Print

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

[HOGMIKE]

Try a set of Andrews 54s.   Then see how it likes 3500 rpm.   

 

[North Georgia Hawg]

Try a set of Andrews 54s.   Then see how it likes 3500 rpm.   

Andrews 57H cams would likely be even better than the 54Hs, now that they are available (wish they had been when I got the 54Hs...), and Cometic MLS .030" head gaskets will help them by increasing the squish without doing crazy stuff. The duration of the 54H and 57H cams is still in the mid-RPM power range (236 to 240), and the valve timing will help keep the engine cooler than the SE 255 cams - plus provide a lot more power in the mid-to-high RPM range for passing... and "stuff"...

I've been reading good stuff about the 57Hs, and I talked with Andrews for awhile last week about them. They told me they designed the 57H from the ground up with a wider lobe to increase the dwell, and they seem to perform very well in the 110" engine, even though they weren't really designed specifically for the 110. I suspect they might be a tad noisier than the 54Hs tho... I don't know... but with a wider lobe tip, I would think that the ramps would have to be steeper than the 54H ramps.

[Fullsac Performance]

Andrews 57H cams would likely be even better than the 54Hs, now that they are available (wish they had been when I got the 54Hs...), and Cometic MLS .030" head gaskets will help them by increasing the squish without doing crazy stuff. The duration of the 54H and 57H cams is still in the mid-RPM power range (236 to 240), and the valve timing will help keep the engine cooler than the SE 255 cams - plus provide a lot more power in the mid-to-high RPM range for passing... and "stuff"...

I've been reading good stuff about the 57Hs, and I talked with Andrews for awhile last week about them. They told me they designed the 57H from the ground up with a wider lobe to increase the dwell, and they seem to perform very well in the 110" engine, even though they weren't really designed specifically for the 110. I suspect they might be a tad noisier than the 54Hs tho... I don't know... but with a wider lobe tip, I would think that the ramps would have to be steeper than the 54H ramps.

The all new 57 is a 37 with more lift. Should work just fine in a small motor, the 37s did.

Attached is a before and after dyno done on a 2011 stage I XPipe CVO. The only change was taking out the 255s and installing Andrews 54s with .030 head gaskets.
I'm not really seeing where the 255s had the bottom end advantage? It is possible to use to small of a cam and have less bottom end. I think this is a good example.

SG

SG

[North Georgia Hawg]

The all new 57 is a 37 with more lift. Should work just fine in a small motor, the 37s did.

Attached is a before and after dyno done on a 2011 stage I XPipe CVO. The only change was taking out the 255s and installing Andrews 54s with .030 head gaskets.
I'm not really seeing where the 255s had the bottom end advantage? It is possible to use to small of a cam and have less bottom end. I think this is a good example.

SG

SG

LOL! Steve - THAT chart pretty much tells ALL! The 255s are not good cams and produce a lot of heat. The 54Hs run great with the Fullsac X-Pipe and baffles. With the Drago's 2-1 I am running now... Meh...

Wiz is STILL kicking me for going to a 2-1 pipe...

[crackers]

I have the 54H now and a great dyno tune but if I do anything different it will be having the heads done and back to the 255

[North Georgia Hawg]

I have the 54H now and a great dyno tune but if I do anything different it will be having the heads done and back to the 255

How about having the heads done and staying with the 54Hs? They would benefit from head work, I would think.

Why would you want go back to the 255s? Steve's chart above clearly shows the 54Hs provide more power across the board.

[Cvostu]

Ken.   You can still come back.  Even make the Wiz happy again. 

[HOGMIKE]

Stock heads, little more squeeze, good tune, 54 cams.......
I'm a happy camper!
 

[Cvostu]

I didn't do the squeeze.  I'm fine with that.  I like the 54s. Most of my riding is cruising and I like the way it gets going at 2500. Just right for me. 

[Fullsac Performance]

LOL! Steve - THAT chart pretty much tells ALL! The 255s are not good cams and produce a lot of heat. The 54Hs run great with the Fullsac X-Pipe and baffles. With the Drago's 2-1 I am running now... Meh...

Wiz is STILL kicking me for going to a 2-1 pipe...

I wouldn't say that the 255s are not good cams. IMHO, they are just better suited to smaller motors with less compression. They have a very early intake close that
builds lots of cylinder pressure early. Great for early TQ and pinging issues in larger hotter running motors. The bigger the motor the bigger the cam you can run and still have a broad TQ curve. The 120R is a good example. It has a 266E with 658 lift and 262 duration with the intake closing at 58 degrees. That motor was more civilized with better bottom end than I ever would have believed. That cam in a 96" motor would be a whole different story. A good combination of parts is always the key.

SG

[Hammbone]

i recived a  email from alice on june 11th sayin x pipes were in but tts would be a couplw weeks longer i been runnin 2.5 cores for a while i am very anxious to get tuner and x pipe to cool down bike and unleash the beast and get rid of cat...how much longer aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!!

[jcraig147]

i recived a  email from alice on june 11th sayin x pipes were in but tts would be a couplw weeks longer i been runnin 2.5 cores for a while i am very anxious to get tuner and x pipe to cool down bike and unleash the beast and get rid of cat...how much longer aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!!

I was in the same boat as you.  Even started a thread hoping it would come in faster.

 x-pipe is installed, 2 in cores are rumblin, Arlen Ness is a sucken and TTS Tuner has been tunin.......RELEASE THE CRAKIN!!!!

Joe

[North Georgia Hawg]

I wouldn't say that the 255s are not good cams. IMHO, they are just better suited to smaller motors with less compression. They have a very early intake close that
builds lots of cylinder pressure early. Great for early TQ and pinging issues in larger hotter running motors. The bigger the motor the bigger the cam you can run and still have a broad TQ curve. The 120R is a good example. It has a 266E with 658 lift and 262 duration with the intake closing at 58 degrees. That motor was more civilized with better bottom end than I ever would have believed. That cam in a 96" motor would be a whole different story. A good combination of parts is always the key.

SG

Steve - I was referring to the 255s in a 110" engine like I have. I think they have far too little intake duration (211 seems crazy-low for a big engine), and build a lot of unnecessary heat due to the high comp. The 54H cams are much better, as your chart shows - they breathe better, stay longer, and run cooler with your X-Pipe and baffles, and a good tune as you provide with your cal.

It will be interesting to see how the 57Hs perform in 110s due to their higher dwell and "all-new" grind (even though the timing is the same as the 37H, the grind is quite different according to what Andrews told me, with a much wider tip). 

Ken

[CVOJIMMYC]

 It's a beutiful sunny day today and i want to ride , installed my FULLSAC stage 1 kit but NO EMAIL fuel map

[scttgr8]

got my c pipe a couple weeks ago...TTS was not available at that time...decided to go with the SE Tuner, then remembered  I had sent an ecm and tuner to Steve @ TTS to get corrected, the ECM was bad, and he cleared or corrected the tuner so it could be used since I had used another tuner to get another bike rolling...got the TTS back on Thursday and will be getting my bike in the DYNO tomorrow!!!    FULLSAC C PIPE just may become a new favorite since I love a sleeper