Andrews cam 21 vs 26

[renegade]

I am going to switch over to the roller chain conversion and I have got my choices down to these two cams and was looking for info to help with the final decision.
Bike is a 2002 FLHT and I am a fairly moderate rider...I do on like to grab a hand full of throttle once in a while,     
For the most part, I am happy with the bikes stock performance with the stage 1 kit (Screamin Eagle air cleaner-Vance & Hines Mufflers-Thunder slide kit in the carb), but a little more OOOMF would be nice. So.........advice away.

[Don D]

When the compression is up to about 9.1 corrected in a 95" motor the 26 really is fun. From there moving up the ladder mild headwork and higher ratio roller rockers such as the Ultimas are working well IME. And then of course there are similar short higher lift cams off the shelf that will go there without the added $100 rockers.

[Jeffd]

I have run both in an flhtc and in stage 1 form in 88 and 95 21's will pull harder.  You will get people telling you the 21's run out of steam to fast but I never found that an issue on a bagger.  They would pull past the ton mark no problem.  top gear roll on 50-100 would go to the 21's.

I forgot to take the gearing into account like posted below -L's post.  My experience is with 3.15's

[L-]

My opinion is if the engine is a 88 go with the 21's, unless a light bike like a Dyna with a light rider then the 26's are good also.

In a FLH with 3.15 gearing then do the 21's.  With 3.37 gearing then do the 26's.  Set up some of these and this seems to work real well.

L-

[ClassicRider2002]

CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE TO READ:  95" CONVERSION BY JOE MINTON  AmericaN RIDER
CLICK HERE TO READ:  CORRECTED COMPRESSION
CLICK HERE TO READ:  HYDRAULIC CHAIN TENSIONERS/GEARS/CAMPLATES/ SO MANY CHOICES? ? ?
CLICK HERE TO READ:  WHICH WAY TO GO?

Well should you decide to read the above "THREADS" you will find some excellent information.......or you could simply make the decision based upon what you will read here in this THREAD.  Your decision to go with either the 21 or the 26 is a very sound decision.....and one I am quite happy with myself.  I have run them both all be it that I did run the 26 in my 2002 RKC with a stock OEM set up....and I am currently running the 21"N" cam in a 95" mild set up....

Since I am a "self" proclaimed LOW END TORQUE JUNKIE, my input would be that the 21's would be the way to go.....you can't get any more torque into that bike of yours than a 21 will offer....the 26's will simply move that "feeling" of torque over about 400-500 RPMS to the right, meaning higher RPMS. 

The 21's are perfect for me......

Regards,

"Classic"

[blk-betty]

I too have been towing with the idea of swapping cams when I exhange the tesnionser pads in the next 7-10K miles.

I'm a speed junkie and love acceleration with shifts at or near the rev limiter.  Riding a 06 FLHX solo and weighing in at only 160 lbs myself I can't seem to decide on the 21s or 26s - the motor will stay 88" for now with only carb rejet, K&N filter and Supertrapp 2-1.

As much as I love the speed, we have started touring much more these days and the reality is that I spend 90% of the time from 2000-4500 rpms and with bulk of the 90% in the 2200-3200 range (55-75 mph).

If I rode 2-up it would definately be the 21s but since I ride solo and I'm a lightweight I can't decide between these two. 

I don't want to lose anything down low say from off idle to 2200 with the stock cams.  Do the 26s provide any bump at all over the stock cams (assuming 88" stock untouched 06 heads) up to 2200.  I'm sure the 21s will give a bigger bump than the 26s up to 2200 but just don't want to lose anything over stock to pcik up a few more in the 3000-3500 range that the 26s will give me.   

[Jeffd]

blkbetty a no brainer for what you describe go with the 21's.  You can bump the rev limiter with the 21's. The 26's will not be a step back at any rpm vs stock.  The stock ones have an intake close of 38 and the 26's 35.

with my stage 1 95" 21 cammed bike did 5th gear roll ons against bikes that had very nice dyno charts and either got the jump on them or did very well.  Heck even Aceman's 117 which is like 130/130 only pulled me by about 8 bike lengths in top gear roll on from 50 to 100.  To say the least we were both suprised.  Most of us do not drag race baggers (some do) most of us tool along in 4th and 5th gear at 2500-3000rpms and the 21's as do the 26's do pretty good in this range.

[marc]

I went with the 26's in my 04 FLHTCI and love it...Power and torque is posted in Dyno Runs under marc...Good luck...

[ClassicRider2002]

I'm a speed junkie and love acceleration with shifts at or near the rev limiter.  Riding a 06 FLHX solo and weighing in at only 160 lbs myself I can't seem to decide on the 21s or 26s

blk-betty~

There is a difference between a "speed junkie" and a self proclaimed, "LOW END TORQUE JUNKIE" lol!!!!
The difference is.....when you are a "LOW END TORQUE JUNKIE" you aren't worried about "speed" you are more concerned with how your bike pulls away.....and how "quick" it is.....and if you want some more performance take your bike and go with the 3.37 final gearing.....that will give you even more torque....I ride my 2002 RKC from 4,900 to 12,000 feet and I spend as much time riding it solo vs 2 up.....and I weigh in at just over 170 lbs....so....you won't go wrong with either cam....the 21 or the 26, in fact once you put one in you will feel it's the best regardless.....but I found myself in the similar pattern of confusion.....but then I decided the only way to know for sure was to go as far to the left as possible with the Torque..ie: the 21 and then ride and see.....if I discovered that I missjudged then I would sell the 21 and install the 26, but having had the 26 I was a bit familiar with it already and I might add quite pleased with it as well....as you can read in the above THREAD I posted....so last summer the 3.37 final gearing went in.....and by the way that has to be one of the "smartest" bangs for the buck I have experienced....it's a very very nice modficiaton.....and gives/provides a noticable difference.....for only around $400.00 and for us "SELF PROCLAIMED" LOW END TORQUE JUNKIES" that's well SPENT!!!!! LOL, then the 21's went in this spring......

Regards,

"Classic"

[blk-betty]

Had the 3.37:1 on a 95" HQ build in an 02 FXST and loved the acceleration but since I do a lot more touring with this bike I really don't want to increase the revs at 75 mph.

Leaning real hard toward the 21s, if I was going to 95" it would be 26s but no plans to do any other engine work.  Had my share with the FXST and it was a blast but keeping this one closer to a stock bike.

[frito1]

I've been running 21's in my '01FLHT for 30K or so.  They surely increased my bikes ability to haul around my big ass.  I installed them in the 88" with just carb & exhaust mods preceding them.  It pulled stronger down low and breathed better than stock at speed too.  Later I dropped on a set of stock '06 heads and a 95" flat top setup with .030 gaskets.  It's just better all around.  Pulls like a tractor right off idle.  21's may be the baby cams, but they work.

[PanCityTom]

I put 21s in my 2005 Heritage about 3 weeks ago.   If had known there was going to be this much improvement, I'd have done it 38K miles ago.

[Rock4gzus]

Classic Rider 2002 helped me decide to install the 21's in my 2001 RKC a few months ago and I echo his statement that "The 21's are perfect for me......" 

With a SE 6 Speed and the 3.37 ratio, my engine pulls strong as long as I need it to (4500 rpm).  As stated by Jeffd, the bike has great fifth gear roll on power and doesn't do badly in sixth either - which for an OD transmission in an 88" touring bike says a lot for the cams.  I also shift less which makes lazy touring even more enjoyable. 

Next winter I plan to finish the 95" Conversion Joe Minton build.

[-SeabrookTrickBagger]

On the former HTT, I remember seeing some posts by Old School who apparently found a great combo when using the Andrews baby cams. I seem to recollect he could get around 110 HP with a 95" motor using baby cams and the right combo of heads, exhaust etc..  I always thought it was a hot ticket for a build that was probably super reliable.  I don't recall whether he ever said what the combo of parts was, though!

[hd06myway]

Joe Minton of AMERICAN RIDER always recommends the 21 cam.  In fact he did it again this month in AR mag's article on HDs new chain tensioner upgrade kit.  Minton knows cams, he developed the protoype EV13 cam for Andrews and also the exhaust for Super Trapp.  I quote him, "virtually all of us want and need more usful power from around 2300 rpms to the occational 5,000 rpm range. The Andrews 21 grind is the cam I'd use.  There are some 100 plus HP 95" Twin Cam engines that use this cam or ones similar to it. Don't let the short duration numbers mislead."

I know Andrews cam selection descriptions say they recommend the 26 cam if going to 95" inches, but Minton sounds like that may not be necessary.  The 21 comes on at 1700 rpms and runs right up to 5000 rpms, the 26 comes on at 1800 thru 5200 rpms.  The 21 has a higher lift .498 to the 26's .490.

[ClassicRider2002]

Taken from Joe Minton:

CLICK HERE: ALL ABOUT TORQUE AND HOW TO GET SOME



Regards,

"Classic"

[ClassicRider2002]

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE REFERENCE  PAGES 96-98

Taken from "How To Build A Torque Monster" by Bill Rook, this may be a long read but it's fairly interesting and explains what is going on....:

[ClassicRider2002]

I simply would like to add a few other thoughts:

1)  I am not sure I understand why people in general might be shy about using a Andrews 21 in a 95" build, well ok.....so even Gary (Tech Support Person) @ Andrews Inc. wouldn't recommend it.....lol.....buttttttttttt if you have run the Andrews 21 in a 95" build I bet 99% would do so again.....There simply is not a good reason to shy away from the 21 in a 95" build at all......

2) The definition of a Andrews 21 being a "mouse cam".....as you will soon discover, but.....it's far from having "mouse" results....it has a low lift ie: .498" as compared to other cams.....but the "torque" it creates will definitely put a  on your face....if you continue to read further and follow ALL of the "LINKS" you will learn that you can make this "mouse cam" into a higher lift cam, with Screamin Eagle 1.725" HIGH LIFT ROCKERS, which will provide another .030" of lift bringing the total of this "mouse cam" to a WOPPING .528" lift.....

Hopefully the article or writing from Bill Rook on how to build a torque monster will help in understanding how reversion and the cam intake close angle all "play" together in producing particular results.....

I would also like to say that running the 21 with an otherwise OEM 88" engine will produce nice results but running it with a set of heads and 95" flat top pistons will only advance the life of the cam to the right about another 500 RPMS before it gives way.....Thus if one decides to go with a 95" set up later on there isn't a need to change the cams to something different as you can still build with this cam....and for that matter the 26 as well.  But I tend to lean towards the 21 over the 26 because of the intake close angle being 30 vs 35 with the Andrews 26.

As for the 3.37 final gearing.....there is a lot of speculation on this of course much of it is anecdotal vs emperical......at 75 mph the difference in RPMS is only a +200 increase when using the 3.37 final gearing instead of the 3.15 final gearing.  I am going to attach a "LINK" to another THREAD that discusses the 3.37 final gearing option.....and within the THREAD is comparison for the RPM differences for a twin cam between 3.15 final gearing and 3.37 final gearing.....If you spend some time really reading the above attached LINKS for the THREADS you will see that all of these components work very well together when you begin to look at shifting points and riding enviornments on a 750 lb motorcycle such as a Road King (Classic) or more when on a full dresser.

CLICK HERE

If I had known how much fun it is to ride my RKC now that I have made these modifications I too would have done it 4 years ago when I first purchased the bike.....but I can remember a indy mechanic saying poo hoo on the 21 with a 95" set up.....but as can be noted above, as hd06myway has just written, if nothing else Joe Minton is consistant he has been talking about the 21 for a VERY long time......

Regards,

"Classic"

Self Proclaimed Low End Torque Junkie

[Hawg Holler]

I put 21ns in my Road King when I converted to roller chains about 34,000 miles ago and I have never regretted it. You don't need a dyno to tell you that you've got more low-end umph. Load the old lady and full luggage and it will pull up a hill like a mule headed for the barn. The idle will be a little rougher, but I like the sound. Someone has said that the 21s are the cams Harley would install if they didn't have to meet all the EPA regs. I dropped mine into a bone stock 88 with stock mufflers. No tuning or anything. I might dyno it some day, but wtf? They work.

[aabikrman]

I've got a 2000 carbureted Fatboy I recently did a 96" AMS big bore and Andrews TW 21 conversion on. Of course I seriously considered the TW26 and maybe even the TW37 cams for the conversion but decided simpler was better.  I decided I didn't want to modify the heads in order to get the most bang out of the TW37's, so that left the TW26's or '21's.  After seriously reviewing where I wanted the USEABLE power I decided on the TW21's with the stock heads.  The bike is very easy to live with,,,,,,no detonation, no downshifting necessary in the vast majority of situations (and no I don't lug the motor but the power characteristics would certainly allow it !!),no pain in the ass compression releases, etc., you simply twist the throttle and the bike responds.  The throttle is almost like a rheostat.  Sure I like the top end rush that a higher lift (harder on the valvetrain, and potentially more machining involved), later closing, higher duration cams give you but the relevant question is what part of the powerband  you spend the vast majority of your riding time in ??  Also, the difference in how the bike performs two up is very dramatic.  Remember the dyno chart gives you wot info and doesn't necessarily give you the subjective info a rider really needs for part throttle operation and responsiveness that most people are really after.  Do you really want to have to drop down a gear or two everytime you need the bike to respond ?  BTW, I've also got a 120" inch motor in my other bike that's cammed more aggressively and yes it rips,,,,,it'll pull the arms out of your sockets when you grab the throttle but it's not nearly as easy to live with,,,,,lost efficiency at typical cruising rpms, can you say bigger fuel tank and or more fuel stops, detonation if you're "not on the cam", compression releases,  less tolerance for cold/hot weather starting (not a big problem but one you need to be aware of), etc. 

It all boils down to riding style and where you want the power.  I am certainly not shy in recommending the TW21, it amplifys the characteristics of the v-twin design and makes the bike run really well with a minimum of extra expense and hassle.  There is more power throughout the rpm range with a noticeably harder mid range punch.   Bolt it in and enjoy,,,,,,no expensive dyno tuning and laundry list of additional parts needed to work well with the cam.  On paper the TW26's look like they would give you the same charecteristics as the 21's just a little later in the rpm range but I suspect that's a very good bolt in cam as well that's not gonna need a bunch of tuning and additional parts to make run well.    Also, I suspect either of these cams will also respond very well to future, mild head improvements without destroying the characteristics of the cams powerband.  Good luck in your decision, ride safe !!

[Hawg Holler]

Well stated, aabikrman. Not everybody wants to spend their time and money on endless and complicated upgrades. Hopping up motors is fun for those who like it and it can be a satisfying and exciting pursuit. But most people just wanna ride. The mild cams do more bang for the buck and time than any other performance improvement.

[iclick]

I am going to switch over to the roller chain conversion and I have got my choices down to these two cams and was looking for info to help with the final decision.
Bike is a 2002 FLHT and I am a fairly moderate rider...I do on like to grab a hand full of throttle once in a while,     
For the most part, I am happy with the bikes stock performance with the stage 1 kit (Screamin Eagle air cleaner-Vance & Hines Mufflers-Thunder slide kit in the carb), but a little more OOOMF would be nice. So.........advice away.

It depends on where you want the oomph to begin and end.  The TW21 will come in and depart sooner.  I just installed SE255's (CVO) in my stock TC96 with Fuel Moto Power Package and the effect is exactly what I expected and hoped for, which is to move my TQ curve up with no shift to the right at the expense of low-end TQ.  This is a high-TQ cam that increases the low-end and midrange with a HP peak at about 5k RPM.  It will not make you Mr. Popular at the pool hall for highest HP numbers, but is a very practical cam set for heavy baggers with tall gearing whose owners rarely exceed 4K RPM.  That's me and the SE255's work very well for this purpose.

[wurk_truk]

OK.   I am convinced that I am simply a dumazz.

But...  I installed a set of 21s in 09 SG this week.   New lifters.  New adj SE tapered pushrods.  I ended up doing this, because I am trying to make the top end quieter.  It is quite annoying!  WAY louder than the 08 Heritage I had.

I installed the pushrods on the stock set up.  No help.

After installing the 21s, same noise!  It's going to drive me nuts!!!

I installed the pushrods four turns right from the get go.  Today, I just changed my oil and filter (that I installed 2 days ago) and put in straight weight 50.  No help.

My crank has .0035 run out and could see a bit of scoring on crank and bronze bearing.   When I re-installed the pushrods (for the cam change), I blew them out and the intakes both had 'milky' oil.  This was NOT condensation either.  Looks to be aeration.   Today, when changing semi cold oil, the oil had like a small 'head' on it like beer.  Not much, but 3" diameter.  With all the cam stuff out, when I spun the crank..  I could SEE oil on the flywheels.  Like the flywheels 'dipped' into oil.   So, I was hoping that by doing the whole cam chest, fixing a possible 'sumping' issue,  my valve train would quiet down some.   I DO have way less engine vibration above 2k rpms, but noise is the SAME!!!

I used BOTH turning the wheel AND the tapered pins to line up the oil pump.  I installed a .130 thrust washer for new cams (i also changed out the INAs for Torringtons).

This is getting to be a PITA.

But...  I like the 21s!   I was hoping to be able to see more improvement with "butt dyno" under 2500 rpms, but    Now, at 3K rpms!!!  I can really feel a difference!

Also, at idle...the bike has THE sound like it has a bit of a cam, and the exhaust is a bit louder.   I have a TTS, and after a couple v-tunes, it was EASY to see the VE changes in the mid range.

Right before the cam swap...  I logged a 48 MPG run.  AFTER the cam change..., almost same run was 45.5 MPG.  VERY happy with that, too!

I'm likin on my 21s!

[twincamzz]

.0035 run out on a 2009 SG ? WOW. How many miles on that motor ?

[Sonny S.]

.0035 run out on a 2009 SG ? WOW. How many miles on that motor ?

Looks like he got one of the good ones