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   

[metaliser]

I'll have to say this, I installed a set of 26 cams in a freinds bike and it's a heritage, 03 model 88" engine, rejetted carb and V&H's longshots, I have a 95" 06 efi Electraglide standard, flatops and WFOLarrys heads, hq 0034 cams, we did a roll on at about 35 mph to about 60 mph and I barley pulled him any, now I would have pulled him more at higher rpm's but we weren't there, the 26's are a awesome cam, if I had it to do over they would be in my engine. 

[wurk_truk]

9000 miles on that engine.  Bought it Halloween last year.

Yep... it's my understanding that this IS one of the good ones!   Few years back... wasn't .003 the UPPER limit from MOCO on crank run out?

Saving all pennies for Hobanized crank.

[Sonny S.]

>>>the 26's are a awesome cam, if I had it to do over they would be in my engine.  <<<

never to late 

I've run 26's in a 95", I've installed them in 88's and in 96's and rode both.
For a good all around bolt in that gives both low end and upper rpm performance there is non better.....IMHO

[Jeffd]

I'll have to say this, I installed a set of 26 cams in a freinds bike and it's a heritage, 03 model 88" engine, rejetted carb and V&H's longshots, I have a 95" 06 efi Electraglide standard, flatops and WFOLarrys heads, hq 0034 cams, we did a roll on at about 35 mph to about 60 mph and I barley pulled him any, now I would have pulled him more at higher rpm's but we weren't there, the 26's are a awesome cam, if I had it to do over they would be in my engine. 

every 0034 dyno graph I have seen has a dip in it.  They always make good numbers and albeit I have not seen that many but the ones I have seen have had a big dip till 3000-3500rpm

[ClassicRider2002]

I've run 26's in a 95", I've installed them in 88's and in 96's and rode both.
For a good all around bolt in that gives both low end and upper rpm performance there is non better.....IMHO

Sonny~

There is "non" better..........? ? ?

There is one better.....it's the 21....on a bagger of course.

A 95" set up is the meat, a set of modified heads are the potatoes (not absolutley needed but will extend the entire band width making a nice side dish), a set of 2-1 pipes is your beverage of choice to keep you from choking, the 21 is the cake, and the 3.37 final gearing is the icing.......

gawd I am hungry!!!!  now let's talk bacon and eggs.....lol

Regards,

"Classic"

[Sonny S.]

>>>There is "non" better..........? ? ?

There is one better.....it's the 21....on a bagger of course.<<<

Not if you still wanna play a little at higher rpm's. Different strokes for different folks
But as I said earlier.... IMHO.

[Don D]

I too like the 26. Versatile. Works in a stock 88 and much better in a 95" with head work and added compression. Sure wish Andrews would increase the lift.

[softailroy]

I have to chime in with a good question and Topic that seems to be overlooked more often than not.
                  With just bolting in a cam, an air cleaner, and any pipe.........what are you all doing for tuners, or downloads. Are you all just zapping it with a Harley download, or are you all using a pak/tuner of some sort. The majority of our customers just do not understand, and are convinced the download is enough. What say here ?

[Sonny S.]

>>>The majority of our customers just do not understand, and are convinced the download is enough. What say here ? <<<

They are convinced of that because the dealers told them that for way to long.
Now that the dealers have more options on EFI controllers to push they are having a hard time convincing these people that they were really lying before.....just saying

[Don D]

Well this is a can of worms really loaded with pasion and opinions but I will take a stab
If you change the airflow of the motor significantly a custom tune is the best solution. My preference is staying with the stock ECU and useing TTS or SERT.
Canned maps, factory downloads, and the like are nothing more than a good start and may save a little time getting to the final tune. Most tuners have starter maps that are closer they use, a trick of the trade. Personally not much of a fan of TFI type devices, or Terry products. or ECU piggy back devices. Many people use other solutions and like them it's a matter of choice. Many use factory downloads and say their tune is perfect, until they actually have a quality tune and the ride is smoother, mileage increased and power up.

[bfancy]

I recently went with the new hydraulic cam tensioner conversion kit from Herko on my 88" 2005 Ultra. I chose the Andrews 21N cams and I am very pleased with the performance gains. I have stage 1 ECM flash, SE high flow air filter, and V&H classic slipon mufflers. For fuel management I went with the V&H Fuelpak. It all works very well together.
I really didn't find the 21's to run out of steam at higher rpm's as some have suggested.

[softailroy]

I agree Sonny,
                 Working at one can be a challenge on this topic. Times change, and we need to change with them. The big issue I think is communication with the customer, the consumer, and the parts department. It is harder and harder to tune these bikes with performance work without a Dyno.........damn near impossible from what I see, especially on any build that is fairly aggressive.
                  I am all for and about educating folks to get them what they want, not something they do not need. It is not rocket science, the info is all over the web, and they are reading it.I know little about it all myself, but know enough to see it all changing.And from what little experience I have done with my own builds, tuning is so much more vital then ever before.

[PoorUB]

With just bolting in a cam, an air cleaner, and any pipe.........what are you all doing for tuners, or downloads.

Power Commander and a dyno tune on my '05 Ultra, Andrews 26 cams, 95", plus a little more.

[ClassicRider2002]

I really didn't find the 21's to run out of steam at higher rpm's as some have suggested.

bfancy~~~

AMEN!, 

The 21's have been historically  stated as running out of "steam" but you know what my set up with the 21 is pulling to 5200 RPMS.....that doesn't seem to be running out of steam to me.....also....I haven't dynoed it yet.....so I will see if that is the case....but when I look at my tac and I am going down the road.....it's still climbing.....since my REV limiter is set at stock at what I believe is 5450 (isn't that stock?).......I would never be doing much above that anyway.....and generally I am not finding myself pulling it in any gear above 4800 RPMS anyway.....

I am not trying to create a "battle" here lol at all.....but merely wanting to voice my experience with the cam at 5,000 - 12,000 feet.....heck I am only running this bike at oem compression out of the box at my elevation compared to all of you down below at SEA LEVEL...lol....and this bike pulls dramatically....lol shall I say  "zip, zip, zip" quick.....with no issues.....

I would rather see the 26 become someone choice because it changes the power band for their riding style vs because the 21 runs out of "steam" which simply isn't the case....

This whole debate about it running out of steam just isn't so.....there is proof that it won't......but if one wants to run their bike to 6000 rpms perhaps another cam is better suited.....and I am not always running my bike to 4800 RPMS either.....but I know I can if I desire and still have pull......but like I said the proof for my build will come from a dyno.....which hasn't been done....but real life experience on mountain roads have shown me that no loss of power with the cam is experienced in the upper area....

Regards,

"Classic"

[Jeffd]

back when I first posted a dyno of the 21 on my bike in 05 on the original site one of the dyno operators said that if there were no dyno graphs the 21's would be the popular graphs as it was better to have seat of the pants pull from 2000-4000 then from 4000-6000 or something like that.  I would bet that 90% are not riding the rpm zone that there bigger cam bikes shine.  I realize there are those that get the most out of thier builds but the majority never see that rpm zone.

[Sonny S.]

>>>I would rather see the 26 become someone choice because it changes the power band for their riding style vs because the 21 runs out of "steam" which simply isn't the case....<<<

Exactly !!
Some are willing to give up a lil bit on the bottom to gain a lil bit on the top......
Ain't it great we have choices ?

[hd06myway]

According to Andrews' website, the 21 cam pulls from 1700 RPMs up to 4800 RPMS.  That's an excellent range of power and torque. How many people "ride" anywhere near 5000 RPMS?  You're going to hit it shifting, but actual steady riding time at that RPM level is few and far between.  The 26 cam is another excellent choice that pulls form 1800 RPMS to 5200 RPMs.  Alot of big horsepower cams don't come on before 3000 RPMs, what good is that?  The fun of riding is taking off out of the hole and feeling that seat of pants torque pull!  Andrews recommends the 21 cam is heavy bikes (ala FLHs) and the 26 cam in lighter bikes, both making great low to mid range power.  You win with either choice IMO.

[stro1965]

FWIW, when I called Andrews this winter prior to choosing a cam, they recommended a 26 over a 21 for my 96" touring bike.  Could have just been the opinion of the guy that answered the phone that day though.

[apendejo]

A lot of discussion about low end torque. Sounds to me like a lot of people never get out of the parking lot.
For those folks that rarely see 4k rpm, how do you keep from getting run over when you merge onto the freeway?
AP

[KumaRide]

A lot of discussion about low end torque. Sounds to me like a lot of people never get out of the parking lot.

For those folks that rarely see 4k rpm, how do you keep from getting run over when you merge onto the freeway?
AP

Thats easy  - we do it in 5th gear!   

[PoorUB]

A lot of discussion about low end torque. Sounds to me like a lot of people never get out of the parking lot.
For those folks that rarely see 4k rpm, how do you keep from getting run over when you merge onto the freeway?
AP

I rode 200 miles today, never saw 4,000 RPM. Like the other post, I use 5th on the interstate! With the Andrews 26 cams and the 95" who needs 4,000 RPM?

[Jeffd]

here is the funny thing for some reason people think that these baby cams hit the rev limiter at 4000 rpms or something.  They will bump of the stock or even 6000 rev limiters just fine when asked to.  I had my bagger's speedo buried and tach at 5200 rpms in 5th gear 3.15's.  

[Don D]

It is so common to overcam.
This is done in all motorsports. The late model six speed bikes need torque more than ever and trying to build a top end flier is not usually fruitful. Take a look in the dynos at Diesel's 117" with that puny 240° high lift cam. That bike is an ass kicker.
For a 95" motor using a cam with close to stock intake close closer LSA and more duration (lift under the curve) and TDC lift is a real winner with the later models (IE TW26) kick in some mild headwork and the torque band is extended even further while retaining better than stock low speed torque assuming a good tune and pipe.
BTW this isn't anything new we have been doing this since the cams first came out such as the TW37 and the TW26 and before that with the EV27 13 and 3 and mild Cranes

[xxxflhrci]

26G's and 3:37 gearing in an 88" here.  I certainly like the way it pulls even riding two-up with 75+lbs of luggage.

[apendejo]

A lot of discussion about low end torque. Sounds to me like a lot of people never get out of the parking lot.
For those folks that rarely see 4k rpm, how do you keep from getting run over when you merge onto the freeway?
AP

I rode 200 miles today, never saw 4,000 RPM. Like the other post, I use 5th on the interstate! With the Andrews 26 cams and the 95" who needs 4,000 RPM?

Me. I have 26g's in my 95" Ultra. Living in SoCal it is really difficult to putt around and sniff the flowers. When merging into traffic here you better be moving with a purpose. My motor will spin up to rev limiter with ease, and I can guarantee that those 26g's start coming on pretty good at around 4k rpm.
I use 5th gear when cruising the interstate, but will downshift when passing a string of trucks, the motor runs just as happy at 4k as at 3k and will continue to accelerate at a much quicker pace.
AP

[eaton.mike]

I have just over 500 miles my new 95" with Andrews 26's ... and I too live in So Cal. AP is right... you need to ride aggressively here.  I routinely ride between 80-90mph on the highway, and this set up (along with head work and 9.6:1 compression) runs strong. Yesterday I took the bike up to 120 with no problem... pulled hard all the way. This cam will NOT peter out on you above 4500 rpm.

[wurk_truk]

09 SG here.   In 6th at 70 mph, I cruise at around 2600 rpm.  That's right below where 21s seem to kick some ass.   Works very well.  What REALLY works, is downshift to 5th and one is right on top of the fat part of the 21s and bike runs totally different than stock.    I didn't notice the bike fallin on its face at 4500 either.  Just like 2500 isn't best rpm for cam, neither is 4500.  But, bike runs really decent at both rpm levels. 

In Ohio, anything 20 over (85) can be considered reckless operation and THAT ticket is BIG trouble.  So, for me... 75-80 is tops, and I set the cruise at 72 all the time.

A set of these baby Andrews is THE ticket for totally stock bike, IMHO.  Well... I am happy with mine for sure.

[boooby1744]

I run a 95"/21 combo on an fxd.buddy recommended an s&s 510.he  has seen (and ridden) the light

[grandpa tom]

A lot of discussion about low end torque. Sounds to me like a lot of people never get out of the parking lot.
For those folks that rarely see 4k rpm, how do you keep from getting run over when you merge onto the freeway?
AP

on my 07 FLSTC 4k is:    32, in 1st;  46 in 2nd;  61, in 3rd;  75 in 4th;  90 in 5th;  105 in 6th: and right in the peak tq.

this is my base run dyno, then with stage 1 and andrews 26h I put in red line because dyno's where done a 2 different places.

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[grandpa tom]

FWIW, when I called Andrews this winter prior to choosing a cam, they recommended a 26 over a 21 for my 96" touring bike.  Could have just been the opinion of the guy that answered the phone that day though.

+1 on the techs choice on the 96in motor.
Also I am trying to post sheet of just after cam install. to show the red line I put in the above post is real...

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[Bagger]

I built my bagger to suit my riding style - long distance rides doing fast 10-14 hour days.  Solo or with the wife and gear great mountain riding bike, winding back country roads and effortlessly cruises the interstate 75-100 mph.  Engine pulls smoothly from 50 mph in 5th gear (no lugging).  Accelerates very quickly and I have pegged the needle several times, the engine doesn't run out of breath.  

With 95 ft lbs TQ at 1700 rpms, throttle response is immediate and smooth. 
No compression releases, no hot start / kickbacks, doesn't detonate, and don't have to retard in summer and lose performance.

http://harleytechtalk.net/htt/index.php?topic=942.0
2002 Road King (Delphi EFI)
Axtell 3.932" Cylinders
JE Flat Top Pistons
Baisley Reworked Stock Heads (84cc)
(9.16:1 Corrected CR)
0.030" Head Gasket
JM20G cam (Intake close 31)
Horsepower Inc 48mm TB
S&S Single Tuned Bored Intake
RB Racing LSR 2-1
3.37 final gear ratio
Dyno Jet PCIII USB

[Bagger]

I have posted this several times, originally posted by AMS back around 2002.

Which cam TW21 or TW26 - the big difference (and the 64 million dollar question) is where you want the peak HP/torque in the rpm range?

For heavier dressers or, uh...  er...uh, heavier riders, or riding two-up or for those of us who just like to chug along and then go like wild without a lot of shifting, a cam like the TW21 is best.  It kicks in at 1800 +/- and pulls thru 5000 with stock heads, and ported heads will get you another 500 or so.  The TW21 has a "right-off-idle" response.  Since it has a little higher lift than the TW26, it can still stretch out thru the high speeds.  Yet, it closes the intake valve early enough to "get on cam" quickly, making it ideal for heavy scooters / big guys/ riding 2-up.  It will have enough torque to pull a freight train, without being so radical that you lose reliability of the long haul.  If you are a "lazy" rider who likes to look at the scenery instead of the road, and does not always shift aggressively, or if you are a big guy or ride two-up, its best to make the max torque /HP in the lower revs...1500 to 3500.  Therefore, you would want a cam that closes the intake valve as close to 30 deg ABDC this will give your engine a broad torque curve - the TW21 does this.  Whereas the TW21 closes its intake valve at 30 deg ABDC, and the 26 closes at 35... the 21 will allow the engine to develop more compression than the 26, especially at low to mid rpms. and more compression = more Mean Piston pressure on the piston = more TQ (at those rpms).  The rpm range for best usable TQ is 1800-4000 with the 21 & 2000-4500 on the 26. They both make the same HP & TQ, but at different rpms/mph and both cams will continue to build power past 5000 rpm).

For normal light rider solo riding, and with light passenger weight, and if you like to shift and stay on the throttle and want a little more giddy-up - then go with the TW26.  With the big bores and ported heads, the bike can use the extra flow the TW26 gives.  It gets "on the cam" about 200 rpm later than the TW21, but lets the engine breath easier at hi-speed touring revs.  Its lower lift with a few degrees more duration is easy on the valve train, runs cooler at high revs and still pulls like a freight train.  The TW26 offers a wide power/torque band, it kicks in strong at 2500 and pulls all the way to 5500.  You do not have to down shift to pass, even at 75, just twist the throttle and zoom on past.

So IMO, either is a good choice for an FL series scooter.  These are mild set ups, but it will put the torque in the rpm range most of us actually use.  Either way, TW21 or TW26 cams have such strong and wide hp/torque curves, especially near the 3000-rpm range that they still cause uncontrollable ear-to-ear-"Potty mouth"-eating-grins.

The TW21 has .008" more lift than the TW26, but .012" less than the TW37. This is less strain on the valve train, makes your motor last longer, yet still adds some more "get up and go".  The TW21's intake valve closes at 30 ABDC, instead of TW26's 35, and TW37's 38.  What this means is the TW21 has 150 crank degrees of piston movement to compress the air/fuel mix, giving a higher dynamic compression ratio (CR) and makes a lot of TQ at low rpms. The TW26 has 145 crank deg for a slightly less dynamic CR, makes a lot of TQ at a slightly higher rpm, but within 200 rpm or so of the 21.  And the TW37 only has 142 crank deg of piston movement to use for compressing the A/F mix, resulting in an even lower dynamic CR, making its best TQ about 500 rpm higher than the TW21. In an "ideal" engine the intake valve would slam shut at BDC. The piston would then compress the air/fuel mixture thru all 180 degrees of crank rotation to TDC. The dynamic CR would equal the calculated CR.  To get power and TQ from the TW37 cam at LOW rpms, you must raise the static CR near or over the threshold of detonation.

If your  riding style is 2000 - 4500 rpm, flower sniffing', touring, passing a truck on a hill at 70, two-up, riding, not hi-rev, tire spinning, solo, tavern to tavern, or red light to red light hot-roddin' then go with the TW21 or TW26.

[MULESKINNER]

07 Street Glide, 26H cams with a simple Cobra tuner. K&N stock replacement A/C and 110" CVO 4" mufflers. Pulls like a freight train compared to stock cams all the way to the rev limiter. NO LOSS of low end torque over the stock cams. Plus,,,I can't get my oil temps to go over 200 degrees with the 26 cams now. 230 to 240 on 100 degree days was the norm before the cam change. I firmly believe the stock negative overlap smog cams on the 07's is the real cause of the heat complaints.

[Bagger]

If money's not an issue, IMHO, a good performance tweak for the TW21 is adding a 1.7 ratio rocker on the intake to increase the lift from .498 to .520 . Stock OEM rockers can be sent to Baisley Performance for the 1.7 roller conversion.  Several vendors sell 1.7 ratio rockers.

Team Latus Harley Davidson
http://www.harley-davidson-forum.net/showthread.php?p=51908

[Eddie Haskell]

 Lot of good information in this thread, sounds like "anything but stock" is the right answer. I myself came here looking for info on the 21H for my 07 FLHT, I have a Arlen Ness AC, Slip-on V&H Ovals and a TMAT (dyno tuned) and it runs great but it's just too damn hot! I was reading through this and kept wondering if someone would mention the heat factor, glad MULESKINNER brought it up, not sure what my oil temps are but when it's hot out I'd bet 250 easy!

[RoadKingRon]

So do you run the stock head gasket with the Andrews 21 or the .030 cometic.....just thinking the .030 may raise the static compression too much or cause detonation. Whats your experience on this?

[Jeffd]

with a .030 my 21's ran very well but would get an occasional hot start kick back.  Not all the time but once and a while.  I was told by Tom at AMS that he recommends the .040 with the 21's.  I ran the 21's with stock hg and with the .030's and could not tell seat of the pants diff.

[RoadKingRon]

I think I am going with the 21's on my 01 RK....they probably will work fine with the MM EFI...also, probably keep the oe pushrods too!

[DavePard]

 This winter I took my stock TC88 '04 Road King installing 95BB SE flat-tops, checked cc volumes 86cc, cleaned-up stock heads, .030 Cometic HG and installed 21N rolloer conversion cams from Herco supplied kit.

  The Low end power was increased right off idle. That was something I didn't suit my riding style because I don't utilize the new found power at those low RPM's. The motor  felt harsh at low engine speed. I enjoy a softer  engine at idle and just above without the added pounding throughout the machine.

Then bought and installed the Andrews 26N cams.  The 26 cams are more to my liking. the engine is softer at low RPM's when just idling around. There is still plenty of low end power for this heavy bike with over 400 lbs on board  and it still has added oomph for getting away from stops and climbing hills without shifting.  The starter works  a little easier too.

Now with the stock 3.15 gearing the increased cylinder pressure is felt and heard at around 60 MPH, but that is the RPM range where I prefer using the greater amount of increased power. For my uses touring mostly mountain roads I'm liking the 26 cams with this combination of parts. The immediate power is increased and continues to build as RPM increases untill I want to shift.

[Wingnut]

Just wondering.  Has anyone tried the 21 with a 2* key to push the whole tq. package up the chart a few rpms, somewhere between the 21 and the 26, keeping the slightly higher lift of the 21?

[boooby1744]

How about a 21 in a 103...................

[HD/Wrench]

the 21 in a 103 would be like the 255 in general terms. As for increasing the rocker arm ratio on the intake with the 26 , just tuned one it did not do anthing better than stock arms. bike ran well made great power no issues.

[Dennis Murawski]

I've got a '07 and spend a lot of time in 6th gear.  I ride mostly one-up, but when I'm heading for a rally I carry a fair amount to camping gear.  Would the 6th gear be a consideration when choosing between the 21 and 26?  Thanks

[HD/Wrench]

I dont think it so much as what gear but more so what RPM range you are riding mainly. The 08 is geared taller than the 09 Sooooo taking that into account i would look to select a cam that is going to build the most tq you can have and in the lowest rpm range. The 21 would work just fine.

[Dennis Murawski]

Are the '07s and '08s geared the same?  Thanks.

[stro1965]

Are the '07s and '08s geared the same?  Thanks.

Yes

[NITROMAN2004]

DAVEPARD,can you please elaborate what you mean by the motor felt harsh with the 21.

[harleytoprock]

I think I know what he's feeling. The bike kinda idles with a heavy pounding feeling. Your feeling like each cylinder is hitting real hard. It mellows out as the rpm goes up and your moving faster. Lets see what he says.

[Hawg Holler]

DAVEPARD,can you please elaborate what you mean by the motor felt harsh with the 21.

I installed the 21s in my Road King many miles ago. The idle is a little rougher than stock due to the increased cranking pressure the 21s develop. But the better low end performance is worth it. I actually like the idle. Has a nice lope to it. The exhaust note will also change slightly with a little more punch to it. As harleytoprock says, it smooths out as rpms increase.

[DavePard]

In response to Nitroman2004. What harleytoprock  said a couple of posts back.
"The bike kinda idles with a heavy pounding feeling. Your feeling like each cylinder is hitting real hard. It mellows out as the rpm goes up and your moving faster."

The 26's are quieter and smoother, at least below 2,000 RPM, than the 21's. Neither of these cams seem to lope much, to my ear.

  I have about 2,500 miles on the 26's now. I took out the 21's after 350 miles and installed the 26's because when going slow I don't want that level of  pounding. How to quantify that? I'm open to suggestions.

So where do you want the power to be and how smooth do you like it and where? Choose for yourself.

  With the parts I chose (shown a few posts back), compared to stock 88, the 26 has an increase in power just above idle (probably at idle too) and more above 2,000 RPM. When tuning I've taken off in second gear easily, though accidentally. Very-very rarely do I use all the power the engine is capable of making below 2,000 RPM and I like the power to build at about the rate of the 26's. The 21's do seem to have more compression braking though.

  I chose the cam that suits me... only took two tries. Iam trying to describe what I have found with one combination of parts.  I'm trying just to inform, not to tell anybody what they want for themselves. Then I hope that you enjoy your motor.

[Bagger]

Cam Specs TW21 & TW26

Andrews TW21
10 - Intake Open
30 - Intake Close
40 - Exhasut Open
08 - Exhaust Close
220 - Intake Duration
228 - Exhaust Duration
18 - Overlap
100 - Intake Lobe Center
106 - Exhaust Lobe Center
103 - Lobe Separation Angle
0.498 - Intake Lift
0.498 - Exhaust Lift
0.134 - Intake Lift TDC
0.121 - Exhaust Lift TDC

Andrews TW26

11 - Intake Open
35 - Intake Close
41 - Exhasut Open
09 - Exhaust Close
226 - Intake Duration
230 - Exhaust Duration
20 - Overlap
102 - Intake Lobe Center
106 - Exhaust Lobe Center
104 - Lobe Separation Angle
0.490 - Intake Lift
0.490 - Exhaust Lift
0.129 - Intake Lift TDC
0.112 - Exhaust Lift TDC

[Dennis Murawski]

... I don't want that level of pounding.

Would that mean that the valve train would have a shorter lifespan with the 21 as compared to the 26?  Is the lobe ramp design different between the 21 and the 26?

I had a '93 FLHS and put a V-Thunder EVL 3010 in it.  I loved that cam and got over 100,000 miles on it.  I'd love to find the equivalent cam for a '07 FLHT.

[Bagger]

Choosing a cam: http://forums.delphiforums.com/Live2Ride/messages?msg=22584.1

Lobe Separation Angle: Lobe separation is the angle between the center bump of the intake lobe and its counterpart on the exhaust lobe. Think of it like the two points on a pair of scissors relative to the hinge in the middle. If the scissors are nearly closed, you can cut well as long as what you are cutting is thin. To cut thick stuff, you open wider, but have less leverage, so it can be harder to get the done. The same principle applies with separation on cam lobes. Typically, lobe separation for street cams runs between 97 and 108 (camshaft) degrees. The relationship between intake and exhaust is ground in the cam and can’t be altered by advancing or retarding the overall cam timing.

As a guideline, if the rest of the numbers are comparable, a cam with a lobe that is less separate, i.e an LSA of 98-103 degrees will offer a broader spread of power and tend to produce power at the low-mid rpm range, while wide lobes make for a more “cammy” cam, coming on harder and later in the game.

LSA and Lift affect the "sound" and idle quality. Generally, smaller lobe separation angles cause an engine to produce more midrange torque and high rpm power, and be more responsive, while larger lobe separation angles result in broader torque, improved idle characteristics, and more peak horsepower.

A “tight” lobe separation angle of 103 degrees or less creates more valve overlap, which helps create that lumpy idle characteristic of big camshafts. Put simply, we can say that a tight LSA cam produces a power curve that is, for want of a better description, more "punchy." At low rpm when off the cam, it runs rougher, and it comes on the cam with more of a "bang."

Narrow LSAs tend to increase midrange torque and result in faster revving engines. Generally, smaller lobe separation angles cause an engine to produce more midrange torque and high rpm power, and be more responsive. Typically, however, small lobe center numbers (more overlap) equates to more midrange power at the expense of top-end power. Probably the most significant factor to the engine tuner though is a tight LSA’s intolerance of exhaust system backpressure. Remember, during the overlap period both valves are open. If there’s any exhaust backpressure or if the exhaust port velocities are too low it will encourage exhaust reversion. A cam with 102 degrees of lobe separation angle will have more overlap and a rougher idle than one with 108 degrees, but it'll usually make more midrange power. A tighter lobe has more overlap. A tighter centerline starts torque curve sooner, and doesn't give a wide powerband.

For higher low/midrange power, a cam with shorter duration, higher lift, and a narrower LSA is commonly prescribed.

A wider lobe doesn't start the torque curve sooner, but it continues to make torque longer and has a broader powerband. Wide LSAs result in wider power bands and more peak torque at higher RPM’s, at the price of somewhat lazier initial response. Larger LSAs result in broader torque, improved idle characteristics, and more peak horsepower. An engine with a wide LSA has higher vacuum and a smoother idle. Big numbers (less overlap) will give more top end, sacrificing midrange. A cam on wide centerlines produces a wider power band. It will idle smoother and produce better vacuum, but the price paid is a reduction in output throughout the working rpm range.

As the spread between the lobes tightens, the lobe-separation number gets smaller and overlap increases since the centerlines of the two lobes are coming closer together. A larger lobe separation angle means less overlap because the lobe centerlines are moving farther apart.

For a given engine displacement, a wide LSA will help top end power if there is enough duration to support the wide LSA. A wide LSA combined with insufficient duration may not result in improved top end power.

Narrow LSA (98-103)
Moves Torque to Lower RPM
Increase midrange Torque
Increases Maximum Torque
Faster revving engine and more responsive
Narrow Power band
Builds Higher Cylinder Pressure
Increased Chance of Engine Knock
Increased Cranking Compression
Increased Effective Compression
Idle Vacuum is Reduced
Idle Quality Suffers (lumpy idle characteristic)
Open Valve-Overlap Increases
Closed Valve-Overlap Increases
Decreases Piston-to-Valve Clearance

Wide LSA (104-108)
Raise Torque to Higher RPM
Reduces Maximum Torque
Broadens Power Band
Lazier initial response
More peak Horsepower
Reduce Maximum Cylinder Pressure
Decrease Chance of Engine Knock
Decrease Cranking Compression
Decrease Effective Compression
Idle Vacuum is Increased
Idle Quality Improves
Open Valve-Overlap Decreases
Closed Valve-Overlap Decreases
Increases Piston-to-Valve Clearance

[Bagger]

... I don't want that level of pounding.

Would that mean that the valve train would have a shorter lifespan with the 21 as compared to the 26?  Is the lobe ramp design different between the 21 and the 26?

I had a '93 FLHS and put a V-Thunder EVL 3010 in it.  I loved that cam and got over 100,000 miles on it.  I'd love to find the equivalent cam for a '07 FLHT.

I highly doubt the TW21/TW26 cam will wear out the valve train measureably quicker than one or the other - both cams are on the mild scale of cam grinds.  Kleetus on this forum has over 130,000 miles on the TW26G cam in a 95".

As of this hour 2209 riders have viewed this thread - how many of those even have 40,000 - 50,000 miles on their bikes - lol.

[OFBagger]

I have 117K on a pair of SE203's in a 95" 02 bagger with 154K total on the clock.
What difference would I see with the TW21's, I am ready to replace my second set of tensioners and am considering switching to the hydraulic tensioner package from Herko.

OFB

[Bagger]

I have 117K on a pair of SE203's in a 95" 02 bagger with 154K total on the clock.

What difference would I see with the TW21's, I am ready to replace my second set of tensioners and am considering switching to the hydraulic tensioner package from Herko.

OFB

154K 

With 117K riding with SE203s, why spend uneccessary $$$, sounds like the SE203s have worked for you 

Spend a little time reading this thread to help understand cam timing.  http://forums.delphiforums.com/Live2Ride/messages?msg=22584.1
Also you'll find your answer back on page 1 of this thread.

SE203

18 - Intake Open
36 - Intake Close
42 - Exhasut Open
17 - Exhaust Close
234 - Intake Duration
239 - Exhaust Duration
35 - Overlap
99 - Intake Lobe Center
103 - Exhaust Lobe Center
100 - Lobe Separation Angle
0.510 - Intake Lift
0.510 - Exhaust Lift
0.178 - Intake Lift TDC
0.152 - Exhaust Lift TDC

[OFBagger]

Bagger,  you're right, save the $$ and just replace the pads n keep on ridin
Always get excited reading all the talk bout the neck snappin performance people are getting with some of the basic bolt in/on parts now days, 97tq n 81hp is probably enough

thanks for the link

OFB

[frito1]

As of this hour 2209 riders have viewed this thread - how many of those even have 40,000 - 50,000 miles on their bikes - lol.

At least 1    35K of it with those terribly inefficient 21 cams.

[PoorUB]

As of this hour 2209 riders have viewed this thread - how many of those even have 40,000 - 50,000 miles on their bikes - lol.

Good point, I have 45,000 miles on a '05 Ultra.
There is the larger percentage of riders that think 3,000-5,000 miles a year is allot! It sure would be interesting to know how many miles are put on an average motorcycle. My bet the average is closer to zero, than 5,000 miles per year!

[john-in-pa]

I have 38,000 on my '06 Ultra. Still original cams & tensioners. But, the more I read here, the more concerned I get.

[ClassicRider2002]

I have 38,000 on my '06 Ultra. Still original cams & tensioners. But, the more I read here, the more concerned I get.

john-in-pa~~

There is no "absolute" guideline for checking your tensioner shoes/pads for replacement.....as I have read here there are always suggestions from 20,000 to 30,000 miles for replacement.....if you take it to a shop to replace they will charge you between $400-$500 JUST to change the tensioners.....heck those pads are pretty expensiive.....it takes a couple of helpful tools to assist with the replacement as well. 

With the Hydraulic Chain Tensioner Set Up it's a very very simple procedure to install as well as replacement of tensioner pads when necessary......which is another +++ for the new Hydraulic Chain Tensioner Set Up.....there also doesn't seem to be a guideline for checking the new Hydraulic Chain Tensioner Pads specifically either......

I recently "retrofitted" my 2002 RKC with the Hydraulic Chain Tensioner Set Up as I also decided to change cams thus installing the Andrews 21 "N" cam was ground by Andrews to work with the new Hydraulic Chain Tensioner Set Up.....since I wanted to work with either the Andrews 21 or the Andrews 26 making the switch over was available to me.  I had been running the S&S gear drive set up for nearly 5 years and am quite happy with the new set up.....my cam case is no longer running using the outter cam journal bearings and the gears being gone have created a "sewing machine" quiet cam case for my bike now.....one can put their ear directly in front of the cam case and you hear nothing.....that alone was just another positive benefit from how well this new design by HD is apparently proving itself to be.

Getting back to your situation, it would definitely be weighing on my mind just how well your tensioner shoe pads are holding up......however you might open up your cam case and discover everything is wonderful with absolutely no wear....or you may open it up and discover you were just on the verge of a huge potential problem......it's all about the odds....

Knowing what the technology allows for with the New Hydraulic Chain Tensioner Set Up......it would be impossible for me to feel excitement about spending money on a "system" such as simply replacing the old pads which is inferior such as the OEM old style cam chest Spring Chain Tensioner Set Up.  When close to $700.00 will convert one over to the New Hydraulic Chain Tensioner Set Up of course one has to commit to running one of Andrews cams at this juncture to allow for this to happen as Andrews is the only cam manufactuerer grinding cams that will retrofit one's 1999-2006 touring bike, 1999-2005 dyna bike, or 2000-2006 softail bike to the new set up.  These new cams are referred to as Andrews "N" cam.  Running these new cams allows for one to run the new OEM oil pump, new cam plate without bearings, new cams, along with the hydraulic chain tenisoner pads, and chains, and sprockets.

Like I said above to simply have your old style shoe pads replaced at an indy or HD shop it will cost you around $400-$500.00 for parts and labor, if you do the work yourself the parts cost will be around $220.00 as it makes sense to replace your inner cam bearings with torrington B148's at the this time along with the replacement of the outter cam journal bearings as well....you can acquire a kit for this from S&S that includes a cam gasket as well the kit sells for $37.00 and you will need one or two special tools to get the work done.....(but you would need at least one tool to replace and reinstall the inner cam journal bearings as well although if not wanting to rent it or purchase it, Advanced Auto does infact have a tool one can rent for free which can work successfully as well.....if you were to purchase the tool it's $100.00 all by itself.

So anyway you I would take the "concern" you feel and implement a course of action which should basically fall under "basic maintenance"

With the options available to us today and as long as one agrees that running one of Andrews Cams is a plausable option for themselves for an older Twin Cam having three different cam case options:

1) OEM Spring Chain Tensioner Set Up 
2) S&S GEARS  along with cams that are gear driven
3) OEM Hydraulic Chain Tensioner Set Up which can be retrofitted to an OLDER TWIN CAM as described above as long as one desires to use an Andrews "Ground" Cam

While all three have their draw backs the OEM Hydraulic Chain Tensioner Set Up offers a very fine solution to some of the drawbacks of the OLD OEM Spring Tensioner Set Up. 

I should also note for those running a 2006 Dyna model bike or 2007+ bikes with the 96" plateformed engines the "after market" cam options is a bit more expanded beyond simply Andrews as well.....so one is not limited to either OEM cams or Andrews but the options are more limiting than the 88" styled Twin Cams currently have.

But given this "THREAD" has as it's major discussion about the benefits of a Andrews 21 vs Andrews 26 the third option of running the Andrews 21 "N" or Andrews 26 "N" cam opens the door to the NEW OEM Hydraulic Chain Tensioner Set Up as a very viable option.

Regards,

"Classic"

[Hawg Holler]

I have 38,000 on my '06 Ultra. Still original cams & tensioners. But, the more I read here, the more concerned I get.

john-in-pa~~



Getting back to your situation, it would definitely be weighing on my mind just how well your tensioner shoe pads are holding up......however you might open up your cam case and discover everything is wonderful with absolutely no wear....or you may open it up and discover you were just on the verge of a huge potential problem......it's all about the odds....

I would argue that the 'odds' are very much in favor that you won't have a cam chain tensioner problem at 35,000 miles. The perception that the number of failures is high has been magnified by the fact that those with failures howl loudest and it's to the advantage of every Harley shop out there -- dealer and indy -- not to mention cam makers, to encourage people to convert to geared cams because it has created a nice revenue stream for them for the past five or six years.

I installed the new roller chain system and 21N cams two years and 32,000 miles ago and just did a 1600 mile trip to Laughlin and back and the system seems to be doing its job. My reasoning to install was that I was going with the 21 cams anyway and I liked the fact that the conversion got me a bigger oil pump. The tensioner issue was secondary, as I would have just replaced the spring loaded ones if I hadn't changed cams. That's what I would encourage people to do if a cam change isn't in their plans or they are on limited budgets.

As many on this forum has testified, they have engines with well over 100,000 miles with only two changes of tensioner shoes. If it cost them $400 each change, then the economy of a simple shoe change isn't such a bad deal.

[ClassicRider2002]

This is a very good THREAD and since it is now on the 5th page I thought I would bump it here to the 1st page again.....lol invaribly someone will have some additional questions about such cams and perhaps this will make it easier to be found....

BUMP!

Regards,

"Classic"

[N456SK]

I would like to get a few opinions on a 26 in a mild 103 build?? Would this be to small for a geezer build?? Would like a low compression torque monster... What do you experts think?
Thanks  steve

[slo-poke 03]

I have wondered about the TW26 in a 103 also and thought there may be too much compression. I think Andrews says 'may ping over 9.5' but I am not the guy to ask about this. I will say they were good in my 95ci. though. I hope it would make for a cooler running 103 bagger.

[N456SK]

I was hoping that a head guy could open up the chambers a little to get the compression down. I know that i hardly ever go over 4000 anyway
steve

[Don D]

Not hard at all, and can be done without sinking valves that hurts flow.

[Hawg Holler]

I would like to get a few opinions on a 26 in a mild 103 build?? Would this be to small for a geezer build?? Would like a low compression torque monster... What do you experts think?
Thanks  steve

Why don't you call Andrews and talk to them about it? Nothing like getting the info from the horse's mouth. I did when I was considering the roller chain conversion and they were very helpful. The company wouldn't have been around and have its excellent reputation if it wasn't doing everything right.

[Don D]

The cam will work well, even with stock heads
Keep the "CORRECTED" CR below 9.1/1 and squish below .035 you will be safe.
Andrews will lead you to a 37 which is also fine but shifts the torque curve up 300 rpm or thereabouts.

[slo-poke 03]

yeah thats what I thought they might recommed because I thought about the 37s but I don't want to move the curve up at all. On an 07 ultra that seems pointless to me the way I ride and its geared high already. I would probably like the 255s fine but I am guessing it is designed for complete and total burn which seems like it would mean hot. The 26s in my old bike kept the temps down in my opinion.
    Of course that's all it is is my opinion some one could chime in and call BS

[rkspaz05]

Can anyone give me some advice on the Andrews 37 cam.

[Eddie Haskell]

I would probably like the 255s fine but I am guessing it is designed for complete and total burn which seems like it would mean hot.

I've been thinking the same thing but would like clarification, I've taken the SE 255 off of my short list for that very reason.

[boooby1744]

Can anyone give me some advice on the Andrews 37 cam.

Advance them 2 or 4 degrees..............wait! what about a 31?   

[ClassicRider2002]

You guys with the 06 Dynas and the 07 Softails, Touring, & Dynas, and the 08 models, and 09 models.....it would be interesting to have you guys post the OEM final gearing for each bike......because aren't the 07's running 2.78 Final Gearing?  (Just Asking) and I believe didn't the 08's and 09's get brought down a little to like 2.85 or so for Final Gearing, (just asking).

I believe the very "high" gearing is why the 255 with a intake close angle of 25 degrees is fairly popular right?  (Once again just asking).....

Since I don't own a 96" plateformed bike I wouldn't know which is the best cam for that frame and model.......

Glad to see the interest in the THREAD is continuing!!!!

If indeed you guys are running your 6 gears and they are as high as being 2.78 or so final gearing I would think you could benefit from just a little bit of lower gearing, although I don't know what you would go to.....but most of us 88" plateformed Twin Cams are either 3.15 or 3.37 final gearing......I brought my bike down to 3.37 final gearing (2002 RKC) last Spring.....and it's still one of the best bangs for the buck in my opinion.....and I like it very much on the highway as well.....I do own a 1999 FXR2 and it's final gearing is 2.925 which for a bike that weighs close to 600 lbs "wet" is just about perfect as the 5th gear in this bike serves as a wonderful 6th gear alternative just like an "overdrive" the first 4 gears provide good torque and the 5th is great for highway riding.....it just doesn't seem like 2.78 final gearing on such a heavy bike would be so necessary......thus my point in saying all of this is that you guys who want more "torque" might be able to find it also by altering your gearing packages in some way "If That Is Even Possible".  I am sure some guys who own the 96" plateformed bikes will speak to this as well.....

In my opinion my "Andrews 21"N""  cam with 3.37 gearing with some modified heads so far has been a fabulous package.....
"zip, zip, zip" quick.....lol....indeed!!!

Regards,

"Classic"

[metaliser]

Since we seem to be beating around the bush here, has anyone advanced the 37 cams 2 or 4 degrees, I would think that 2 would help bottom a bit, just wondering.

[seventhson]

Have had 26G cams in 05 FXSTI (converted to carb) with 06 heads for about 20k miles now. Love the set-up. I'm about 280lbs and the more weight I throw on the better it runs. Have always noticed with this set-up that staying up against the cams was the biggest change to my riding style. Light bike with a big load, I would think an excellent cam for an 88" bagger.
Mark

[HMC710]

Thanks for all the great info. I just picked up an '02 Wide Glide project bike. I would say sport cruising. I got a Mikuni HSR42 and V&H Short Shots for it and was thinking of going with the Andrews 26 cam. There seems to be a lot of support for the 21's and I think I would want the off idle torque and don't want any low rpm stumble which I really haven't heard any say they had with the 26's. My Buell didn't come on till about 3k and I definately don't want that. I also ask about cam chain mods I have read about such as replace the stock pads, roller chain conversion, or the hydraulic upgrade. This is my first big bike since my 81 WG so the twin cam is new to me. What do you guys think?
Thanks,
HMC710

[05FLHTC]

I think you will be happy with either cam, the 21 just builds a little more cylinder pressure & that may provide for a little more snap of idle...I would always go with the higher lift shorter duration but that's just my opinion.

[Hawg Holler]

Thanks for all the great info. I just picked up an '02 Wide Glide project bike. I would say sport cruising. I got a Mikuni HSR42 and V&H Short Shots for it and was thinking of going with the Andrews 26 cam. There seems to be a lot of support for the 21's and I think I would want the off idle torque and don't want any low rpm stumble which I really haven't heard any say they had with the 26's. My Buell didn't come on till about 3k and I definately don't want that. I also ask about cam chain mods I have read about such as replace the stock pads, roller chain conversion, or the hydraulic upgrade. This is my first big bike since my 81 WG so the twin cam is new to me. What do you guys think?
Thanks,
HMC710

Roller chain and hydraulic upgrade can be the same thing if you buy the 07 parts and Andrews 'n' cams. I'd go that route rather than buying the new Harley cam support plate that uses the old cam front roller and ball bearing setup.

[HMC710]

Thanks Hawg, got a reply from John at HERKO with his kit info also. I can testify to his customer service, A1. My original plan was to go gear drive, but this looks like it might be a quieter option.

[ClassicRider2002]

Well this is an older "THREAD" but I thought I would give a review of how I feel about the Andrews 21 "N" that I put in earlier this spring, just got back from a 5 day trip through the mountains of Colorado going over these locations:
Trail Ridge   12,183 feet  "Highest Paved Road In America"
Gore Pass     9,527 feet
Mc Clure Pass 8,755 feet
Red Mountain Pass  11,018 feet
Molas Pass  10,910 feet
Monarch Pass 11,312 feet
Independence Pass  12,095 feet  within 88' of Trail Ridge
Milner Pass 10,758 feet
Coal Bank Pass  10,640 feet
Vail Pass  10,666 feet

Going through Vail, Aspen, Glenwood Springs, Gunnison, Granby, Estes Park, just to name a few spots folks can find on a map.

All in all a 1,111 mile trip over 5 days combined with riding the Durango Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad Train which was a blast.

While I averaged 46.5 mph I am probably running a bit lean.....so I need some more tuning.  Given the characteristics of the bike:
2002 RKC
95" set up with wiseco 9.0:1 flat top pistons bored to 3.880” (.005 over sized), cometic 0.030" MTL HG, Heads milled to exactly 84 cc's, with some porting done by BC Gerolamy and later fine tuned by another porter who does excellent work:
1.940” Kibblewhite Intake Valves with a 4.380” stem length
1.580” Ferrea Exhaust Valves.
Valve Springs:
Advanced Valves & Valve train Springs (AV&V)
.560” Maximum Lift
155 lbs @ 1.800” / 352 @ 1280” For 5/16” Valves.

Stock Heads run aprx 200 CFM of max airflow and my heads are flowing 275 CFM all the way up to and including .600 lift.  While stock heads will only flow 200 CFM up to and including .400 lift at which point they will stop flowing anymore air.  So essentially I am flowing air adequately enough to use a cam up to a .600 lift whereas stock heads flow at 200 CFM only up to .400 lift.  If you put a cam that has a higher lift than .400 to perform with a stock head it’s not technically ported adequately enough to provide the correct amount of air flow needed to properly do the work the cam’s intended lift was meant to provide.  Which would equate reasoning as to why one person’s build might produce differing results from another person’s build.

Andrews 21 "N" cam running with the Hydraulic Chain Tensioner Set Up.
Super Trapp 2-1 Super Meg exhaust.

Will create @ SEA LEVEL CALCULATIONS:
A)  â€œCorrected” / “Dynamic” Compression @ 9.04:1
B)  "Static" Compression @ 9.47:1
C   "Cold Cranking" Compression @ 175 at 4,900 feet and probably a bit more at sea level most likely around 186.

While the 2002 RKC comes in at 710 lbs, I weigh in at 160 and my wife at 110 and with another 70 lbs of traveling gear inclusive of the saddlebags, and T~Bag here were some of my experiences:

All in all the bike performed marvelous and as expected provided me with great "torque" and responsiveness.  1,100 miles of this trip was spent above 6,500 feet above sea level.  I can only imagine how this bike would feel where most people ride at sea level, heck I would have another 15-20% MORE power and torque....LOL....

The bike climbed the biggest 'hills" with ease, and yet with the 3.37 final gearing I have installed never left me feeling that I wish I had the higher gearing of the 3.15.  I traveled from Glenwood Springs on I70 to the exit for Winter Park going over Vail Pass as well as climbing up from Dillon to the Eisenhower Tunnel and back down all the time easily traveling at speeds from 70-90 mph (hitting the 90 mph was only done long enough to see what the bike would do at such elevation and how it felt....probably only a mile or two and I was seperated from traffic) and still had more throttle left.  Climbing up to eisehower tunnel is a huge climb and I led the traffic up that particular hill.....all the time the bike climbed with ease and yet was quite comfortable coming out of the tunnel back down the highway.

The bike seemed to perform effortlessly and quickly through the gears.  I also found that for the most part when in the mountains that speeds of 45-65 are 90% of the experience and that the 21's are very very user friendly combined with the 3.37 final gearing allowing one to find the right RPMS while climbing without having to constantly shift between gears trying to keep the bike in the right RPM range.   During the course of travel over the 4 days of riding there were only 5-7 times where getting around someone meant being extremely quick and each time the engine, cam, and gearing all responded extremely well providing one with a confidence that the bike would manage such a manuver quite safely and comfortably.

There was also a 4 mile stretch 30 miles north of Durango that was having road work being done leaving the road with loose gravel upon it.  The bike handled this extremely well also as with the 3.37 final gearing one could leave their bike in 2nd gear and traverse this section of highway between 25-30 mph while keeping one's RPMS from 2400-2900 which kept you right on the 21's cam characteristics.  As we all know on loose gravel you don't want your bike 'lugging" and not responding nor do you want to feel like you are going to fast.  I traversed this section of road going both ways when going south you are declining while going north you spend the 4 miles ascending....and each time I felt both the cam and the gearing were complimented nicely with my bike.

Let's just say that I am a big fan of the 21's, which provides the low end torque in combination with the 3.37 final gearing.  Thus far whether I am going 75-90 mph on our interstate highways or 45-65 in the mountains both the cam and the gearing seem to be complimenting one another quite nicely for my 2002 RKC.

Regards,

"Classic"

[Jeffd]

aren't those colorado passes cool.  21's are great for real world performance no matter how many times you hear "why bother with such a small cam"

[frito1]

21's are great for real world performance no matter how many times you hear "why bother with such a small cam"

Yup  

[Hawg Holler]

My experience with the 21ns is similar. Just came back from a 5,000 mile round trip to Sturgis. With wife and I and luggage we passed numerous cars and trucks on the two-lane roads we mostly took and I never had a problem even passing uphill. I'm running stock 88 with the 21s and the roller chain conversion. Friends on their 103s were impressed that the bike wasn't that much slower than theirs were.

[HMC710]

A lot of great info, thanks everyone! I made my choice for my 02 FXWG3 TC88 that I plan on punching out this winter. Andrews 37G's. After talking w/guys that have done all of them, I felt this is the choice for me and my one up, flat land riding.
Thanks all, great work.
HMC

[Theo]

Awesome thread. Read every single post.  I'm in the process of deciding whether to go with the 21's or 26's.  I'm leaning towards the 21's but wanted to hear what you guys thought.  I ride a 05 FLSTFI with a 95" big bore, almost always solo; although I like to load the bike down and go on long trips up the mountains.  I'm a light rider at 135lbs.  I live in the city and do lots of stop and go riding.  I'm not an aggressive rider. It just seems like the only people who install the 21's are baggers so just wondering if it's a little much for my bike? Thanks so much for all of the great info.

[KumaRide]

Awesome thread. Read every single post.  I'm in the process of deciding whether to go with the 21's or 26's.  I'm leaning towards the 21's but wanted to hear what you guys thought.  I ride a 05 FLSTFI with a 95" big bore, almost always solo; although I like to load the bike down and go on long trips up the mountains.  I'm a light rider at 135lbs.  I live in the city and do lots of stop and go riding.  I'm not an aggressive rider. It just seems like the only people who install the 21's are baggers so just wondering if it's a little much for my bike? Thanks so much for all of the great info.

Have 21's in my 06 FLSTFI  88". I like the 21's. If I had a 95" kit I would be happy with either 21 or 26. If you rarely rev past 4k rpm's, 21's will put more tq where you ride...

[Theo]

Thanks for the info.  It seems that the 21's will be right for me.

[RainDodger]

From what I've read, you won't go wrong with either. I have a 95" in an Ultra and I've been running 26Gs for 2 seasons now. I think they're just fine - the prime reason I chose them is because everything I read 2 years ago said that the 26 would be better for heavier baggers. I don't know if that's true or not, but I like the performance I've gotten out of the 26s.

Good luck with your build!

[razar]

26's in my RK "88" and I like them.  Going to 95" this winter.
Razar

[zn14]

on my '06 RK I recently went from gear drive andrews 26g to hydrolic andrews 21N.....after 2,300 miles I put in andrews 26N...
I am a big fan of the 26

[Theo]

It seems that it's a 50/50 split.  Which makes sense because they both are great choices.  It's just something I"ll have to decide based on my riding preferences. I think I know what that is but maybe I don't.  I'll have to really pay attention when I ride.  But I'm leaning towards the 21's.  Which would go with an adage I read somewhere else here.  "Which ever cam you think you need, go one smaller". So that would put me at the 21.  Decisions...

[Hawg Holler]

Have you called Andrews and talked to them? They're very helpful and will help you make a choice. Andrews lists the 21s as the best for heavy bikes with passenger and touring. It sounds like 26s would be best for you since you don't need as much low-end grunt to get you and your bike moving. But, again, a 10-minute call to Andrews will be your best bet. Either way, you'll be able to tell the difference over the stock cam.

[stro1965]

Have you called Andrews and talked to them? They're very helpful and will help you make a choice. Andrews lists the 21s as the best for heavy bikes with passenger and touring. It sounds like 26s would be best for you since you don't need as much low-end grunt to get you and your bike moving. But, again, a 10-minute call to Andrews will be your best bet. Either way, you'll be able to tell the difference over the stock cam.

FWIW, when I made that call they recommended 26's for my 96" Ultra.  Glad I listened!!

[Blackbaggr]

Like Stro...I have a 2007 FLHTC. I added, with the help of Sonny, the Andrews 26h, a Supertrapp Supermeg 2-1, and TTS tuner. No regrets. Initially it felt like a totally different bike. I ran the stock headers, a power commander, and V&H ovals (stock cams) for the first 8500 mi.

I recently picked up a 2002 FXDWG and am now dreaming of cams again....it'll have to wait.


....one last point...I also called Andrews and they told me the 26 would be better for my 07 FLH than the 21. FWIW.

[KumaRide]

fwiw - I have never read a post or heard of Andrews recommending the 21's when some one asks about 21's and 26's - no matter which bike, 1up or 2up. This is goes for this site and a couple others... Personally, I would trust people who ride and use them daily.

Also, not trying to discount either cam. Just food for thought. Like I said earlier, if I had a 95" kit, either cam would make me happy:)

[Hawg Holler]

fwiw - I have never read a post or heard of Andrews recommending the 21's when some one asks about 21's and 26's - no matter which bike, 1up or 2up. This is goes for this site and a couple others... Personally, I would trust people who ride and use them daily.

Also, not trying to discount either cam. Just food for thought. Like I said earlier, if I had a 95" kit, either cam would make me happy:)

When I called about the conversion cams two years ago they recommended I go with the 21s in a stock 88. I do all around riding as well as long-range touring two-up.

Also. from the Andrews cam catalog:

"21N  Stock Bolt-in cam: More torque for all around riding with heavy
bikes, stock compression ratios and stock pistons. Similar to #23 cam for EV80. (1700-4800 RPM).

26N  Stock Bolt-in cam 88-95 inches and stock compression ratio. Great for two up touring, this cam will add torque and HP at lower and middle RPM ranges. (1800-5200 RPM)."

Many just flat out believe the 21s are the best overall mild cams ever made for the Twin Cam. I don't have the knowledge to make that statement; only my experience. They do close the intake valves earlier than stock cams and probably earlier than any other cams made for the Twin Cam -- 30 degrees after bottom dead center versus 38 degrees abdc for stock, with more duration and lift. This gives the cams a "tractor engine" quality that's hard to beat if you like running at low rpms and need to get a heavy bike moving from a standstill. The 21s's sweet spot is also just about touring range for most people, which works out to about 70 to 80 mph on a five speed. That means you can pull steep hills at speed with the least effort and without having to downshift.

However, they won't deliver the goods when wound out. I've noticed this when passing. The engine reaches a point in 4th where you need to upshift into fifth in order to move out quickly when you're passing at 80-85 mph. It's not a huge problem, but judging by the specs and Andrews's recommendations, the 26s would stay with you into the higher rpms when passing.

[KumaRide]

fwiw - I have never read a post or heard of Andrews recommending the 21's when some one asks about 21's and 26's - no matter which bike, 1up or 2up. This is goes for this site and a couple others... Personally, I would trust people who ride and use them daily.

Also, not trying to discount either cam. Just food for thought. Like I said earlier, if I had a 95" kit, either cam would make me happy:)

When I called about the conversion cams two years ago they recommended I go with the 21s in a stock 88. I do all around riding as well as long-range touring two-up.

Also. from the Andrews cam catalog:

"21N  Stock Bolt-in cam: More torque for all around riding with heavy
bikes, stock compression ratios and stock pistons. Similar to #23 cam for EV80. (1700-4800 RPM).

26N  Stock Bolt-in cam 88-95 inches and stock compression ratio. Great for two up touring, this cam will add torque and HP at lower and middle RPM ranges. (1800-5200 RPM)."

Many just flat out believe the 21s are the best overall mild cams ever made for the Twin Cam. I don't have the knowledge to make that statement; only my experience. They do close the intake valves earlier than stock cams and probably earlier than any other cams made for the Twin Cam -- 30 degrees after bottom dead center versus 38 degrees abdc for stock, with more duration and lift. This gives the cams a "tractor engine" quality that's hard to beat if you like running at low rpms and need to get a heavy bike moving from a standstill. The 21s's sweet spot is also just about touring range for most people, which works out to about 70 to 80 mph on a five speed. That means you can pull steep hills at speed with the least effort and without having to downshift.

However, they won't deliver the goods when wound out. I've noticed this when passing. The engine reaches a point in 4th where you need to upshift into fifth in order to move out quickly when you're passing at 80-85 mph. It's not a huge problem, but judging by the specs and Andrews's recommendations, the 26s would stay with you into the higher rpms when passing.

You got me. Did not read your post 2 years ago.

Theo has a 95" kit. The recommendation Stro and dsanchez received for their 96" baggers from Andrews is typical, the 26's.

[Theo]

...The engine reaches a point in 4th where you need to upshift into fifth in order to move out quickly when you're passing at 80-85 mph...

Whoa.  You do 80 in 4th gear.  The fastest I've taken it is around 60. 

I've read most of the posts regarding the 21's and the 26's on this board and everyone makes both seem awesome.  I think I would be happy with either one so it's just something I'll have to decide for myself.  Anyways, I have some time to decide.  I won't have enough saved up until mid to end winter. This forum is great.

[Jeffd]

"However, they won't deliver the goods when wound out. I've noticed this when passing. The engine reaches a point in 4th where you need to upshift into fifth in order to move out quickly when you're passing at 80-85 mph. It's not a huge problem, but judging by the specs and Andrews's recommendations, the 26s would stay with you into the higher rpms when passing."

Mine would spool up to 100 in 4th pretty quickly with both 21's and 26's 3.15 gearing.

[ezlazer]

I have a 05 Ultra with a 26g cam and I love it.  Plenty of roll on power, low end grunt and its an 88.  The gear drive whines a little but it sounds good to me!

[PoorUB]

"However, they won't deliver the goods when wound out. I've noticed this when passing. The engine reaches a point in 4th where you need to upshift into fifth in order to move out quickly when you're passing at 80-85 mph. It's not a huge problem, but judging by the specs and Andrews's recommendations, the 26s would stay with you into the higher rpms when passing."

Mine would spool up to 100 in 4th pretty quickly with both 21's and 26's 3.15 gearing.

My '05 Ultra would pull hard all the way to the rev limit in 4th, or 110 MPH, with 26 cams.

[ClassicRider2002]

Hawg Holler~~~

Curious....is your bike carb or EFI?

21 vs 26

Keeping one's bike stock except for a cam change or modifying one's heads, and pistons all plays into the decision process of proper selection.....

I have personally ran the 26g in my 2002 RKC while it was still stock with the 88" pistons and heads......bike ran well....decided to sell one of my bikes I had did some head work with and 95" kit....which was the "heart" of that bike...so before I sold it I took all of the 95" parts out of it inclusive of the cam I was running at the time and put it all into my 2002 RKC...and took the oem stuff inclusive of the 26g cam that was in the 2002 RKC and put it into the bike I was selling.....it was careful surgery....lol and 90 hours later both bikes actually ran the other bike is sold and I still have my 2002 RKC.  This past winter and early spring....I took my 2002 RKC 95" build apart, replaced the cams I had with the 21n style hydraulic chain tensioner set up, along with having my heads cleaned and milled down to 84cc's exactly, kept the pistons I brought over previously and so I am running the 21's with the 95" set up while my heads have been mildly ported I would have to say that the 21's as I said in previous posts is running extremely well.....

So what's my point....ran the 26's in the gear format for a couple of years....with an 88" now running the 21s with the 95" set up along with 3.37 final gearing.....and for my riding style and since I am a self proclaimed low end torque junkie.....I can't go any farther to the left of the power curve so I have as much low end torque you can get.....with a 95"  and I love it....I love the quickness of my bike and the ease of which it runs in the mountains and on the freeways.....As you can see I took the "long" way around the corner to get where I am at....

But like Zn14 has mentioned above given his carbed 06 RK Custom....the 21's were miserable for his 88" set up all kinds of issues....gas reversion through the carb, rough idle, he experienced 2,300 miles of frustration...felt loss of power and from the moment the 26 "N"s went in he was perfect just as he was when he was running the 26 "geared" drive cams.  (He went to the 21's in the "N" format because he wanted to go with the hydraulic chain tensioner set up so out with the 21 "N"s and in with the 26 "N"s).  Nothing changed in the bike except for the cams.....which can leave one scratching their head.....but that was his experience.....So in general if a guy owns a carbed bike and plans to keep it as an 88" the 26's might be the better way to go....if a guy has EFI which will require tuning because of the cam change anyway....then the 21's should be no problem at all....in fact I have heard/read of very little issues.....BUT I CAN SAY I have as most people have written and as Joe Minton has stated the 21's will work well.....one should also be aware that ZN14 is also riding at 4900 feet to 11000 feet 80% of the time.

So if a person isn't willing to touch their bike except for a cam change.....it makes me wonder if the 26's would be the better alternative....where as if a person is desiring to pull their heads have them cc'd exactly the same and have them ported a bit....and get their corrected compression where it should be (some where around 9.0:1 - 9.2:1) along with 95" pistons that they may have a very predictable response with the 21's and of course if all of this work is done the 26's would work as well....at which point it becomes a "flavor" decision....

The funny part about all of this....is neither of these cams are going to allow you to set the speed record....lol....but if you want to get to know your bike a bit....and dig in to it a bit....both of these cams will work very nicely.....

All I can say is that my bike is user friendly in the mountains which is where I ride, it is zip, zip, zip quick....through the gears...and has the feel and response I was looking for from the stop light or up a pass....it pulls very nicely......which brings us all right back around to our riding styles and preferences....

Knowing exactly what I know now....or if I had to replace my bike.....I would do exactly what I have just done to it again....and in fact when all of these parts wear out.....I have kept good enough notes that I will reproduce what I have exactly done again.

Regards,

"Classic"

[Hawg Holler]

My bike is EFI. Bone stock except for the 21n cams and roller chain system and a K&N filter element. I never touched the tuning. In fact, I installed a power commander and took it off because it hurt my gas mileage no matter how I tuned it and I couldn't feel any performance gain from it. Never dynoed the engine. It would probably run a little better, but not enough to make up for the cost and trouble of a dyno tune. I've put 40,000 miles on the bike since the cam installation (72,000 total miles) and everything seems to be going well. I checked the hydraulic tensioners just before I went to Sturgis and there was absolutely no wear on them. I will eventually put a 95 kit in, but as long as the bike runs like it does now, I'm not touching a thing. Reliability and low cost of maintenance is key during the depress... oops ...  I mean recession, we are in. I like to wrench, but riding is more important to me.

[ClassicRider2002]

Hawg Holler~

Thanks for the response......

Regards,

"Classic"

[baggerslimm]

Hawg Holler what kind of fuel mileage are you getting??    I took the power commander off my bike also because I felt That it did not repond like its supposed too!!!  I put a direct link tuner on it.. My bike is a 06 flhxi,rush td, and 21's.. I left it 88" and played with differnt cams.  Stock form got 35mpg,now with the 21's and tuned i'm getting between 40-44mpg..  Slimm

[Hawg Holler]

When I put in the 21s and the Power Commander average gas mileage dropped five or six miles/gal. Fiddled with Power Commander and didn't get much better and once dropped down into the low 30s. I pulled the power commander and mileage moved back up to the upper 30s and low 40s. Gas mileage is hard to measure because it's affected by so many variables -- wind, speed, acceleration style, etc. -- but I did get about 45 mpg on a stretch recently up in Montana where I was forced to ride about 55-60 mph all day due to road conditions. I've found the best mileage, which was almost 50 mpg, is when I'm touring at around 55 mph in the high Sierra, at 6,000 feet or more. i probably should have had the bike dynoed with the Power Commander, but I've had friends who report mixed results from dynoing and they didn't get near the performance boost they had hoped for for the money spent. I can take a few mpg hit and it will still be cheaper than paying for a dyno.

[mgmmgm]

Will the Andrews 21 work in a 96 c.i. 2007 efi  engine with good results?

[Hawg Holler]

Will the Andrews 21 work in a 96 c.i. 2007 efi  engine with good results?

Andrews claims the 21 have the same effect on the 96 engine as they have for 88s and 95s. Low-end torque boost. If I'm lucky enough to own a new Harley 96 ci in a few years the only thing I will do to the motor will be to install a K&N filter element and either Andrews 21s or 26s. After that, I'm good to go. . 100,000 miles or more.

[MULESKINNER]

Could the longer stroke of the 96" be the reason the 26's seem to work so good with this motor? In theory the shorter stroke of the 88" might be the reason the 21's work better in that application? Just thinking.

[sinktip]

Excellent thread!  Of course it has only served to increase my indecision on which cam to go with.

I have an '01 RKC with the M-M EFI. It has stage 1 with V&H slip-ons, and dresser duals with a PC - III. I put around 12k a year on her with 50% of it a 25 mile comute to work and the other a mix of touring and weekend rides. Since the wife has her own, I ride 95% of the time one-up.

I'm bumping it up to a 95" this winter using the SE kit. No plans to do head work but am getting rid of the chain driven cams and assuming crank run-out is not a problem, switiching over to gear driven cams. I had been deciding between the Andrews 26 and the S&S 510 but now I'm even more undecided.  I was leaning to the 26 but now I am in information overload 

[Sonny S.]

Excellent thread!  Of course it has only served to increase my indecision on which cam to go with.

I have an '01 RKC with the M-M EFI. It has stage 1 with V&H slip-ons, and dresser duals with a PC - III. I put around 12k a year on her with 50% of it a 25 mile comute to work and the other a mix of touring and weekend rides. Since the wife has her own, I ride 95% of the time one-up.

I'm bumping it up to a 95" this winter using the SE kit. No plans to do head work but am getting rid of the chain driven cams and assuming crank run-out is not a problem, switiching over to gear driven cams. I had been deciding between the Andrews 26 and the S&S 510 but now I'm even more undecided.  I was leaning to the 26 but now I am in information overload 

IMHO, the S&S 510 is a poor choice. Waaay to much exhaust duration. Very weak on the bottom end.

[FLTRI]

A rule of thumb:
If you think a 26 is the way for you...go with the 21 (1 step less than what you think you want), it will be everything and more....not to mention the cost.
Just my experience,
Bob

[JohnCA58]

Bob just did a dyno for a RK i put 21 in, came out great with stock 88,  83 h.p. and 93 torque, stage 1 A.C. and Samson slip on's.  what a ride, pulls hard to a 100 and is great around town.  the guy loves his ride now.   I run the 26 on my RK with 3.37 gears. its a lot of fun also.   I got a great deal on the 26g . I would have gone with the 21's also.   

[apendejo]

The S&S 510 cams run like stock cams till you hit about 3k rpm, then they pull relatively well. Problem with those cams is as mentioned above, exhaust duration. This also makes for some tuning issues on the FI bikes. At slack throttle, no load conditions the motor will always feel like it needs a tune, it will buck and miss and just generally feel all wrong. Only good thing I have to say about the S&S 510 cam is that it provided great fuel milage at interstate speeds and down shifting to 4th at those speeds the cams come on and do what they are supposed to, get you around that string of trucks real quick.
AP

[sinktip]

Ok well then the 510 is out and I am back stuck between the 21 and 26. For waht its worth, I have the 3.37 5th gear.

[Jeffd]

I have used both 21 and 26 and with 3.37 go with the 26's.  If 3.15 the 21's.  I had more peak torq with 21's more hp with 26's. 

[frito1]

Excellent thread!  Of course it has only served to increase my indecision on which cam to go with.

I had been deciding between the Andrews 26 and the S&S 510 but now I'm even more undecided.  I was leaning to the 26 but now I am in information overload 

I tried the 510g's before putting in the 21g's.  In my application the 510's were weaker than stock till well past 3k then it took off like a rocket.  They got good MPG, but the bottom end trade off was unbearable.  The 21g's worked much better for me.

[FLTRI]

I have used both 21 and 26 and with 3.37 go with the 26's.  If 3.15 the 21's.  I had more peak torq with 21's more hp with 26's. 

Good thinking.
Bob

[stef142]

Hi I read what Joe Milton wrote and I totally agree with him 
Now I'm going to upgrade my 2005 EFI Dyna and I'ld know if this could be correct:
1) SE 1550 cylinders
2) SE flat top pistons
3) no heads porting
4) Andrews TW21 cams
5) SE adjustable pushrods kit
6) Cometic 0.030 gaskets
7) TTS Mastertune with Stage II map

I don't know how to verify if my heads are 84cc or not: this could be a problem?
Stefano

[Jeffd]

summitt racing sells a head cc measuring kit for fairly cheap. some guys have used larger cc syringes to measure.

[stef142]

summitt racing sells a head cc measuring kit for fairly cheap. some guys have used larger cc syringes to measure.

Ok, but if the cc isn't 84 I can't work my heads, so I'ld know if I can ignore the cc'ing to build a good 95.
Thanks,
Stefano

[Jeffd]

if you know the cc's you can figure your cr.  My 06 heads were 88 and 89cc's.  It is fairly cheap to have them decked to your desired cc's.  I did an exact Minton build and made 97 ft/lbs of torq.  I did not cc the heads (04) at the time.  It would suprise a lot of bigger builds in 50mph roll ons.

[eaton.mike]

I don't know how to verify if my heads are 84cc or not: this could be a problem?
Stefano

IMO a basic street port job ($300-$500) on those 2005 heads would make a significant difference -- and then you'd know your exact CC and they will flow much better. Many will say that head porting is not required for such a mild build ...many never touch the heads and are very happy. For me it was worth it. I believe it made a big difference on my 2005 RK, 95" Andrews 26 build (with the exact same components you are considering). My build resulted in 106TQ peak @ 4000 rpm; 90 TQ @ 2000. Here is link to the dyno http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,11833.0.html

These seem to solid numbers for this cam when compared to other charts. I believe that the head work AND a really good tune were the two biggest factors in getting the most out of this combination. Consider that you will need to pay for the dyno calibration (TTS and labor) anyways, so now it comes down to the heads. Is an extra 5-10 pounds of torque worth the $300-$500 for street port job on those restrictive 05 heads?  It was for me. I'm NOT a builder so I cannot say what a reasonable power gain would with ported heads on your bike. Would it be less dramatic with the 21? I do not know.  I'm just sharing my experience and humble perspective in the hopes of stimulating more questions that lead to the best decision for you. Labor is expensive, so you want to get it right the first time while your in there. Good luck with your build. 

[stef142]

IMO a simple and lower-cost street port job ($300-$500) on those 2005 heads would make a signifianct difference -- and then you'd know your exact CC and they will flow much better. Many will say that head porting is not "required" for such a mild build... many never touch the heads and are happy. For me it was worth it and I believe it made a big difference on my 2005 RK, 95" Andrews 26 build (with the exact same  components your considering). This build resulted in 106TQ peak @ 4000 rpm; 90 TQ @ 2000.  I looked at many other b

Hi Mike, to me the best heads porter is Baisley (I've seen some works and are great) but for a mild porting is about 900â,¬ (and from Italy I have a lot of shipping expences!). Here in Italy we don't have any good porter 
So I have to decide if going with him. A question is: have you dynoed your bike? I read Joe Minton says a Stage II map could go with this configuration.
Stefano

[eaton.mike]

Hi Mike, to me the best heads porter is Baisley (I've seen some works and are great) but for a mild porting is about 900â,¬ (and from Italy I have a lot of shipping expences!). Here in Italy we don't have any good porter  
So I have to decide if going with him. A question is: have you dynoed your bike? I read Joe Minton says a Stage II map could go with this configuration.
Stefano

yes ... see my updated post ... here is link to the dyno http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,11833.0.html

[stef142]

yes ... see my updated post ... here is link to the dyno http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,11833.0.html

[Scooterfish]

The 05 heads are restrictive on the exhaust side and you should take alook at the valve seals while your there on that year.

[ClassicRider2002]

 

Indeed a VERY good THREAD!

Regards,

"Classic"

[rigidthumper]

TW37 advanced ~= SE204

[Ken R]

Very good thread, especially for someone still in the basics learning phase. 

I chose my 21N cams a year before this thread was born.  Chose it from the layperson advertising regarding drop-in, all-round riding, and torque curve in the regime in which I ride 99% of the time. So far, no regrets at all.  Never hard starting, never any kickback, totally reliable in several multi-thousand mile trips (thousands in the Rockies at altitude).   

My only concern (and it may not be cam-related at all) is the poor gas mileage I've experienced.  I'm thinking it may be the change to true duals that caused the poor mileage.  Never get over 38 mpg in Texas.  33 to 35 is the norm.  Better in NM and Colorado.

95 cu in
Bishop's stage one heads
21N cam
V&H true duals with SE Street Touring mufflers
Custom tune by Ed at The Dyno Difference
Baker DD6

[stef142]

So I decided to go with porting my heads in US. Here in Italy I have problems to find someone able to cc the heads!!! I contacted Bean at BigBoyz for a mild porting and now I'm looking for a pair of mint 2006 heads in US to save shipping costs from Italy to US. Bean agreed with TW21 for riding between 1700 and 4500 rpm. A future problem will be to find a good tuner for dyno tuning....Thanks for all info

[FLTRI]

Very good thread, especially for someone still in the basics learning phase. 

I chose my 21N cams a year before this thread was born.  Chose it from the layperson advertising regarding drop-in, all-round riding, and torque curve in the regime in which I ride 99% of the time. So far, no regrets at all.  Never hard starting, never any kickback, totally reliable in several multi-thousand mile trips (thousands in the Rockies at altitude).   

My only concern (and it may not be cam-related at all) is the poor gas mileage I've experienced.  I'm thinking it may be the change to true duals that caused the poor mileage.  Never get over 38 mpg in Texas.  33 to 35 is the norm.  Better in NM and Colorado.

95 cu in
Bishop's stage one heads
21N cam
V&H true duals with SE Street Touring mufflers
Custom tune by Ed at The Dyno Difference
Baker DD6


Did it get tuned/re-tuned after the change to tru-duals?
If not that could be the cause of poor mileage. If not then I'd say there's more mileage if the cruise AFR was leaned a bit.
HTH, Bob

[Ken R]

95 cu in
Bishop's stage one heads
21N cam
V&H true duals with SE Street Touring mufflers
Custom tune by Ed at The Dyno Difference
Baker DD6


Did it get tuned/re-tuned after the change to tru-duals?
If not that could be the cause of poor mileage. If not then I'd say there's more mileage if the cruise AFR was leaned a bit.
HTH, Bob

Yes, Bob.  From the best anywhere around these parts.  Ed is very meticulous and dedicated to his work.  I believe it's tuned for economy, as well.  He leaned out the mixture to 14.6 in low throttle areas of the map to try to get the mileage up. 

I don't wish to hijack the thread.  It's too good of a subject on cams to steer it another direction.  I have been thinking of starting a new fuel economy thread and how it relates to performance.

[stef142]

Yes, Bob.  From the best anywhere around these parts.  Ed is very meticulous and dedicated to his work.  I believe it's tuned for economy, as well.  He leaned out the mixture to 14.6 in low throttle areas of the map to try to get the mileage up. 

I don't wish to hijack the thread.  It's too good of a subject on cams to steer it another direction.  I have been thinking of starting a new fuel economy thread and how it relates to performance.

First of all is getting good results in drivability. This is my opinion.

[FLTRI]

....I believe it's tuned for economy, as well.

He leaned out the mixture to 14.6 in low throttle areas of the map to try to get the mileage up.

I would suspect 14.6 AFR @ cruise for most mild builds and <100 ci to net over 40 mpg unless you are not highway cruising (steady state tp/rpm), accelerating up and down the rpm band in short spurts.
Also possible is the set 14.6 AFR in not actually where in the rpm/tp you are measuring mpg.

I have been thinking of starting a new fuel economy thread and how it relates to performance.

Please do, as I believe there is a lot good info from those who tune for a living concerning fuel mileage, heat, and performance. There are some assumptions and misconceptions as to how tuned AFR @ a given TP/rpm will affect fuel mileage, if comparing Alpha-N systems vs Speed Density systems, but also greatly affected by build specs, intake and exhaust systems.
Bob

[Ken R]

Yes, Bob.  From the best anywhere around these parts.  Ed is very meticulous and dedicated to his work.  I believe it's tuned for economy, as well.  He leaned out the mixture to 14.6 in low throttle areas of the map to try to get the mileage up.  

I don't wish to hijack the thread.  It's too good of a subject on cams to steer it another direction.  I have been thinking of starting a new fuel economy thread and how it relates to performance.

First of all is getting good results in drivability. This is my opinion.

Driveability is perfect.  No pingig, no hard starting, smooth throttle response from 2,000 rpms on up, and typical 21N cam performance.  One could not ask for more in the driveability arena.    

[Ken R]

....I believe it's tuned for economy, as well.

He leaned out the mixture to 14.6 in low throttle areas of the map to try to get the mileage up.  
I would not suspect 14.6 AFR @ cruise for most mild builds and <100 ci to net over 40 mpg unless you are not highway cruising (steady state tp/rpm), accelerating up and down the rpm band in short spurts.
Also possible is the set 14.6 AFR in not actually where in the rpm/tp you are measuring mpg.

I have been thinking of starting a new fuel economy thread and how it relates to performance.
Please do, as I believe there is a lot good info from those who tune for a living concerning fuel mileage, heat, and performance. There are some assumptions and misconceptions as to how tuned AFR @ a given TP/rpm will affect fuel mileage, if comparing Alpha-N systems vs Speed Density systems, but also greatly affected by build specs, intake and exhaust systems.
Bob

I selected the 21N cam because it provided more torque in the rpm range in which I do all my highway riding.  With the 6-speed transmission, 75 mph is just under 3,000 rpm if I remember correctly, right in the cam's sweet spot.  My thinking was performance equals efficiency.  If my engine gives the best performance in that rpm area, it must be most efficient there, too.  I do all of my mileage measurements at steady highway speeds and throw out tests that might be skewed by high winds.  It wouldn't be valid to consider mileage ratings when bucking 30mph headwinds or having the advantage of 30 mph tailwinds.

I think I will start a performance/efficiency thread, but I'll need help from professional tuners for it to be popular and long-lived as this thread is about cam comparisons. .

Ken  

[FLTRI]

I selected the 21N cam because it provided more torque in the rpm range in which I do all my highway riding.  With the 6-speed transmission, 75 mph is just under 3,000 rpm if I remember correctly, right in the cam's sweet spot.  My thinking was performance equals efficiency.  If my engine gives the best performance in that rpm area, it must be most efficient there, too.  I do all of my mileage measurements at steady highway speeds and throw out tests that might be skewed by high winds.  It wouldn't be valid to consider mileage ratings when bucking 30mph headwinds or having the advantage of 30 mph tailwinds.

I think I will start a performance/efficiency thread, but I'll need help from professional tuners for it to be popular and long-lived as this thread is about cam comparisons. .

Ken  [/b]

Just for comparison I have a 2003 RG with a 117ci engine that I rarely get under 40 mpg @ 75-85mph on the freeways (AFR set to 13.8 cruise). Most 07-up customers get over 45 mpg @ 75-80mph with 07-up 96-103 engines with the SE255 or SE204 cams (AFR set @ 14.2 cruise).
Not sure why you are not getting better mileage.
Bob

[sinktip]

Well after reading this thread, and everything else I could find and talking to a number of mechanics, I just scheduled some shop time today to get the 26Gs installed along with bumping the old 88 up to 95. It was a decision that swung back and forth between the 21 and the 26 for my '01 RKC with 3.37 gearing but finally settled on the 26 after my indy said he recommended it and in fact, it was the cam he had in his RK. Either way, I'm sure I will be happy.

[EagleFTE]

Not trying to drag this off topic but since cam changes and cam drive set up are decisions that are made at the same time ideally, I have some questions.  For these questions I’m just looking at chain drives, not gears.  Current set up is an 05 TC-88B with spring tensioners and pads.  For the sake of argument lets say pads are inspected/replaced every 30k miles with this set up. 

Are the new HD pads for the older spring tensioner set up better (longer lasting) than the old pads originally installed in the earlier TCs and if so how much can you extend your inspection with the newer pads?  Does anyone have replacement pads from the last couple of years that have had them fall apart or have excessive wear yet?  It may have been covered somewhere but just wondering how the replacement pads are wearing after 30-50k and what to expect.

If I install the Andrews roller chain / hydraulic tensioner kit, how long do those pads last?  They are still non metal pads for that set up right?  Some seem to infer that you do this conversion and you no longer have to worry about pad replacement.  Is that the case or has anyone had to replace pads on the Andrews conversion kit?  I guess since the Andrews conversion is really taking you to 07 and up OEM style this question can also be answered by those running the newer HD setup right?  Unless the pad material is significantly different.

I’m basically trying to figure out the break even point here on cost over the next 5-10 years.  As “Classic” said the pad replacement is about as much as the Andrews conversion kit.  I don’t ride the bike hard (burnouts, WOT, etc).  Just occasional rolling hard accels, a lot of two lane 60 mph cruising, and Interstate trips two up, fully loaded at 75-85 mph. Not sure how riding style even impacts pad wear.  This bike is only getting about 5k miles per year due to out of town work and my riding time shared with my older Evo.  So I’m basically on a 5 year plan for pad inspection/replacement.  Looking at doing cams and OEM pads or conversion to Andrews roller chains in 2010.

[Ken R]

If I install the Andrews roller chain / hydraulic tensioner kit, how long do those pads last?  They are still non metal pads for that set up right?  Some seem to infer that you do this conversion and you no longer have to worry about pad replacement.  Is that the case or has anyone had to replace pads on the Andrews conversion kit?  I guess since the Andrews conversion is really taking you to 07 and up OEM style this question can also be answered by those running the newer HD setup right?  Unless the pad material is significantly different.

I’m basically trying to figure out the break even point here on cost over the next 5-10 years.  As “Classic” said the pad replacement is about as much as the Andrews conversion kit.  I don’t ride the bike hard (burnouts, WOT, etc).  Just occasional rolling hard accels, a lot of two lane 60 mph cruising, and Interstate trips two up, fully loaded at 75-85 mph. Not sure how riding style even impacts pad wear.  This bike is only getting about 5k miles per year due to out of town work and my riding time shared with my older Evo.  So I’m basically on a 5 year plan for pad inspection/replacement.  Looking at doing cams and OEM pads or conversion to Andrews roller chains in 2010.

I converted my '02 Ultra to the Andrews cams and '07+ tensioners/oil pump, etc. because of the expectations that they'll last the rest of my bike's life. 

The pad material may be changed, I don't know; but I can tell you this:  The pressure on the chains by the pads is greatly reduced.  In fact, it wouldn't be considered "pressure" at all.  There are very light springs that hold tension against the chains.  The wear improvement is because the tensioners "pump up" with oil just as valve train lifters pump up.  They pump up only to take up slack, not apply continuous hard pressure that the old mechanical springs apply. 

Hundreds of thousands of motorcycles built since they were first introduced on the Dynas have the hydraulic tensioners.  I don't believe I've heard of a single failure on any of the forums. 

Ken

[EagleFTE]

Thanks for the input Ken.  I didn't realize the pad pressures were so low with the roller chain / hyd tensioners. 

[stef142]

So I decided to go with porting my heads in US. Here in Italy I have problems to find someone able to cc the heads!!! I contacted Bean at BigBoyz for a mild porting and now I'm looking for a pair of mint 2006 heads in US to save shipping costs from Italy to US. Bean agreed with TW21 for riding between 1700 and 4500 rpm. A future problem will be to find a good tuner for dyno tuning....Thanks for all info

Next week Bean'll work my 2005 heads. Now I've to decide if going with TW21 or TW26!!! HELPPPP

[FLTRI]

Bean agreed with TW21 for riding between 1700 and 4500 rpm.

I've to decide if going with TW21 or TW26!!! HELPPPP

Listen to your head.......porter.
Bob

[apes]

Next week Bean'll work my 2005 heads. Now I've to decide if going with TW21 or TW26!!! HELPPPP
[/quote]
Steph, I have never ridden a bike in Italy/Europe but I have rented cars there and have driven the highways and the back roads so my opinion may not be fully educated BUT, while driving I seldom got over 65 mph on the expressways and when going on the "Tuscany" type roads I was never going very fast and low end torque would have been handy for those twisty  roads and in that case the 21 would be better, but if you had a 26 you would just have to drop a gear to keep in the RPM range

[thedriver]

could you run a 21 or 26 in a bagger 103ci, for 2 up touring , with CR set correctly. or is it to much ci for those cams ??

[PanHeadRed]

>they'll last the rest of my bike's life.<

There are a lot of 30-50 year old HD's still on the road.......the chain won't last that long.

[stef142]

Next week Bean'll work my 2005 heads. Now I've to decide if going with TW21 or TW26!!! HELPPPP

Steph, I have never ridden a bike in Italy/Europe but I have rented cars there and have driven the highways and the back roads so my opinion may not be fully educated BUT, while driving I seldom got over 65 mph on the expressways and when going on the "Tuscany" type roads I was never going very fast and low end torque would have been handy for those twisty  roads and in that case the 21 would be better, but if you had a 26 you would just have to drop a gear to keep in the RPM range
[/quote]
Thanks Apes, my doubt is mainly between TW21 and gear ratio 3.15 (as now) or TW26 and 3.37 like somebody has done.

[MiracleMax]

After reading this entire thread I'm leaning slightly to the 21's. My question is about heat. Somewhere in the middle of the thread heat was mentioned, but without too much detail. When I got my 02 FLTRI, I noticed it ran much hotter than than my old EG. Even on summer days of only 75 or 80 degrees, the heat cooked my legs at stop lights.  So... I put on rinehart True Duals, K&N, and TMAT. Still cooks me.
I understand the 26's run cooler than the 21's, but how will the 21's compare to stock?

[Ken R]

I could tell no difference in engine/exhaust pipe heat between stock and my Andrews 21N cams.  I'm in Dallas.  Ride when it's 100+ at times.

After reading this entire thread I'm leaning slightly to the 21's. My question is about heat. Somewhere in the middle of the thread heat was mentioned, but without too much detail. When I got my 02 FLTRI, I noticed it ran much hotter than than my old EG. Even on summer days of only 75 or 80 degrees, the heat cooked my legs at stop lights.  So... I put on rinehart True Duals, K&N, and TMAT. Still cooks me.
I understand the 26's run cooler than the 21's, but how will the 21's compare to stock?

[cig]

If I was haveing head work done, I would use the 26's. Stock heads , 21's.

[sinktip]

Weighing back in after I had my work done. Ended up going with the the 26s with the conversion to the hydraulic tensioners after the run-out was too great to go with gear driven. A little disapointed but confident that these are still far better than the old spring tensioners. Had the heads rebuilt and as stated above, big bore 95 kit. I'm not done breaking it in but so far nothing but smiles. The sound is a touch louder  and the idle has a bit more lope to it. Rather than pull you off the back of the bike fast, it seems to just have an incredible smoothness to it. 55 to 70 is smooth and deceptively quick. Before the bike would feel like it was working and take 5-6 seconds to accelerate between those two speeds in 5th (3.37 gearing). Now it just glides right up there in 3-4 seconds. Looking forward to getting it out onto the highway where I can open it up a bit and see how it pulls it different situations.

[FLTRI]

Weighing back in after I had my work done. Ended up going with the the 26s with the conversion to the hydraulic tensioners after the run-out was too great to go with gear driven. A little disapointed but confident that these are still far better than the old spring tensioners. Had the heads rebuilt and as stated above, big bore 95 kit. I'm not done breaking it in but so far nothing but smiles. The sound is a touch louder  and the idle has a bit more lope to it. Rather than pull you off the back of the bike fast, it seems to just have an incredible smoothness to it. 55 to 70 is smooth and deceptively quick. Before the bike would feel like it was working and take 5-6 seconds to accelerate between those two speeds in 5th (3.37 gearing). Now it just glides right up there in 3-4 seconds. Looking forward to getting it out onto the highway where I can open it up a bit and see how it pulls it different situations.

Have you had it tuned yet, or are you running a canned map?

[sinktip]

No, no tune until after 1000 miles. Right now I'm running a map from a bike that is almost identical although running Screaming Eagle cams.

[FLTRI]

No, no tune until after 1000 miles. Right now I'm running a map from a bike that is almost identical although running Screaming Eagle cams.

The 2 biggest contributors to mapping fuel requirements are cam profile and exhaust. As long as those 2 are the same the mapping may be close, but no guaranty since other variables such as porting and intake also play a part.

A lot of folks think if their build is close to what a map is made for it will be "close enough". If you start using oil prematurely or notice hot running, there can be damage done @ the most critical point in time for the engine, during high friction/heat break-in.

There is a myth that any "close looking" map will work for break-in as long as the rider is easy on the engine. Worked for carbed engines, but not for EFI, since mapping dictates the fuel and timing, a lean spot in the wrong place or too much timing under load, will for sure do damage, especially under hot ambients.
Just my experience,
Bob

[MHenriques]

Hello guys

I´m considering the same Andrews 21 x 26 cam options for my HD Softail Heritage 2008 96ci. The last recommendation I got from Andrews is to install the 26 cam and change the gear ratio using a 30 tooth power pulley. Any coments?

Mauricio

[JohnCA58]

You cant go wrong with that combination.   

[BlueThunder]

You cant go wrong with that combination.   

That would be a nice boost in power.

[04Glider2]

AFter a lot of thought and research here and there, I went with the 21's on my 04 RG wanted the 26's but the advise I got was find the cam you want and buy the next lower one, thanks FLTRI (Bob)
Got the hydraulic conversion kit for HERKO, came with everything you need and all HD Parts needed, no running out to get anything. Give him a call he is super helpful, he sent the locktite and the Cracker Jacks.
Went from Stage One with 73HP and 78 Torque  and now at 85HP and 88 Torque.
At 70 MPH and 3000 RPM a twist of the grip feels like 4th gear used to feel.
Bike is super responsive from low rpm's and runs good out the top end as well.
First ride after the work was loaded to the max and touring the Sierra Nev MTS was very impressed.

Check my dyno sheets here:

http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,29608.0.html
                       

[Hillside Motorcycle]

I too like the 26. Versatile. Works in a stock 88 and much better in a 95" with head work and added compression. Sure wish Andrews would increase the lift.

Throw a set of the S/E 1.725 rockers at it.
Scott

[JohnCA58]

Throw a set of the S/E 1.725 rockers at it.
Scott



I did,  and it pulls hard from 2500 to 5800. 

[MHenriques]

After reading a lot, I´m really leaning towards Andrews 21 chain cams. The package I´m considering is:

• 216321 - Andrews TW21 Chain Drive Cams
• 17045-99D - HD Cam Installation Kit
• 24018-10 - Screamin' Eagle® High Performance Inner Cam Bearings
• 18404-08 - Screamin' Eagle® Premium Tapered Quick-Install Adjustable Pushrods
• Roller-X Lifters

MH

[PanHeadRed]

>Any coments?<

Yep, I'd consider targeting the push rod and lifter money towards a big bore kit, and then pick a stock base circle cam a bit more suited for a 103"....something between 235 - 245 intake duration.

[RugerSAfan]

Old Old Thread....

Running stock 88 '01 Heritage w/ SE air cleaner and V&H Longshots.  Foot clutch and Jockey Shift.

Considering either an Andrews cam 21 or 26 as listed in subject title.

I was leaning towards the 21, but called Andrews as several suggested.  The gentleman I spoke to recommended the 26 based on the bike I rode and type of riding (not real fast).  He said he would recommend the 21 if I had an Ultra with mostly two-up riding, but since my bike is smaller with both solo and two-up longer trips, the 26.  The gentleman also stated that I would unlikely notice the difference between either one.

Posted here in case others running a similar setup were researching...

[KumaRide]

Installed 21's a few years back on my 88" fatboy. Made a little bump in performance. Had 2n2 VH staggered at that time. Replaced them with a 2n1 shortly after 21 install, and that helped much much more. From my experience, dump the 2n2 pipes, get 2n1, if you seriously want something out of that lil 88". And, with those 2n2s and 26's, you will get less bottom end then with 21's.

[wolf_59]

you might consider the S&S 509 cams check the dyno section

[86fxwg]

you might consider the S&S 509 cams check the dyno section

86

[Karl H.]

Dyna 2003 TC88: The Andrews 21 gave me a rock solid low idle and some kick backs at hot engine starts. The better low end torque could barely be felt due to the relatively low weight of my bike with rider. No significant difference above 2000 rpm. I would recommend the 26 for your bike!

Karl

[Matt C]

Dyna 2003 TC88: The Andrews 21 gave me a rock solid low idle and some kick backs at hot engine starts. The better low end torque could barely be felt due to the relatively low weight of my bike with rider. No significant difference above 2000 rpm. I would recommend the 26 for your bike!

Karl

37's with a compression bump work pretty well too.

[Jaycee1964]

you might consider the S&S 509 cams check the dyno section

86

[86fxwg]

Dyna 2003 TC88: The Andrews 21 gave me a rock solid low idle and some kick backs at hot engine starts. The better low end torque could barely be felt due to the relatively low weight of my bike with rider. No significant difference above 2000 rpm. I would recommend the 26 for your bike!

Karl

37's with a compression bump work pretty well too.

  just did a 37 with TRQ pimps head's,81cc / flat tops,95" c/V carb flat out pulls a 26. Both RK's.
Other than the 570's I do the 37 is a good bang for the buck. Probably use it in my 95.

86

[KumaRide]

... and some kick backs at hot engine starts....

Karl

Happened a few times on my bike as well until I made it a point to always start in neutral. Never happened since.