www.CVOHARLEY.com

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: 110 Cam comparison  (Read 1449 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

nidan

  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Keep the breeze between your knees

    • CVO1: 02 FWDWG3 Stage IV 95 -sold
110 Cam comparison
« on: September 04, 2007, 12:18:27 PM »
Found this on the Latus HD site and thought I'd share . 3 cams test :

TW7, SE 251 AND SE 255 Cams compared to test power from 1500-4000RPM
All on the same bike with Dan Baisley Pro Street ported heats 
TW7 and SE 251 also had Custom 10.5:1 pistons
SE 255 had modified pistons to run with the Baisley Heads to run at 9.6
All runs at WOT
Stock 110 CVO show for comparison
Logged
CVO -'02 FWDWG3 Stage IV 95 -sold
'07 FLHX Stage II 103 95hp/111lbs ft
'09 FJR 1300- 145hp /99 lbs ft
2011 Mustang GT 412hp/390 lbs ft

Rooster

  • 5k CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5181
  • FLhtcuse2.ORG
Re: 110 Cam comparison
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2007, 11:08:10 AM »
Those tests are on my 07 cuse. The top results are where I ended up. Except the dip got tuned out in the final. My power from bottom to 4500 is much better. Mike Stegman spent a lot of time doing all these tests and so far I am very happy. The final pistons were also decked 100, and I traded my V&H ovals for V&H rounds which much better in low torque. Final 104 hp and 116 torque. And runs much cooler, highest so far 259 but stuck in traffic at idle. Most of the time 220-230 area.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2007, 11:16:29 AM by Rooster »
Logged

rednectum

  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 834
Re: 110 Cam comparison
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2007, 06:12:35 AM »
Quote from: Rooster on September 06, 2007, 11:08:10 AM
Those tests are on my 07 cuse. The top results are where I ended up. Except the dip got tuned out in the final. My power from bottom to 4500 is much better. Mike Stegman spent a lot of time doing all these tests and so far I am very happy. The final pistons were also decked 100, and I traded my V&H ovals for V&H rounds which much better in low torque. Final 104 hp and 116 torque. And runs much cooler, highest so far 259 but stuck in traffic at idle. Most of the time 220-230 area.

rooster, are you saying they cut .100 off the top of the pistons? if so, were they .1 out of the hole? mike is very very good, so im not doubting his work, jjust curious about that much deck.

BTW, i bet you dont have any pinging when mike does a build!!!!
Logged

nidan

  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Keep the breeze between your knees

    • CVO1: 02 FWDWG3 Stage IV 95 -sold
Re: 110 Cam comparison
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2007, 07:07:15 AM »
Cool,  Rooster .. Hope you don't mind I posted the data ..
Logged
CVO -'02 FWDWG3 Stage IV 95 -sold
'07 FLHX Stage II 103 95hp/111lbs ft
'09 FJR 1300- 145hp /99 lbs ft
2011 Mustang GT 412hp/390 lbs ft

miker

  • 5k CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8710

    • CVO1: 2009FLHTCUSE4
Re: 110 Cam comparison
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2007, 09:25:27 AM »
Quote from: Rooster on September 06, 2007, 11:08:10 AM
Those tests are on my 07 cuse. The top results are where I ended up. Except the dip got tuned out in the final. My power from bottom to 4500 is much better. Mike Stegman spent a lot of time doing all these tests and so far I am very happy. The final pistons were also decked 100, and I traded my V&H ovals for V&H rounds which much better in low torque. Final 104 hp and 116 torque. And runs much cooler, highest so far 259 but stuck in traffic at idle. Most of the time 220-230 area.

Is that the oil temp Rooster?

Miker
Logged
 

Page created in 0.218 seconds with 20 queries.