A month ago I posted a dyno run showing HP, TQ & air/fuel of my 120R engine on my '11 cvo SG without it being professionally tuned, just v-tuning it myself using TTS. I stated that I intended to remove the SE 266E cams and install Woods 408-6 cams, all else remaining the same (D&D BossZilla exhaust, 58 mm EFI TB, 5.3 g/s injectors, Roland Sands Turbine air cleaner). Today I took my bike to the same shop & had a few dyno runs of the Woods 408-6 cam, again, just self tuning.
Scott at Hillside told me I'd get better low rpm TQ performance, which is what I want, so I purchased the Woods cam from him. From the comparison below with both cams on the same chart, I think he's right. I rarely wind the motor out to 5700 rpms. In order to be totally objective, I should have fully tuned both cams, but I didn't want to pay for two tunes, instead, if one cam stood out I'd stick with it and get the motor professionally tuned, which I now intend to do.
From the chart below, the Woods cam appears to outperform Harley's stock cam across the torque curve. I picked up 10 ft./lbs. of torque, and crossed 100 TQ at about 2,350 rpm, way sooner than the 266E cam, which is at 2,900 rpm. HP was also improved across all rpm ranges except at 5800 rpm where the Harley cam barley pulled ahead by 1 HP.
Despite the potential flaws with my own tuning, the torque on the Woods cam, tuned by me, equals or comes close to, what I've heard, is a professional tune on a 120R motor with the 266E cam. Despite the fact there are differences in the tune of the air/fuel for the two cams at WOT, where the air fuel mixtures cross each other, at 3,600 rpm, the Woods cam outperforms the 266 cam by 15-20 ft./lbs of torque. This was all done without any geometry adjustments, just plug & play. I'm hoping with a good tune the numbers are even better, so we'll see. I attached the file below.
Author
Topic: 120R stock 266E cam vs. Woods 408-6 cam dyno chart (Read 20640 times)