Print

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

[comfortablynumb]

Service manager suggested yesterday that since I am having the enhancement done and the moco is paying most of the labor, I should consider putting 204 cams in. I took my stupid hat off when I sat down at the keyboard, but just put it back on. Would it be worth the increased kick and tq, or should I TRY to find another gidget to spend my money on? All advice welcome. Sorry boys, don't really have the cash or desire(right now anyway) to go with headwork,the valves and such. Love the bike but every time I mention adding something I hear the recording of- "but I thought the Screaming Eagle had EVERYTHING you would need." Tried to explain that there's a difference between needs and wants. Like 40 pairs of shoes. Just kidding honey..ouch

[AXIL]

   204's in a 110! sorry if i'am missing something, i like the 204 as bolt in cams for 88" and 95"motorsbut not for a
 110". please give more details.  thanks.     axil

[comfortablynumb]

   204's in a 110! sorry if i'am missing something, i like the 204 as bolt in cams for 88" and 95"motorsbut not for a
 110". please give more details.  thanks.     axil

He told me the 204 was the best upgrade he could do for me(SEUC3-110) without any headwork.

[Spazz]

Mydealer told me the same thing. The other cams require higher compression changes which means you need to run the engine at higher RPM's or they will have carbon issues. You will notice the biggest change if you changed your pipes, headers, a/c and fuel management. The stock cams are EPA friendly and lack performance so i think it's a good choice. By bike is in and the work is about to start on it. I also planned on the 204's, but if someone here tells us why not than I will change them to another.

[AXIL]

  i am sorry it's to late to give a long explanation, look at the specs. the 110 comes a 255 cam and the 204's are 
 
 much smaller cam spec. that alone should tell you that a 204 is a step back. there are many good chooses for the
110 but the 204s ain't one of them. any one that told you the 204s are a good cam for a 110 should go back to
the used car trade.                   axil

[hd-dude]

  i am sorry it's to late to give a long explanation, look at the specs. the 110 comes a 255 cam and the 204's are 
 
 much smaller cam spec. that alone should tell you that a 204 is a step back. there are many good chooses for the
110 but the 204s ain't one of them. any one that told you the 204s are a good cam for a 110 should go back to
the used car trade.                   axil

Yep, good advise! I've said it before and i'll say it again..the only cam worth while for the 110 in the SE line is the 251, and even that cam will do better with a bit more compression. You can pick up a bit by having them use a .030 head gasket instead of the stock gasket. In the after market the Wood TW7H would be my first choice for a "bolt-in" cam.

[aka_Matt]

can u explain to me how the 204 cam is smaller?? it has more duration, later intake close, more overlap... sounds bigger to me... only the lift is less, which doesn't matter with stock heads anyway... Matt

[AXIL]

  have you ever looked at STOCK 110 heads ! the 204 cams are not the cams you want in a STOCK 110. let me 
repeat my self, the 204 cams make less power than the 255 cams in a 110 motor. learn what the specs mean and
you'll have your answer. i put 204s in my 95" with stock 2001 heads and it ran unbelievably well. and that was with
small valves and small ports. compair the two heads and you will see why lift means some thing.   axil

[Spazz]

Well... now i am confused too!!!! I too am about to change my cams and I discussed this post with my dealer. This is his re

Todd is aware that you have a 110, and still stands firm with the 204 cams with race tuner combination even the CVO guru on CVO Harley website even suggests the 204 cam and says that if you are not doing anything to the motor internally suggests that you drop in a 204 cam and be happy. Please remember that the 255 cam is a street EPA friendly cam. Todd believes that once the 204 cam is installed that he should be able to exceed the performance of the stock cam by increasing your horsepower and torque to something he believes that you will be extremely happy with.

[skyhook]

i agree with the dealer for once...i believe the 204 cams will make more power than the stock cam...as was mentioned earlier, it's not the lift, but duration, intake close, and overlap that make the difference...you might notice a little less torque below 2500 rpm, but after that the 204 will pull harder, especially above 4000 rpm

[fxdx00]

Hello Gentlemen, if you do pipes and a hi flow to a 2009 cvo ultra with NO other changes internally but want a little more on a budget, what cam would you choose?

i am not a used car dealer.

i have looked at some 110 heads.

yes, lift means something, duration also means something.

i do not know all, but i know some things.

let me give the engine what it needs and i will give you torque.

i have an open mind, please let me know what you think.

all the best, cheers, todd aka fxdx00

[grc]

i agree with the dealer for once...i believe the 204 cams will make more power than the stock cam...as was mentioned earlier, it's not the lift, but duration, intake close, and overlap that make the difference...you might notice a little less torque below 2500 rpm, but after that the 204 will pull harder, especially above 4000 rpm

Ah yes, "above 4000 rpm".  And just how often is someone with a 900 pound bagger going to be screaming around at redline?  The 110 in a heavy bagger is all about torque down low and in the midrange, and that is where the 204 will definitely not be an improvement over the stock cam.  You make torque down low with lift, not with more duration and overlap. 

Anyone who recommends cams based on max power readings on a dyno, rather than on what is best for your riding style, isn't doing you any favors.  I agree with axil and hd-dude on this one, the 204 would be a step backward in terms of low and midrange performance and would most likely disappoint someone with a 110 bagger. 

Jerry

[SBB]

The 110 in a heavy bagger Jerry

Jerry

To go off topic for just a minute let me add this,

The first Electra Glide Classic I owned was in 1988 and it weighed 776 lbs.
My 09 SEUC weighs in wet at 924 (per Harley specs)
That's 148 lbs. of weight gained in 21 years and it sucks being 21 years older trying to push that 924 lbs. up on the lift!

Yes, I'm complaining!

 

[AXIL]

  I have said my opinion, if you think the204s are the best way to go than do it, and let us know the what happens.

                                                                                           axil

[redtwin]

what are your thoughts on a 211 in a heavy bike,just looking for opinions