Print

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

[dejavo]

Opinions wanted!! 2010 SE ultra. Engine builder and Bob Woods recommend this cam. I will be adding cam ,head clean up (no valve work),thinner head gasket, adjustable lifters. Running Bub 2-1-2 pipe with stealth mufflers, and have upgraded air filter. Current dyno Nos.95 HP  105 tk. Looking to pick up useable low to wide range torque. I ride at altitude a fair bit and want a bit more giddy-up-n-go going uphill on two lanners while passing on the yellow.
Not looking for a drag bagger but would like some bang for my bucks.
WOODS TW555 (fairly new cam)

[grc]

Opinions wanted!! 2010 SE ultra. Engine builder and Bob Woods recommend this cam. I will be adding cam ,head clean up (no valve work),thinner head gasket, adjustable lifters. Running Bub 2-1-2 pipe with stealth mufflers, and have upgraded air filter. Current dyno Nos.95 HP  105 tk. Looking to pick up useable low to wide range torque. I ride at altitude a fair bit and want a bit more giddy-up-n-go going uphill on two lanners while passing on the yellow.
Not looking for a drag bagger but would like some bang for my bucks.
WOODS TW555 (fairly new cam)

I'm no cam expert, thought I'd get that out of the way right up front.  But I'd be very interested in your builder's and Mr. Wood's reasoning for choosing that cam over the higher lift and similar timing/duration of the TW-7H.  The 555 has .020" less lift than the 7H, and with almost identical timing I'd think the 7H would produce more torque down low and in the midrange.  Maybe one of the experts can jump in with some factual info.  Basic cam specs shown in attachment.


Jerry

[HD Street Performance]

Frankly I think you are headed backwards
I sell the cams and like that new 555 especially but you are at 9.3/1 headed for 9.6 and as soon as you hit the higher elevations that added overlap and duration will not be your friend.
Knowing what I know my recommendation would be the Andrews 32h or better yet Wood TW5-6. At elevation either will outperform the others mentioned based on the specifications and in the case of the two I recommend my personal experience. I have no experience with the 555 yet and steer clear of the 7, not that it is bad but I usually go from a 5 to an 8 based on what the customer wants. In that way there is no convergence, distinctly different results. If someone wants to pony up and go with premium valvetrain throughout then we correct the geometry, use Baisley roller rockers and recommend the TW408 or 400. The 555 has been an outstanding performer and seller (with stock 96 head castings) but there is no guarantee it will perform equally well in the 110, especially when the air thins out and the dynamic compression drops. Pipe will be critical as these heads have a lot of breathing potential and the pipe needs to actually scavenge or reversion will result, once again exaggerated at high elevation.

[Ohio phil]

My Opinion would be get what u have tuned, my 2009 serg thunderheader sest - that's it

[dejavo]

I appreciate the thoughts and comments. Especially from the pros. I will discuss this with the builder. Any other knowledegable comments would be great. I would rather consider them before spending the bucks.

[Black Diamond]

I appreciate the thoughts and comments. Especially from the pros. I will discuss this with the builder. Any other knowledegable comments would be great. I would rather consider them before spending the bucks.

You may wish to talk with Jamie @ http://fuelmotousa.com/home.htm

He's doing some testing on stock 96" motor with this cam as well as the W6-6.
http://www.hdforums.com/forum/touring-models/554624-wood-tw6-6-tw-555-cam-dyno-test-by-fuel-moto.html

FWIW

JW

[HD Street Performance]

With all due respect this 110 is very differant, mainly the heads. What works well in a 96" is not a shoe in for this motor with 15% bigger intake valves and ports and proportionally larger exhaust. Most follow the logic that results from the 96" can be increased by 15% based on the motor size, we have not seen that. Many have followed that path with other grinds and been let down specifically with the 110.
All of that said it may be fine.
To the OP want to try it?, uncharted territory AFAIK. I will give you a good price on a set.

[Unbalanced]

With all due respect this 110 is very differant, mainly the heads. What works well in a 96" is not a shoe in for this motor with 15% bigger intake valves and ports and proportionally larger exhaust. Most follow the logic that results from the 96" can be increased by 15% based on the motor size, we have not seen that. Many have followed that path with other grinds and been let down specifically with the 110.
All of that said it may be fine.
To the OP want to try it?, uncharted territory AFAIK. I will give you a good price on a set.

Wow Trolling again for business

[dejavo]

Thanks again for the info. The pro comments by Dewy have me thinking and that was a great link from Diamond. Someone else is clearly" unbalanced" but never the less has kept me smiling for years, and occasionally offers some valuable insight of his own.

[Tabatha]

I'm no cam expert, thought I'd get that out of the way right up front.  But I'd be very interested in your builder's and Mr. Wood's reasoning for choosing that cam over the higher lift and similar timing/duration of the TW-7H.  The 555 has .020" less lift than the 7H, and with almost identical timing I'd think the 7H would produce more torque down low and in the midrange.  Maybe one of the experts can jump in with some factual info.  Basic cam specs shown in attachment.


Jerry

...............Have tried both and the TW7 gets the nod    --Plenty of "OOOOOOMPH !---

[HILLSIDECYCLE.COM]

Banging on almost 130 ft/lbs. Nice!!
Scott