Tman 662-2 or CR630i

[838]

These two look similar based on specs. Any experts have anything to say about the operating differences between these two grinds, ramps, low speed manners. 10.8:1 l, 124" w/good supporting parts?

I remember long ago the 662-2 was considered "on and hot" all the time. But it looks like tr changed the profile a bit. The CR630i also looks different than the original specs I had.

[Don D]

Neither or either. Who knows? Cams don't work by themselves.  What is the build and goal.

[No Cents]

  I've ran both cams that you have in question.
The CR630i's are still in my bike and I have no plans on trying anything different. 
  I can't speak for a newer grind profile of the 662-2's. The older grind is what I'm speaking of.

[Don D]

Add a Mackie 598 or tman 680 to the list. Depends on lots of factors, you know, you are not new.

[838]

Was mainly looking at the valve train reliability due to ramps and/or lift differences. Also general rideability differences assuming both are set up with their own optimal components (195-200ccp). Not thinking dyno graphs.

[harpwrench]

I run a Mackie 598 retarded 2, timing events are real close to the original 662-2. At 10.8 it's very well mannered but still kinda hot-roddy, at 11.1 it starts getting snotty and more light-switchy but it's good

[Don D]

The dm598 is better for what you want and is not hard on parts.

[m1marty]

Big fan of the Mackie 598 here. Have used it quite a bit over the years to include 2 of my own bikes. Quiet valve train and makes the #s

[Don D]

If you want to go for it use Mackies 630

[838]

Big fan of the Mackie 598 here. Have used it quite a bit over the years to include 2 of my own bikes. Quiet valve train and makes the #s

We live about 60min from Mackie and he doesn't wanna run a Mackie combo. I'm waiting on money to build up a 124" for my, personal, touring softail that will use the 598 though 👍.

Any other suggestions for reliable, rideable power? Only other things I know of the bike are it has a wrath pipe with the loud baffle (3"???) and he "has a guy" to do the headwork 🤷‍♂️.

Most of this info is for my own knowledge. He most likely will do the 662-2, but I'm always curious to know the choices of experienced individuals 👍

[838]

I run a Mackie 598 retarded 2, timing events are real close to the original 662-2. At 10.8 it's very well mannered but still kinda hot-roddy, at 11.1 it starts getting snotty and more light-switchy but it's good

Why the 2* retard?

[harpwrench]

It liked it better, is the short answer. I suspect its related to the TDC overlap event (exhaust augmented cylinder fill)

[kd]

Big fan of the Mackie 598 here. Have used it quite a bit over the years to include 2 of my own bikes. Quiet valve train and makes the #s

We live about 60min from Mackie and he doesn't wanna run a Mackie combo. I'm waiting on money to build up a 124" for my, personal, touring softail that will use the 598 though 👍.

Any other suggestions for reliable, rideable power? Only other things I know of the bike are it has a wrath pipe with the loud baffle (3"???) and he "has a guy" to do the headwork 🤷‍♂️.

Most of this info is for my own knowledge. He most likely will do the 662-2, but I'm always curious to know the choices of experienced individuals 👍

If your buddy has "kinda" settled on the Tman 662-2 he may be interested in the 660 PS2.  There are some dyno sheets on here for comparison of the power band. It is known for it's great parking lot manners while performing as well as the 662-2 (almost identical to it).  He may soon get tired of managing the cocked and loaded low RPM feel the 662-2 is known for.  A true hot rodder will be more tolerant but as a daily rider in traffic the PS2 will be easily managed. I am using the predecessor 660SM in a 11.3:1 120 and it is OEM quiet (indicating easy ramps) and lacks nothing in power anywhere.  It's a favorite of Scott at Hillside too.

[838]

Big fan of the Mackie 598 here. Have used it quite a bit over the years to include 2 of my own bikes. Quiet valve train and makes the #s

We live about 60min from Mackie and he doesn't wanna run a Mackie combo. I'm waiting on money to build up a 124" for my, personal, touring softail that will use the 598 though 👍.

Any other suggestions for reliable, rideable power? Only other things I know of the bike are it has a wrath pipe with the loud baffle (3"???) and he "has a guy" to do the headwork 🤷‍♂️.

Most of this info is for my own knowledge. He most likely will do the 662-2, but I'm always curious to know the choices of experienced individuals 👍

If your buddy has "kinda" settled on the Tman 662-2 he may be interested in the 660 PS2.  There are some dyno sheets on here for comparison of the power band. It is known for it's great parking lot manners while performing as well as the 662-2 (almost identical to it).  He may soon get tired of managing the cocked and loaded low RPM feel the 662-2 is known for.  A true hot rodder will be more tolerant but as a daily rider in traffic the PS2 will be easily managed. I am using the predecessor 660SM in a 11.3:1 120 and it is OEM quiet (indicating easy ramps) and lacks nothing in power anywhere.  It's a favorite of Scott at Hillside too.

With the 46* intake close it would have to run at 10.6:1... maybe 10.8 tops... I have a Rivas 584 set I offered up to him but he wants that 10.8:1 mark at close to 200ccp. I also have an old set of tman 590ps cams and some 1.725" intake rockers I told him he could use. Best I could find to achieve both 10.8:1 and 200ccp is a woods 9f +4 or 9B +2. I don't know if advancing the tman cams would be good cause the new profiles already have pretty late exhaust closing events and a lot of exhaust duration. There's a few graphs off the cr630i at 10.8:1 that look great.

[kd]

Big fan of the Mackie 598 here. Have used it quite a bit over the years to include 2 of my own bikes. Quiet valve train and makes the #s

We live about 60min from Mackie and he doesn't wanna run a Mackie combo. I'm waiting on money to build up a 124" for my, personal, touring softail that will use the 598 though 👍.

Any other suggestions for reliable, rideable power? Only other things I know of the bike are it has a wrath pipe with the loud baffle (3"???) and he "has a guy" to do the headwork 🤷‍♂️.

Most of this info is for my own knowledge. He most likely will do the 662-2, but I'm always curious to know the choices of experienced individuals 👍

If your buddy has "kinda" settled on the Tman 662-2 he may be interested in the 660 PS2.  There are some dyno sheets on here for comparison of the power band. It is known for it's great parking lot manners while performing as well as the 662-2 (almost identical to it).  He may soon get tired of managing the cocked and loaded low RPM feel the 662-2 is known for.  A true hot rodder will be more tolerant but as a daily rider in traffic the PS2 will be easily managed. I am using the predecessor 660SM in a 11.3:1 120 and it is OEM quiet (indicating easy ramps) and lacks nothing in power anywhere.  It's a favorite of Scott at Hillside too.

With the 46* intake close it would have to run at 10.6:1... maybe 10.8 tops... I have a Rivas 584 set I offered up to him but he wants that 10.8:1 mark at close to 200ccp. I also have an old set of tman 590ps cams and some 1.725" intake rockers I told him he could use. Best I could find to achieve both 10.8:1 and 200ccp is a woods 9f +4 or 9B +2. I don't know if advancing the tman cams would be good cause the new profiles already have pretty late exhaust closing events and a lot of exhaust duration. There's a few graphs off the cr630i at 10.8:1 that look great.

I believe 10.8 is a suggested mid level for both cams.  If you want more, add compression.   When I stated my compression (+205 CCP) it was a purposeful build to hit 145 to 150 and it did. He hasn't got his heads done yet so he's golden. No matter what he choses he has options.  At some point he'll have to be honest with himself and make some decisions though.  He's the one that will have to live with what he does.  We are all throwing out suggestions and if he is following all of the responses his poor head will be swimming.  His goals as you state them seem to be pretty simple.  Reliable, rideable power.  I guess the question is how much power and at what cost.  BTW, over 200# compression is very tunable so his margin is plus or minus depending on what the cam he choses needs to give him what he wants.

The TMan cams seem to have his attention. Probably good choices. Calling Tom Reiser will go a long way to answering questions on those cams.  He's known to be honest and steer callers right. Tell him what you have ready to go.  Your buddy will have to be honest about his goals though.


 

[838]

Big fan of the Mackie 598 here. Have used it quite a bit over the years to include 2 of my own bikes. Quiet valve train and makes the #s

We live about 60min from Mackie and he doesn't wanna run a Mackie combo. I'm waiting on money to build up a 124" for my, personal, touring softail that will use the 598 though 👍.

Any other suggestions for reliable, rideable power? Only other things I know of the bike are it has a wrath pipe with the loud baffle (3"???) and he "has a guy" to do the headwork 🤷‍♂️.

Most of this info is for my own knowledge. He most likely will do the 662-2, but I'm always curious to know the choices of experienced individuals 👍

If your buddy has "kinda" settled on the Tman 662-2 he may be interested in the 660 PS2.  There are some dyno sheets on here for comparison of the power band. It is known for it's great parking lot manners while performing as well as the 662-2 (almost identical to it).  He may soon get tired of managing the cocked and loaded low RPM feel the 662-2 is known for.  A true hot rodder will be more tolerant but as a daily rider in traffic the PS2 will be easily managed. I am using the predecessor 660SM in a 11.3:1 120 and it is OEM quiet (indicating easy ramps) and lacks nothing in power anywhere.  It's a favorite of Scott at Hillside too.

With the 46* intake close it would have to run at 10.6:1... maybe 10.8 tops... I have a Rivas 584 set I offered up to him but he wants that 10.8:1 mark at close to 200ccp. I also have an old set of tman 590ps cams and some 1.725" intake rockers I told him he could use. Best I could find to achieve both 10.8:1 and 200ccp is a woods 9f +4 or 9B +2. I don't know if advancing the tman cams would be good cause the new profiles already have pretty late exhaust closing events and a lot of exhaust duration. There's a few graphs off the cr630i at 10.8:1 that look great.

I believe 10.8 is a suggested mid level for both cams.  If you want more, add compression.   When I stated my compression (+205 CCP) it was a purposeful build to hit 145 to 150 and it did. He hasn't got his heads done yet so he's golden. No matter what he choses he has options.  At some point he'll have to be honest with himself and make some decisions though.  He's the one that will have to live with what he does.  We are all throwing out suggestions and if he is following all of the responses his poor head will be swimming.  His goals as you state them seem to be pretty simple.  Reliable, rideable power.  I guess the question is how much power and at what cost.  BTW, over 200# compression is very tunable so his margin is plus or minus depending on what the cam he choses needs to give him what he wants.

The TMan cams seem to have his attention. Probably good choices. Calling Tom Reiser will go a long way to answering questions on those cams.  He's known to be honest and steer callers right. Tell him what you have ready to go.  Your buddy will have to be honest about his goals though.

He uses a local guy, retired dyno operator that now road tunes bikes on the side using a Daytona twin scan WEGO. He's good (and was great on the dyno as well) but caps his limits at 10.8 for static and/or 205ccp.

TR recommend the 662-2 but I don't think the 660 came up because of the 10.8:1/200ccp compression that was being sought after. I've seen a dyno of the 660sm at 10.3:1 in a 120". It was like 144/127 with a broad curve... it would probably do real good at 10.6 or more.

[kd]

Here is another one with 11.1 / 205 CCP.  The blue is the Dragula 1 but 2.55 baffle.  Most consider the Dragula  identical to the Wrath.

[04 SE Deuce]

He uses a local guy, retired dyno operator that now road tunes bikes on the side using a Daytona twin scan WEGO. He's good (and was great on the dyno as well) but caps his limits at 10.8 for static and/or 205ccp.

Would that be Bill G.?

[838]

He uses a local guy, retired dyno operator that now road tunes bikes on the side using a Daytona twin scan WEGO. He's good (and was great on the dyno as well) but caps his limits at 10.8 for static and/or 205ccp.

Would that be Bill G.?

I wish he was still tuning. He was about 40min from me. My buddy rides a cvo 117" with a set of Dons heads and the 259E at 11:1 tuned by bill. It's been rippin hard for a decade!

[838]

Weird twist. I think it's going to be an HP103 s&s at 10.8:1. SE58mm with 6.2 injectors. Ported 110" heads and the rush wrath. I suggested a new 2.5" baffle replacing the 3" that he has now.

[m1marty]

Weird twist. I think it's going to be an HP103 s&s at 10.8:1. SE58mm with 6.2 injectors. Ported 110" heads and the rush wrath. I suggested a new 2.5" baffle replacing the 3" that he has now.

Well...that should be interesting. I would suggest the 2.55 baffle.

[838]

Weird twist. I think it's going to be an HP103 s&s at 10.8:1. SE58mm with 6.2 injectors. Ported 110" heads and the rush wrath. I suggested a new 2.5" baffle replacing the 3" that he has now.

Well...that should be interesting. I would suggest the 2.55 baffle.

I agree.  I'm trying to talk him in to taking it to a dyno operator up north. Selfishly I want to see the numbers 

If not, I'm sure I'll have a chance to ride it, and I have a handful of high power TC baggers to compare it with 👍.

[kd]

Weird twist. I think it's going to be an HP103 s&s at 10.8:1. SE58mm with 6.2 injectors. Ported 110" heads and the rush wrath. I suggested a new 2.5" baffle replacing the 3" that he has now.

Well...that should be interesting. I would suggest the 2.55 baffle.

I agree.  I'm trying to talk him in to taking it to a dyno operator up north. Selfishly I want to see the numbers 

If not, I'm sure I'll have a chance to ride it, and I have a handful of high power TC baggers to compare it with 👍.

It will no doubt be interesting.  I think the reliable "power" part of his stated goals will be missed.     He'll likely be a shifting son of a gun.

What S&S says: 

HP103: For the rider who really wants the most top end horsepower. Easily make 100 horses from a stock engine with S&S intake and exhaust. Ideal for lighter bikes and racing applications where getting the most horsepower from a stock engine is imperative.

"bolt-in cam set designed for stock or mildly modified touring bikes".

"Designed as bolt in cams for engines with 103 and stock 9.7:1 compression up to 10.5:1".



HP103      

      Open Close    Lift   Duration   TDC Lift
INT   20   49   .575      249      .199
EX   45   26   .575      251      .206

[838]

Weird twist. I think it's going to be an HP103 s&s at 10.8:1. SE58mm with 6.2 injectors. Ported 110" heads and the rush wrath. I suggested a new 2.5" baffle replacing the 3" that he has now.

Well...that should be interesting. I would suggest the 2.55 baffle.

I agree.  I'm trying to talk him in to taking it to a dyno operator up north. Selfishly I want to see the numbers 

If not, I'm sure I'll have a chance to ride it, and I have a handful of high power TC baggers to compare it with 👍.

It will no doubt be interesting.  I think the reliable "power" part of his stated goals will be missed.     He'll likely be a shifting son of a gun.

What S&S says: 

HP103: For the rider who really wants the most top end horsepower. Easily make 100 horses from a stock engine with S&S intake and exhaust. Ideal for lighter bikes and racing applications where getting the most horsepower from a stock engine is imperative.

"bolt-in cam set designed for stock or mildly modified touring bikes".

"Designed as bolt in cams for engines with 103 and stock 9.7:1 compression up to 10.5:1".



HP103      

      Open Close    Lift   Duration   TDC Lift
INT   20   49   .575      249      .199
EX   45   26   .575      251      .206

I remain optimistic. Those explanations are relevant for a bolt-in in a stock 96"-103" but this bike will have 28-21 more cubes and a whole point more compression than a stock 103". I know nothing about the profile of this cam, but the those timing events and duration above  look appropriate for a 10.8:1 124" touring build to me... I've only seen one dyno sheet for a built 106", it almost created 120/120 and the curve looked pretty good down low. We'll see... it does have a lot of overlap 🤷‍♂️.

[Don D]

We now know the cubic inches. Sorry if I missed that elsewhere if it is in the thread. The cam does work much differently at 124 VS 103". Remember "Combination" of parts.
A 45 exhaust open has all the look and feel of a hot running 124 with that much compression to me unless it is backed up 4 degrees. There are a lot better cams out there that don't need adjustment. It is not a bad cam or a bad cam manufacturer. just not a good match for the rest of the parts still with guesswork about what was done to the heads. The cam is a bit of a wrong choice, just not optimal. Look at how odd the timing is. The cam is retarded and has -2.5° ground in. It has a bit more overlap than is needed with capable heads and about a 105-106 LSA would work better. You pick the brand. You keep referencing lobe profile, better yet if you have access to a camdoctor and are measuring the seat to seat timing VS duration at .053, otherwise just talking points.