you posted shows 108/121, on my monitor it looks like 15 to 1 from 2500 about 3200 then Air Fuel is at 14 to 1 if that is the case I would suggest that the tune for WOT is a tad too lean, if it were my bike i would want it around 13-13.2 to 1

Author Topic: Would like to have some opinions about the Tman SM600 cam in a SESG (Read 9076 times)