Print

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

[OILCAN1]

I have a 2007 ultra classsic with  the 110 engine kit installed. Part # 29844-07. This comes with the cvo heads and se255 camshafts. I have made a few modifications- SE hi flow ac, se racetuner, se 50mm tb, cobra true duals with supertrapp exhaust. The bike runs decent it dynoed at 90 horse and 110 ft/lb torque.
Any way I'm contemplating some motor work. I dont't really like the idea of more compression and moving my power band to the high rpms. I found a cam that has got me interested. It is the zippers 657S.  I talked with zippers tech line and they told me the cam would work fine for my application but I would probably need different valve springs. Can anyone tell me how much lift the cvo heads can accomodate?

[Hoist!]

I have a 2007 ultra classsic with  the 110 engine kit installed. Part # 29844-07. This comes with the cvo heads and se255 camshafts. I have made a few modifications- SE hi flow ac, se racetuner, se 50mm tb, cobra true duals with supertrapp exhaust. The bike runs decent it dynoed at 90 horse and 110 ft/lb torque.
Any way I'm contemplating some motor work. I dont't really like the idea of more compression and moving my power band to the high rpms. I found a cam that has got me interested. It is the zippers 657S.  I talked with zippers tech line and they told me the cam would work fine for my application but I would probably need different valve springs. Can anyone tell me how much lift the cvo heads can accomodate?

It can handle the SE 251 (579 lift). I have 595 lift cams and it was recommended to be used with new springs. Mighta got awy with it. But 657, no way. And if you don't want radical, why use such a high lift cam. I would think you'd need higher compression with that cam too. Look at Cyclerama's CR595 or Mackie's 595. These are setup to work well with the 110.

Hoist!

[OILCAN1]

According to their advetising the narrow timing really boosts low end grunt. I'm not very educated on cam specs and what exactly they mean but I'm trying to learn.  A friend of my had an 07 se dyna, he claims to have run 10.5 to pistons and the se-264 cams(.635" lift) with no spring modification.

[DCFIREMANN]

Well I can tell you the TC657's are not a bad cam. You will need some comperssion. It has a low duration with a lot of lift. It will produce some stump pulling power. The SE heads will not acomodate the 657's without any head work and a change of springs. If you are hell bent on running those cams, send your heads out have them cut 50 thou and do a decent valve job. After that they can install new springs and set the heads up to take the 657's.

I run that same cam and produce some great TQ and even better HP.

Be Safe

THE DAWG

[OILCAN1]

I'm not hell bent on them but they have sparked my curiosity thank you for the input on what it will take to use these cams. How much compression/what cubic inch are you running?

[DCFIREMANN]

The motor is a CVO 103 with 4.060 cylinders, that gives it 113 ci. The pistons are HD SE and the compression is 10.25 to 1.

Be Safe

THE DAWG

[OILCAN1]

Where is the power range? Currently I have awesome low end but at 4K rpm it just feels flat to red line. I'm looking for something that pulls hard on the low end but pulls to at least 5K rpm.

[Unbalanced]

I put the Cycle Rama 595 in without changing the springs and ended up with coil bind.   Mine were a max lift of .600 lift.   .575 is about as far as you want to push the cam with the springs currently in the heads.   The advice dawg is giving is good advice, but you can get the same power without going quite so extreme on the cam and lift.   You have to decide where you want the power either low, low / mid, mid / high or just high then keep in mind how much compression you want to run especially with the ethanol being added to the gas.  Once you decide that, have the head guy match you up with a proven combination of his headwork / cam and you should be set.   On the 110's with larger throttlebody, a good head port and valve job, upgraded valve springs and good pipe, you should easily be able to see 120/115 to be conservative.   We have seen more from the Cycle Rama package, but rather be conservative than say you will get what we got and if you didn't to be upset.

[Twolanerider]

I had the 657 and the Mackie 598 in the same engine.  Not a 110.  A 103 then running at about 10.25:1.

Discounting any other issues for this discussion the 657 came in much later than the Mackie cam.  It was also very touchy to tune.  In that engine the Mackie 598 was a much superior cam.

[OILCAN1]

When I spoke to Mackie, he suggested the 598, He did also inform me that the cvo heads were actually a very good head and changing cams without any head work would work out just fine. As far as the Mackie 595 I can only find it for evolution applications.

[Twolanerider]

When I spoke to Mackie, he suggested the 598, He did also inform me that the cvo heads were actually a very good head and changing cams without any head work would work out just fine. As far as the Mackie 595 I can only find it for evolution applications.

I have been very very pleased with the 598 Mackie cams.  Same cams now in 107 combination with just barely over 10.25:1.  Engine pulls hard from very early and just keeps going.  Tuned well, not quirky at all, no detonation issues from cam timing and numbers in the low 120s at its final tune.  I've become a big fan of this cam set for similar combinations.

[Hoist!]

I had the 657 and the Mackie 598 in the same engine.  Not a 110.  A 103 then running at about 10.25:1.

Discounting any other issues for this discussion the 657 came in much later than the Mackie cam.  It was also very touchy to tune.  In that engine the Mackie 598 was a much superior cam.

Sorry man, I meant 598 from Mackie and 595 from CR.

I'm using the CR595 w/9.8:1 CR and CR ported SE 110 heads.

Hoist!

[OILCAN1]

I will check out the cr 595 for sure. The 657 is probably an overkill, the huge lift and realitively short duration just happened to catch my attention.  I'm still undecided about higher compression pistons. I just worry about detonation issues since good fuel is harder and harder to come by.

[Hoist!]

I will check out the cr 595 for sure. The 657 is probably an overkill, the huge lift and realitively short duration just happened to catch my attention.  I'm still undecided about higher compression pistons. I just worry about detonation issues since good fuel is harder and harder to come by.

I didn't want too high of a CR, so we decked the heads and used Cometic .030" HG's for 9.8:1 CR with the ported heads and CR 595 cams. Motor pulls strong all the way to redline.

Hoist!

[OILCAN1]

Now I definatley have some cam choices to look over, anybody got any thoughts on roller rockers? Worth the money or not?