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! 

[Fullsac Performance]

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! 

Hey Greg

What were the before numbers?

Steve

[GregKhougaz]

Steve, good question!  Thought about that last night and had to get my numbers which were
109 ft lbs and 90 hp.  So, some thing is not right....  Now I'm hoping the ft lb number is off.  It sure feels like it is off from the prior numbers.  The bike feels so much better, especially riding two up.  What to do?   

BTW sending pipe back today. 

[Black Diamond]

Steve, good question!  Thought about that last night and had to get my numbers which were
109 ft lbs and 90 hp.  So, some thing is not right....  Now I'm hoping the ft lb number is off.  It sure feels like it is off from the prior numbers.  The bike feels so much better, especially riding two up.  What to do?   

BTW sending pipe back today. 

Could be your power just comes on earlier and stays in the riding range so she feels a lot better. I just did the same thing. Overall numbers stayed close to the same. However power in the range I ride in is so much better and smoother.

JW

[Fullsac Performance]

Steve, good question!  Thought about that last night and had to get my numbers which were
109 ft lbs and 90 hp.  So, some thing is not right....  Now I'm hoping the ft lb number is off.  It sure feels like it is off from the prior numbers.  The bike feels so much better, especially riding two up.  What to do?   

BTW sending pipe back today. 

Numbers make no sense. 9 hp gain with no TQ gain? The bike feels better because of the torque gain that did happen.
Can't explain your dyno run. A trip to AZ should clear things up. Lol..

Steve

[GregKhougaz]

Numbers make no sense. 9 hp gain with no TQ gain? The bike feels better because of the torque gain that did happen.
Can't explain your dyno run. A trip to AZ should clear things up. Lol..

Steve

I knew you'd say that.  At this point, that's what I'm thinking.  Still the bike feels great.  I'll have to ask the tech who did the tuning. 

[FLSTFI Dave]

Wow, that looks nice Steve.  How hard is it to do the cam change?

[Fullsac Performance]

Wow, that looks nice Steve.  How hard is it to do the cam change?

A good mechanic can get it handled 3-4 hours. If your pulling the heads to go with the .030 gaskets, add another hour.

Steve

[FLSTFI Dave]

A good mechanic can get it handled 3-4 hours. If your pulling the heads to go with the .030 gaskets, add another hour.

Steve

Will the extra compression be very much?  I have read quite a bit that say these 110 really need more compression.

Four hours labor would not be bad, as I have a friend who is a HD Master tech, but will do work for me at his house for a much reduced rate.

[Fullsac Performance]

Will the extra compression be very much?  I have read quite a bit that say these 110 really need more compression.

Four hours labor would not be bad, as I have a friend who is a HD Master tech, but will do work for me at his house for a much reduced rate.

The .030 gaskets only raise the comp 2/10s of a point. The reason for the gaskets is to reduce the excessive piston to head clearance improving combustion efficiency. The 110s are on the verge of pinging already. The 54 adds some relief by lowering the cranking pressure by 10 psi. Adding more comp may not be the best plan for a civilized touring bike. JMHO

Steve

[FLSTFI Dave]

The .030 gaskets only raise the comp 2/10s of a point. The reason for the gaskets is to reduce the excessive piston to head clearance improving combustion efficiency. The 110s are on the verge of pinging already. The 54 adds some relief by lowering the cranking pressure by 10 psi. Adding more comp may not be the best plan for a civilized touring bike. JMHO

Steve

Well that makes sense.  I definatly would not want the pining.  My bike is used to ride, and make trips on.

My fatboy has 10.2:1 comp, with the S&S 570 gear drive cam.  It  has been very civilized, but that is an 88 punched to a 95".  I have put 38K trouble free miles on that build.  It is set up for mid range torque not hp.

[harleyguynv]

The .030 gaskets only raise the comp 2/10s of a point. The reason for the gaskets is to reduce the excessive piston to head clearance improving combustion efficiency. The 110s are on the verge of pinging already. The 54 adds some relief by lowering the cranking pressure by 10 psi. Adding more comp may not be the best plan for a civilized touring bike. JMHO

Steve

So if you just changed cams and did nothing with the head gaskets would it affect your dyno numbers? If so what is your best guess as to how much? Also, I know you did a comparison of your different sized baffles and the 2" did slightly better than the 2.25" with the 255 cams. How do you think the 54's would compare using the same size baffles? I guess I am asking would you do better using the larger baffles with the 54's?

[Fullsac Performance]

So if you just changed cams and did nothing with the head gaskets would it affect your dyno numbers? If so what is your best guess as to how much? Also, I know you did a comparison of your different sized baffles and the 2" did slightly better than the 2.25" with the 255 cams. How do you think the 54's would compare using the same size baffles? I guess I am asking would you do better using the larger baffles with the 54's?

This particular bike had the 2.25 cores. I'm sure the 2.0 cores would have had slightly better bottom and mid range numbers. The customer wanted loudest, so 2.25s it was. The gaskets alone are worth a 2-3 HP gain. After I pulled the bike off the dyno, I noticed the rain sock was still on the HB AC. That was 1-2 HP loss, tested it before.  One or two HP here and there, next thing you know you have gained or lost 5 hp in the small details that most people overlook.

Steve

[FiveO CVO]

Steve,
Do you have a part number for those 54's?  I ride a '08 FLHRSE4 and have RB Racing 2-1 BlackHole Spyder's on right now and may consider going with the Fullsac's down the road if I get bored with the one-pipe look.  I have a Speeds Performance Plus Speedy Flow intake.  I've been looking and wanting to do just cams, and leave it at that, no other mods.  I really don't want to fall in that abyss of continuous mods, but do want a little more pep in that range your looking at.  I looked at Andrews website but don't really see anything that talks about or says 110/2008's.  Could you nudge me in the right direction?  One more question, could I do a 54 in a gear drive on my bike instead?  Thanks.

[harleyguynv]

I did the 54 cam change without changing the head gaskets. I really did not want to change the cylinder base O-rings to do the head gasket change. I was told that when you loosen the heads to change the head gasket you are supposed to change the cylinder base O-rings also. I had real problems with my previous engine with the cylinder bases leaking and after several attempts to fix them HD put a new engine in my bike last Dec. I just did not want to take a change of changing the head gaskets and just re-tightening everything back down. It may have been ok to do this but this engine does not leak any oil and I did not want to chance it. I guess I am paranoid to say the least. It maybe a mistake not to change the head gaskets with the 54h cams because on a test run on the dyno yesterday the numbers were considerably lower than my tuned numbers before the cam change. (Dynojet was doing free HP-TD runs yesterday) I realize that once they retune the engine the numbers will be better but I cannot see how they will improve enough to be much if any better than what I had before the change. I reminded the tuner of what the old numbers were and he was doubtfull the numbers would be better than the old numbers also. It is the same guy who tuned the bike to begin with. He is going to try and get the bike in this week to tune it properly.  I have my fingers crossed that they will improve alot more than I think. I hate the thought of putting the 255's back in, but we shall see. I've attached 54h cam dyno sheet for all to look at. I did not realize that you can only post one attachment at a time or I would post the tuned map. The numbers on my tuned map W/255's are 96.54 HP and 112.08 TQ. I might add I did talk to Andrews about the 54h and they said it is a good bolt in replacement for the 110's and you could do the swap without changing the head gaskets.

[Fullsac Performance]

I did the 54 cam change without changing the head gaskets. I really did not want to change the cylinder base O-rings to do the head gasket change. I was told that when you loosen the heads to change the head gasket you are supposed to change the cylinder base O-rings also. I had real problems with my previous engine with the cylinder bases leaking and after several attempts to fix them HD put a new engine in my bike last Dec. I just did not want to take a change of changing the head gaskets and just re-tightening everything back down. It may have been ok to do this but this engine does not leak any oil and I did not want to chance it. I guess I am paranoid to say the least. It maybe a mistake not to change the head gaskets with the 54h cams because on a test run on the dyno yesterday the numbers were considerably lower than my tuned numbers before the cam change. (Dynojet was doing free HP-TD runs yesterday) I realize that once they retune the engine the numbers will be better but I cannot see how they will improve enough to be much if any better than what I had before the change. I reminded the tuner of what the old numbers were and he was doubtfull the numbers would be better than the old numbers also. It is the same guy who tuned the bike to begin with. He is going to try and get the bike in this week to tune it properly.  I have my fingers crossed that they will improve alot more than I think. I hate the thought of putting the 255's back in, but we shall see. I've attached 54h cam dyno sheet for all to look at. I did not realize that you can only post one attachment at a time or I would post the tuned map. The numbers on my tuned map W/255's are 96.54 HP and 112.08 TQ. I might add I did talk to Andrews about the 54h and they said it is a good bolt in replacement for the 110's and you could do the swap without changing the head gaskets.

Any chance your a tooth off? Somethings not right, and I can assure everyone its not the 54 cam.

Steve

[harleyguynv]

Any chance your a tooth off? Somethings not right, and I can assure everyone its not the 54 cam.

Steve

Steve,

We lined the dots on the cams up perfectly. The bike starts perfectly and runs great. Wouldn't you know you are off a tooth? Just seems like the numbers are low to me, but it is not tuned yet. I added the Baisley lmr002 spring for a little more oil pressure. While riding it down to the bike shop to get the dyno done I noticed I did have a little more oil pressure. I also have to say the upper end has never been so quiet. I used the Screamin Eagle tapered adjustable pushrods and turned them up 2 1/2 turns per the directions. I was very carefull to get it right. My friend who has changed many cams and is my dyno tuner helped me do the job. Changing the cams the way we did it is an easy job.

So, You don't think by not doing the head gaskets that is not the problem with the numbers? How much do you think I will gain when he does the final tune? Believe me I really want these cams to work so I am open for any suggestions.


Update: After thinking about what you said I started to doubt myself so I went out and checked the sprocket marks and they are lined up.  Now I'll go put it back together.

[Fullsac Performance]

Steve,

We lined the dots on the cams up perfectly. The bike starts perfectly and runs great. Wouldn't you know you are off a tooth? Just seems like the numbers are low to me, but it is not tuned yet. I added the Baisley lmr002 spring for a little more oil pressure. While riding it down to the bike shop to get the dyno done I noticed I did have a little more oil pressure. I also have to say the upper end has never been so quiet. I used the Screamin Eagle tapered adjustable pushrods and turned them up 2 1/2 turns per the directions. I was very carefull to get it right. My friend who has changed many cams and is my dyno tuner helped me do the job. Changing the cams the way we did it is an easy job.

So, You don't think by not doing the head gaskets that is not the problem with the numbers? How much do you think I will gain when he does the final tune? Believe me I really want these cams to work so I am open for any suggestions.


Update: After thinking about what you said I started to doubt myself so I went out and checked the sprocket marks and they are lined up.  Now I'll go put it back together.

The head gaskets are only worth a couple of HP. When I did the 54s on my 96, I gained 10 hp with stock gaskets.
To make less power than before seems almost impossible even with out retuning. It quess its could be that far out of tune. After all, you are using a Flintstone PC. Just kidding. The cam to cam chain is real easy to get off by one tooth. Only the front cylinder would be affected. Not trying to make you second quess yourself. Numbers just seem strange for a cam swap.

Steve

[harleyguynv]

The head gaskets are only worth a couple of HP. When I did the 54s on my 96, I gained 10 hp with stock gaskets.
To make less power than before seems almost impossible even with out retuning. It quess its could be that far out of tune. After all, you are using a Flintstone PC. Just kidding. The cam to cam chain is real easy to get off by one tooth. Only the front cylinder would be affected. Not trying to make you second quess yourself. Numbers just seem strange for a cam swap.

Steve

With the gear markings lining up like they are supposed too I should be ok, right?  I was wondering if you are off a tooth will an engine start and run good anyway? I was very surprised myself that the numbers were not better with everything you have been saying about these cams. I looked at your dyno comparisons and thought this is a no brainer. I have been thinking about a TTS. How good is the tune with the Vtune part of it without going to a tuner?

[SBB]

The head gaskets are only worth a couple of HP.
Steve

What part number is this head gasket and who makes it?


 

SBB

[jfh]

What part number is this head gasket and who makes it?


 

SBB

Chip,

Cometic PN: C9725.  See attached .pdf

[SBB]

Chip,

Cometic PN: C9725.  See attached .pdf

Thank You!

 

SBB

[Doc 1]

With the gear markings lining up like they are supposed too I should be ok, right?  I was wondering if you are off a tooth will an engine start and run good anyway? I was very surprised myself that the numbers were not better with everything you have been saying about these cams. I looked at your dyno comparisons and thought this is a no brainer. I have been thinking about a TTS. How good is the tune with the Vtune part of it without going to a tuner?

I have seen guys in the past who made the mistake of installing the frt gear on the rear cam and vice versa, the timing marks will still align up however the valve timing is out by 10 degrees and this will definitely lower your numbers and still give you good looking curve on the dyno sheet.
Looking at your dyno sheet does show a problem buy the roughness of the hp and tq lines...this could be ignition timing issues or a compression difference between cylinders.
I would do a compression check to see if there is a difference between the two cylinders....this will tell you if there is a cam timing problem.
Doc

[harleyguynv]

Thanks Doc for the input. Unless I am missing something there isn't any way to get the gears on wrong. I am not familiar with all of the different motors out there but on this one the cam gears are molded into the cams. The sprockets can only go one one way. So, unless I am not understanding something there is no way to put the gears on wrong. Maybe the timing is off that far and the tuner will fix. Doing a compression test is a good idea. I appreciate the input.

[Fullsac Performance]

With the gear markings lining up like they are supposed too I should be ok, right?  I was wondering if you are off a tooth will an engine start and run good anyway? I was very surprised myself that the numbers were not better with everything you have been saying about these cams. I looked at your dyno comparisons and thought this is a no brainer. I have been thinking about a TTS. How good is the tune with the Vtune part of it without going to a tuner?

There are two chains. Crank to cam, and cam to cam. Crank to cam is the one you can see when you pull the outer cover. The shorter chain is cam to cam and is hidden from view until the cam plate is removed. If the cam to cam chain is off, it will only affect the front cylinder. It will start and run, just not real strong. Andrews cams are proven performers. the 37,54,32 Any of these grinds will produce nice torque lines in a 110 well above the stock 255s.

TTS? The vtune works great for dialing in the VEs.

Steve

[Doc 1]

Thanks Doc for the input. Unless I am missing something there isn't any way to get the gears on wrong. I am not familiar with all of the different motors out there but on this one the cam gears are molded into the cams. The sprockets can only go one one way. So, unless I am not understanding something there is no way to put the gears on wrong. Maybe the timing is off that far and the tuner will fix. Doing a compression test is a good idea. I appreciate the input.

Sorry I thought you had a set of gear drive cams.....duh!!!....lol

[jfh]

Wondering how much top end is left in the 54H cams? Would head work and larger TB provide more top end or would the cam duration (238/238) become the limiting factor?

[StrokedRider]

What did i mis here?  Andrews lit says 216354 54H is considered a "High Lift" with spring travel of .615 and not a "Drop In"

[solo2racing]

Hi all,

I'm not trying to highjack this thread, but I have been follwing this thread with interest being as I am thinking of swapping out my cam being as I will already be having "eddfive" tune the bike for me in the very near future.

Right now I have a bone stock '07 FXSTSSE. I am installing a set of Vance & Hines Big Radius 2+2 pipes on it and am wondering if I should drop in an "Andrews 54" while I am at it?

Any suggestions?
Pro's"
Con's?

Thanks,
Kevin.....

[harleyguynv]

Hi all,

I'm not trying to highjack this thread, but I have been follwing this thread with interest being as I am thinking of swapping out my cam being as I will already be having "eddfive" tune the bike for me in the very near future.

Right now I have a bone stock '07 FXSTSSE. I am installing a set of Vance & Hines Big Radius 2+2 pipes on it and am wondering if I should drop in an "Andrews 54" while I am at it?

Any suggestions?
Pro's"
Con's?

Thanks,
Kevin.....

In my opinion if you use the Andrews 54H you need to change the head gaskets to get a little higher compression to make it work. I did just a cam swap and had the bike dyno tuned and the numbers were not as good as with the 255's. I put the 255's back in.

[Fullsac Performance]

Hi all,

I'm not trying to highjack this thread, but I have been follwing this thread with interest being as I am thinking of swapping out my cam being as I will already be having "eddfive" tune the bike for me in the very near future.

Right now I have a bone stock '07 FXSTSSE. I am installing a set of Vance & Hines Big Radius 2+2 pipes on it and am wondering if I should drop in an "Andrews 54" while I am at it?

Any suggestions?
Pro's"
Con's?

Thanks,
Kevin.....

If your looking for more power beyond AC and exhaust, your heading in the right direction. With cams installed you will have definitely crossed the line into mandatory remapping. Having it professionally tuned with the proper tools (TTS) is the key for good performance. If you were already planning on dyno time, it makes $ence to install the cams first, get it dynoed once. There are lots of good cam choices. If you want a quiet bolt in cam with good manors, the 54 is hard to beat. JMHO.

Steve George

[solo2racing]

If your looking for more power beyond AC and exhaust, your heading in the right direction. With cams installed you will have definitely crossed the line into mandatory remapping. Having it professionally tuned with the proper tools (TTS) is the key for good performance. If you were already planning on dyno time, it makes $ence to install the cams first, get it dynoed once. There are lots of good cam choices. If you want a quiet bolt in cam with good manors, the 54 is hard to beat. JMHO.

Steve George

Steve,

I ride 22 miles to work daily, mainly in the 60-65mph range. I am looking for an overall TQ improvement while running thru the gears, I'm not too worried about moving the powerband up as it seems the 110 is just a TQ engine anyway. From what I have read the 54G is the way to go for an overall improvement to a stock 110, but I have been out of bikes for 15 years so what do I know.........

If you or anyone else can recommend a good cam I am all ears....

Thanks,
Kevin.....

[FLSTFI Dave]

I'm curious as I have been following this thread and now looked at the 107" thread.

The 110 with the Andrews 54 makes about 7 more foot pounds torque than the 107, which I would expect.

However the 107 makes 3 more hp than the 110.

Why is this?

What would be need say for 110 HP on the 110?  With out loosing the 120 torque.

[BUBBLEHEAD]

If I am able to pull it off and get the 2010 Cvo Ultra. I was thinking of going with Fullsac and the Andrews cams. After reading through this and looking at other peoples results Now I am having second thoughts. MY 08 SERK with stock cams and a SERT, SE high flow with D&D Fatcat made 96 hp ond 109.6 ft lbs of touque. Seems like if I go with that combo and the Andrews cams I should be over 100 hp and have a good increase in torque too, maybie 115 or so. That is sounding like the hot ticket to me. The D&D might be alittle loud for some but I have always liked the sound. Plus my neighbors are cool and think my bike sounds EVIL. Works for me 

[jfh]

I'm curious as I have been following this thread and now looked at the 107" thread.

The 110 with the Andrews 54 makes about 7 more foot pounds torque than the 107, which I would expect.

However the 107 makes 3 more hp than the 110.

Why is this?

What would be need say for 110 HP on the 110?  With out loosing the 120 torque.

I would bet the difference is the heads. There has been much discussion on this site about the shortfalls of the stock CVO 110 heads. You can use the search function for "110 heads" to find most of it. The Stock 96" heads are pretty good right out of the box and only required minor clean-up and enlarging of the CC for Steve's 107" build.  The 110" heads require a bit more work, but would then be capable of delivering better flow at higher rpms which would increase the HP numbers for the 110" / 54H combination.

I would like to see both the 110 and 107 Andrews 54H charts posted using SAE instead of STD corrections. Numbers will likely be a bit lower.

[HD Street Performance]

There are a lot of factions and thoughts about dyno numbers but regardless of what is published and the correction scheme IMO you are viewing just one aspect of a very complex performance evaluation. Wide Open Throttle (WOT) usually wacked at 2k then the dyno brake set on at a slightly higher rpm and the run continues to redline. Certainly not how we ride and on the road the feel of one that "makes good numbers" just runing through the gears and doing the famous "pass a truck" may not be as pleasing. Also there is a lot of operator intervention that can bias the result (not saying or insinuating FullSac does this or offers anything but a great product). The extreme examples, dyno queens need finessing to get them to not fall flat on their ass when wacked and the throttle needs to be feathered or clutch slipped or starting the sampling later at say 2,800 or 3,000. Tricks of the trade.
The 110 heads are a completely different animal than the 96" and need a lot of work just to get them to live, seal, and not suck oil. Once that is fixed then airflow can be addressed. These enhancements will help with any cam but once again comparing the 110 with CVO heads to the 96 is apples and oranges even if the compression and motor size was equal. In other words a large gain from one cam in the 96 will not necessarily work the same in the 110. I typically recomend different grinds for the 110 than the 96 for similar types of riding and load and these cams are a better fit based on what the heads are doing. The 110 heads VS the 96" heads on the intake side stock have 20% average flow increase, but slower air speed. The 110 motor is just 13% bigger. Then there is the intake to exhaust percent to consider....

[bigshoe13]

Great improvement for not a lot of work, but can you tell me why the torque numbers are so low on the 110cube, I just built my 2008 ultra put a 103 kit with the 255's just because they cam with the kit, I may change them later. I have some great numbers from my engine build I ported the heads myself, added 103 kit ,ness big sucker breather, rineharts tru duals, I was shooting for high torque numbers more than big horse power everyone nows torque is what makes you move, and with these 255 cams I made 98 HP and 121 pounds torque!! totaly changed this ride from lame to insane, no it isn't a drag bike but it will impress most touring street bikes... Keep up the good articles

[HD Street Performance]

Read my post above
It's the heads. The 110 comes stock with those cams but the heads are radically different and offer a lot more HP potential out of the box with less port work but when it comes to the grunt in low and midrange that takes a different cam and compression to coax it out. The 110 can follow most target goals if the parts are chosen properly and those same parts are not going to give the same result on a 96 or 103 with OEM heads.

[Highjagger]

@ Steve ,
Did you do a crankshaft bearing upgrade ?
This seems to me the weakly part in the stock condition for the 54 Andrews .
You have to drill a bigger hole for fixing such a thicker crankshaft bearing , am i correct ?

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

http://www.powerglides.co.uk/ar/har_twi_cam_tech2.php

[Fullsac Performance]

@ Steve ,
Did you do a crankshaft bearing upgrade ?
This seems to me the weakly part in the stock condition for the 54 Andrews .
You have to drill a bigger hole for fixing such a thicker crankshaft bearing , am i correct ?
http://www.powerglides.co.uk/ar/har_twi_cam_tech2.php

Stock bottom end. Never hurt one yet, knock on wood.

[Highjagger]

Mine seems to be destroyed http://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=63373.0
And i don`t want to overstress it with the Andrews 54 . Hmm .

[Fullsac Performance]

Mine seems to be destroyed http://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=63373.0
And i don`t want to overstress it with the Andrews 54 . Hmm .

There is really no relationship between a failed crank bearing the cam chosen.
If a crank has excessive run out and is allowed to ossilate, premature bearing failure will occur in a given period
The OEM main bearings on a crank that runs true and straight will last over a 100K. I have friend who owns a 100K plus 95" twincam with the
original crank. Makes 94 HP, hundreds and hundreds of dyno pulls, still riding it cross country.
Hi HP and TQ is not what kills main bearings. Its cranks that flex and wobble. The Timkin bearing is kinda like a heavy duty shock absorber for
an unbalanced tire.The popularity of the timken left bearing has come from its ability to live in less than ideal conditions and tolerate side loads
from run out and crank flex much longer than the stock bearing. Now's the time whiles yours is apart, get it trued and welded.

Steve George
Fullsac Performance

[Highjagger]

I will talk again with the tech about the Andrews 54 , i would like to have but the dealer and the warranty and and and , we don`t have such technic cracks knowing much about the harleys like you have across the atlantic , damn , sometimes i wish i would live in the US . 

[Highjagger]

Problem here in germany with the dealer is that they don`t have enough time to make a dyno (supertuner was done on the bike with the stock cam ) .
 But a dyno run would be necessary when they would do the Andrews 54 .
The tech will check whether they will be able to do a dyno run and then they will do the Andrews 54 in my bike .
If they do not have the possibility ( because of too much jobs that have to be done ) to dyno it then the stock cam will stay .
Hmmmm .
This is HD-dealer in germany.

Give me a gun please . 

[dont57]

Finished the Andrews 54 install last week on my SERK4, used SE adj. rods, left heads alone, applied map that Steve George provided with cams. I have Vtuned and other than decel pop between 4k - 2.5K rpm, the bike pulls harder from 2k up to 4k, measured by the seat of my pants.  Overall the bike seems much crisper in throttle response.  The build to date is 2" FULLSAC baffles, Zipper's Maxflow AC, TTS and Andrews 54.  All mods were done in steps and all yielded improvements.  I have not had the bike on a dyno and not sure if I will.  This was my first time in an HD engine and the cams took about 5 hours, took my time, and re-read a lot.

Tried a number of adjustments with AFR and VE and can't seem to stop the decel pop, checked front header torque (new gasket when cams were done) and collector joint, do not think I have a leak.  Because the decel pop runs so long I do not think its the decel enleanment.

Anyone have any ideas?

[Underdogg]

This was my original upgrade from 08' SERK stock110: V&H Monster Ovals with true duels , HD258, Cams, Heavy Breather SE race tuner. I added HiComp pistons and swapped monster ovals to V&H Hi outputs. New dyno has similar curve except 110 HP and 116 Torque. bike pulls strong no pinging just a decel pop every now and then. I am very happy with the setup. I just crossed 32K trouble free miles (knock on wood). Thinking of porting an polishing heads and the 259e cams.

[huntnjim]

Great numbers Steve! I am hoping to acomplish the sam or near at my 6000 feet + altitude with the andrews 57 cam and your 2" core with CX pipe.

[huntnjim]

I should get my bike back today or tomorrow, good thing is the weather here in Colorado has cleared up with a high pressure system in controll. This should help with the dyno tuning.