Print

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

[captdave221]

Is anyone running one of these? How is the power band? Is it a noisy cam? Trying to decide between this, the TW-400-6, or T-Man's TR-625G cam. 103" motor with HD MVA heads, 10.5 forged pistons, 58mm throttle body when they come off B/O. Fullsac "B" header w/Rhinehart slip-on muffs. Thinking about the Power Vision for the tuning.

Comments welcome!!

[HD Street Performance]

The 625 will be happier
By the time you hit .650 lift the stock geometry is off and net valve lift will not be .650 anyway.
The 400 would be a better cam for a 103 if you make the changes to the heads.

What fixing the geometry including corrected rockers accomplishes:
Fixes the sweep of the pushrod in the tube and helps elminate potential rubbing
Assures full lift as mid lift is perfectly perpendicular to the stem
Elminates the need for offset rocker supports
Centers the rocker to stem contact

[RPR50]

Over the winter, I added a TW8-6 Woods cam with these mods:  SE 10.5:1 pistons, heads ported, 5 angle valve job, heads decked .040", cylinders decked .010", .030" head gasket;and a Zippers 3" air cleaner, 110 OEM induction module.  I'm  also running the D&D 2:1 factcat. 

Just swapped out the TW8-6 cam for TW400-6 cam.  Dyno results shown below, stock, to the 8-6 to the 400-6 (they show from bottom to top, in that order.)   The 8-6 came on strong at about 3200, but the 400-6 has more power sooner and carries across a broader range.  It's got some noise to it, but it doesn't bother me.  We added roller lifters with the 400-6.   The 400-6 really seemed to open up the engine and tap into more of the power I expected from the mods.  I'm pleased, but I'm learning as I go.  This engine mod business has a lot to it, there's no right answer, and like the rest of the CVO experience, it's personal. 

The results, in order from bottom to top, are the stock cam, the TW8-6 cam and the 400-6 cam.

[HILLSIDECYCLE.COM]

The 625 will be happier
By the time you hit .650 lift the stock geometry is off and net valve lift will not be .650 anyway.
The 400 would be a better cam for a 103 if you make the changes to the heads.

What fixing the geometry including corrected rockers accomplishes:
Fixes the sweep of the pushrod in the tube and helps elminate potential rubbing
Assures full lift as mid lift is perfectly perpendicular to the stem
Elminates the need for offset rocker supports
Centers the rocker to stem contact

The TW-400 is also .650 lift.

[SBB]

Over the winter, I added a TW8-6 Woods cam with these mods:  SE 10.5:1 pistons, heads ported, 5 angle valve job, heads decked .040", cylinders decked .010", .030" head gasket;and a Zippers 3" air cleaner, 110 OEM induction module.  I'm  also running the D&D 2:1 factcat. 

Just swapped out the TW8-6 cam for TW400-6 cam.  Dyno results shown below, stock, to the 8-6 to the 400-6 (they show from bottom to top, in that order.)   The 8-6 came on strong at about 3200, but the 400-6 has more power sooner and carries across a broader range.  It's got some noise to it, but it doesn't bother me.  We added roller lifters with the 400-6.   The 400-6 really seemed to open up the engine and tap into more of the power I expected from the mods.  I'm pleased, but I'm learning as I go.  This engine mod business has a lot to it, there's no right answer, and like the rest of the CVO experience, it's personal. 

The results, in order from bottom to top, are the stock cam, the TW8-6 cam and the 400-6 cam.

Bob

The sheet looks good!
It's got to pull hard.
How many miles on the 400?
How is fuel mileage?
See you next week at Ken Fest!

 

SBB

[RPR50]

I've only got couple hundred miles on the 400 cam.  Will get sense next week on trip to Ribfest for gas mileage.

[HD Street Performance]

The TW-400 is also .650 lift.

Nope the cam has about .400 lift
How that gets multiplied depends on who accurate the rockers operate in relation to the valves. More info can be found at mid-lift.com.
YMMV

[HILLSIDECYCLE.COM]

The TW-400 is also .650 lift.

Nope the cam has about .400 lift
How that gets multiplied depends on who accurate the rockers operate in relation to the valves. More info can be found at mid-lift.com.
YMMV

I'll let Bob Wood know.
Thanks.......

[HD Street Performance]

Very funny
Bob knows all about this and anyone that calls him up will be told to set stem protrusion at 2.100, that is .100 more than the stock 110 head has from the MOCO.
So is the tw408 or 400 "plug and play"
What is the definition of that?
If it won't crash a motor with coil bind I guess that would mean it will bolt in and it is "plug and play"
I am just saying there are ways to make it work better, same story anyone will get from Bobby. Nothing new or earth shaking, just often overlooked. Bobby will also tell anyone they will not get full lift if the geometry is not fixed.

Same speech from Dan Baisley.

Oh and then there is Doc in Florida
Docs Performance Tuning

The caption on this photo reads from his website:
"There are times the stem protrusion has to be extended to achieve the correct geometry using cams over .600 lift. You don't see many shops taking the time to set up geometry any more however to do the job correctly these steps are necessary"

[HILLSIDECYCLE.COM]

Oh.

[timtoolman]

hmmmmm  wow   yeah  Scott tell Bob. I bet he didnt know  that either,    Funny  all those national records bob has had in the past and people still know more about his stuff than him. Hope Boeing doesnt go out of business

[HD Street Performance]

 
Bob Wood is the one that told me to set the protrusion at "2.100"
And you are right he does know his stuff
This is no news to him nor is it any news to Scott
In other threads Scott has eluded to milling head tops and other changes to correct geometry.
Just makes for internet folly

[rheiner]

Don, I just bought a set of Woods 408-6 cams for my 120R and installed them with only new bearings and pushrods. Are you saying that I'm only getting .40 lift compared to nearly .66 on the 266E cam since I didn't do any geometry (nor do I know how to)? If that's the case I guess I'll be switching back to the 266E. But before I do it I'm doing some dyno pulls tomorrow with the 408-6 and compare the best run to the 266E run I did last month.

[HD Street Performance]

Heck no
That is the cam lift
Multiply by 1.625 which is the rocker ratio

My point that seems to be missed is that when you start out with stock protrusion the true actual valve lift WILL NOT be .650. That is why I and the others I listed, including Bobby Wood, go to the trouble of fixing that on all heads that are being used at .625 or greater proposed gross lift.

What I am discussing, geometry corrction, would benefit even the stock 266 cam.

Tim
This is no surprise to you either.
Here is your response to a thread on another forum:
"..as already said 555's  are a quiet cam, just read adjust, certain woods cam can be noisy (ive had a lot of diff woods cams)  if geometry correction isnt done, my 400-6 have a reputation of  really sounding bad, but finally got them prettttty quiet.."

and to get them "prettttty quiet" I am assuming Hillside worked the geometry.

There is no need to call me out for some sort of impropriety, simple physics not rocket science.

[sadunbar]

Heck no
That is the cam lift
Multiply by 1.625 which is the rocker ratio

My point that seems to be missed is that when you start out with stock protrusion the true actual valve lift WILL NOT be .650. That is why I and the others I listed, including Bobby Wood, go to the trouble of fixing that on all heads that are being used at .625 or greater proposed gross lift.

What I am discussing, geometry corrction, would benefit even the stock 266 cam.

Tim
This is no surprise to you either.
Here is your response to a thread on another forum:
"..as already said 555's  are a quiet cam, just read adjust, certain woods cam can be noisy (ive had a lot of diff woods cams)  if geometry correction isnt done, my 400-6 have a reputation of  really sounding bad, but finally got them prettttty quiet.."

and to get them "prettttty quiet" I am assuming Hillside worked the geometry.

There is no need to call me out for some sort of impropriety, simple physics not rocket science.

Don,

When you said "Nope the cam has about .400 lift" - I think you may have mislead and confused some folks. 

Of course, what you meant is the difference between cam lobe lift vs. net valve lift - as affected by the rocker arm ratio - with correct geometry.

Multiply .650 (the lift at the cam lobe) by .625 (the ratio of the rocker arm).  .650 x .625 = .406 (the net lift at the valve - with correct geometry). 


In the case of the question posed by rheiner, he has a 120r motor, with MVA heads.  Of course the 120r motor comes stock from the Motor Company with the SE266e cams (which have approx. .650 cam lift).  If the Motor Company set up this motor and these heads with correct geometry for the stock installed SE266e cams, then the geometry would remain correct with the Woods 408-6 cams (which also have approx. .650 lift.)

I don't know for a fact that the 120r motor has correct geometry for the SE266e cams - but I suspect it does - at least I would hope it does.


Installing .650 lift cams in a stock 96" or even a stock 110" motor would benefit from geometry correction - as Don implies.

Installing .650 lift cams in a stock 120r motor likely does not require geometry correction - but again - I can't confirm this as fact.  I'd be curious if anyone knows for certain...