Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Tman 555 Torqsters vs SE 255's  (Read 4130 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Touring83

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
  • www.CVOHARLEY.com
    • IN

Tman 555 Torqsters vs SE 255's
« on: April 22, 2016, 06:45:12 PM »

Anyone swap out 255' for the 555 Torqsters? Based on the Tman site, looks like this would be a nice bolt in cam. I don't mind sacrificing a little low end to get a little more carry to the ride side.
Logged

snowrider13

  • Full CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
Re: Tman 555 Torqsters vs SE 255's
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2016, 07:31:55 PM »

Might want to look into an Andrews 48. Seat of the pants hits like a 255, carries out easily 5500 plus.
Logged

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3119
Re: Tman 555 Torqsters vs SE 255's
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2016, 07:57:37 PM »

Anyone swap out 255' for the 555 Torqsters? Based on the Tman site, looks like this would be a nice bolt in cam. I don't mind sacrificing a little low end to get a little more carry to the ride side.
If you have a CVO then consider the 600sm
Logged

GMR-PERFORMANCE

  • Vendor
  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1769
    • TX

Re: Tman 555 Torqsters vs SE 255's
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2016, 10:08:59 AM »

660Sm is ok with more comp , and you would want to swap springs in my opinion .. But it does work well .. Before going through the list , what are you trying to obtain
Logged
2012 SHARK  S&S 124 150/140   www.gmrperformance.com

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3119
Re: Tman 555 Torqsters vs SE 255's
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2016, 12:01:42 PM »

Logged

GMR-PERFORMANCE

  • Vendor
  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1769
    • TX

Re: Tman 555 Torqsters vs SE 255's
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2016, 02:04:30 PM »

unless I am missing something thats the 600 not the 660 ..
Logged
2012 SHARK  S&S 124 150/140   www.gmrperformance.com

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3119
Re: Tman 555 Torqsters vs SE 255's
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2016, 10:05:55 AM »

If you have a CVO then consider the 600sm

I suggested the 600 and posted a link to a typical dyno
I would not suggest the 660 as a bolt-in
Logged

GMR-PERFORMANCE

  • Vendor
  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1769
    • TX

Re: Tman 555 Torqsters vs SE 255's
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2016, 01:23:34 PM »

HA HA  I missed it  my mistake , still no info from the OP .   
Logged
2012 SHARK  S&S 124 150/140   www.gmrperformance.com

Touring83

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
  • www.CVOHARLEY.com
    • IN

Re: Tman 555 Torqsters vs SE 255's
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2016, 07:35:57 PM »

660Sm is ok with more comp , and you would want to swap springs in my opinion .. But it does work well .. Before going through the list , what are you trying to obtain

I love the low end, and I'd like to keep as much as possible. However I go out and ride solo somewhat aggressively more than I take long trips with groups. I'm not taching out every second, but ride a little higher in the RPM range more than the average rider. It's tough, because it's also nice to hit the throttle at 2500RPM and have that instant torque. Maybe in a perfect world I could have both :) I would like to find something that is a bolt in cam, something that runs "safely" with the stock set up that broadens the TQ curve. Would like to avoid getting into the heads and all that.

Would it help if I found some examples of dyno graphs that showed what I would like to achieve? I hope what I posted helps some, and thank you all for your suggestions.

EDIT: Dyno chart on the 600SM's looks nice. That cam is ok with a little less than the recommended 10.1-10.5 compression?

GMR - It looks like your 577 cam runs nice, too. Seeing lots of charts getting 100TQ before 2500, and still keeping 100 TQ to 5500 or so. May throw that into consideration as well!
« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 08:11:25 PM by Touring83 »
Logged

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3119
Re: Tman 555 Torqsters vs SE 255's
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2016, 09:52:08 PM »

The 110 is a different animal, mainly the heads. The cam requirements are different than a 103. The pump and dump shorties perform like the 255.
An exception of a few I have tried with success in my stock 110..
SE585
Andrews 54
The Andrews has more on top and the SE585 has more low but is still in the party at 5,500
The 54 has low TB noise and the SE585 considerably more but both have a quiet valve train especially with our lifters and beehive springs.

If you want to have a strong low end torque rise there are pipe selections that yield that, the cams just ride the pipe drives.
Logged
 

Page created in 0.627 seconds with 21 queries.