Hi All - I have been researching cams, and I think the se 204's might be the choice for low to mid torque increase! I have an 03 ultra, what do you think- Chas
The 204 is a great cam, but it is a little more of a mid and upper range cam, especially in an Ultra. It likes a little more compression to make more low end power. I really like it, it's a great sounding cam, and works well in a lighter bike, or if you don't mind winding it up a little to get into the power band.
A better choice might be the S&S509, SE203, Andrews 21 or 26.
Hi Hoss- How much of a difference is the se 204 to the se 203?
The 203 is more of a low and mid range cam, it will pull nicely with your heavier bike when cruising. The 204 may feel a little sluggish when accelerating while cruising, but will respond nicely if you downshift to get the rpms up. It will also pull farther up the rpm range, the 203 will fall off earlier. It's really up to you to decide how you really ride, and what you want out of your motor.
I personally like the 204, as it meets my style of riding, but I like rpms, I don't lug my motors.
I should also say, were I to choose between the two for an Ultra, I may lean toward the 203.
203s are also what came in the 95" Harley BB kits. Coff 06
SE 203's is where I started with my 02 and then into the 95 inch for another 60,000 miles.
Of course there where some growing pains along the way, but she ran good.
Rob
I had them in my 2006 Ultra with a 95 inch big bore. It pinged a bit for my tastes, and could never seem to get the pinging under control.
I swapped them for S&S 510G and went to gear drive. I liked the way it ran afterwards.
Quote from: Princess Butt on March 27, 2019, 09:55:28 AM
I had them in my 2006 Ultra with a 95 inch big bore. It pinged a bit for my tastes, and could never seem to get the pinging under control.
I swapped them for S&S 510G and went to gear drive. I liked the way it ran afterwards.
I have a 2002 stock 88" TC in my Fatboy and considering going to either S&S 509 or 510 gear drive cam. Which cam would work the best?
The 204 was given more exhaust duration to give it the lumpy idle sound that a lot of guys wanted.
There are a lot more cams to choose from now & everybody has a favorite.
If you go with the HD cam go the 203 was the better cam. JMO.
Many "magic" cams out there.... :hyst:.......we have a box labeled at the shop..."Magic Cam"......folks want to see it on occasion, when we open it to show them, they are surprised to see the box is empty..... :hyst:
Those 2 S/E cams cams, actually work work pretty good.
Quote from: Hillside Motorcycle on March 28, 2019, 04:18:11 AM
Many "magic" cams out there.... :hyst:.......we have a box labeled at the shop..."Magic Cam"......folks want to see it on occasion, when we open it to show them, they are surprised to see the box is empty..... :hyst:
Those 2 S/E cams cams, actually work work pretty good.
love this :teeth:
OP- check out the Zipper's/Redshift 511. Great cam & actually builds a bit more cylinder pressure than the OE cam.
I put a set of 204's in a 103 heritage and road tuned it not long ago, owner loves it, as time has gone by the knowledge from practical experience has grown resulting in design improvements giving rise to new and better cams, but at bolt in level the old ones still shine, maybe not as bright as some of the newer ones but still a better cam than stock, 204, 37 etc. Can be had for not much money at times as well.
The RS 527 is similar to the 203,more lift and tad less exhaust duration and overlap.
Quote from: boooby1744 on March 28, 2019, 07:55:36 PM
The RS 527 is similar to the 203,more lift and tad less exhaust duration and overlap.
What is the total lift, will it work with stock '03 heads? How much more expensive than the SE cam?
Quote from: Hossamania on March 28, 2019, 08:14:11 PM
Quote from: boooby1744 on March 28, 2019, 07:55:36 PM
The RS 527 is similar to the 203,more lift and tad less exhaust duration and overlap.
What is the total lift, will it work with stock '03 heads? How much more expensive than the SE cam?
.525 lift, might work,might need springs. I'm not $ure price wise.
I also used the SE 204's in a build. Stock compression those years was less than 9.0:1 and the 203 worked better with stock compression. The 204's need additional compression to work right. In fact, I put 204's in a stock engine and barely noticed a change. When I bored the engine to 95" and up the compression to almost 10:1, the bike came alive. You should also remember that the heads of that time were limited by the valve springs and were only good for up to .510 lift. It took head work with a change in valve springs to use a bigger cam.
I put them in a 2013 103" and loved them. Probably a little too much for an 88 incher.
Andrews 21 or S&S 509 are likely better choices
Apparently, lots of people still use the 204's in the newer engines. Part of it makes sense because a 2013 103" engine has a factory stock 9.6:1 compression which is what that cam likes to have, if not higher. For me, since the newer engines have springs that can handle a higher lift, I opted for the Andrews 57's in my 2013 StreetGlide. It would be interesting to dyno them and see if there is any difference.
my friend just had 204's put in his 05 deluxe 88" motor an had it tuned by a good tuner an he got 82 hp an 90 tq
Quote from: Langwilliams on April 03, 2019, 05:53:36 PM
my friend just had 204's put in his 05 deluxe 88" motor an had it tuned by a good tuner an he got 82 hp an 90 tq
That's pretty decent :up:
I run the SE 204 in my 95" road king custom, caburated. It runs very well but I had Big Boyz do my heads. Between a .030" head gasket and decking the head we got 9.6:1 compression ratio. Run 42mm flat slide carb, Screaming Eagle ignition module and Rinhart True Duels. I feel it in the seat of my pants and it doesn't give up on top, fun ride. I like the 204 at the higher CR.
Quote from: Hossamania on March 26, 2019, 05:31:48 PM
The 204 is a great cam, but it is a little more of a mid and upper range cam, especially in an Ultra. It likes a little more compression to make more low end power. I really like it, it's a great sounding cam, and works well in a lighter bike, or if you don't mind winding it up a little to get into the power band.
A better choice might be the S&S509, SE203, Andrews 21 or 26.
I had an '03 ultra several years and put the andrews 26 gear drive in it. it ran good. I put the se-255's in my '09 ultra and am happy with the bump it gave it. I do mostly long road trips with the wife on.
Quote from: Hilly13 on March 28, 2019, 01:36:30 PM
I put a set of 204's in a 103 heritage and road tuned it not long ago, owner loves it, as time has gone by the knowledge from practical experience has grown resulting in design improvements giving rise to new and better cams, but at bolt in level the old ones still shine, maybe not as bright as some of the newer ones but still a better cam than stock, 204, 37 etc. Can be had for not much money at times as well.
I agree put 204 in my 09 deluxe tuned with a power vision runs nice! and you will love the sound
I have the 203's in my 95" ultra and I love them. FYI, I put some Wood tw-6 cams in a 95" 203 Fatboy, and it pulled like a freight train.
Quote from: chas on March 26, 2019, 05:45:05 PM
Hi Hoss- How much of a difference is the se 204 to the se 203?
nutshell: not much, imo.
Talking to a smart fellow, the subject of 203 vs 204s came up. He had the opinion that the 203s were for carb'd and the 204 were for efi. Makes sense with the 203s 101.25* LSA and the 204s 104* LSA.
It states in the descript of the 204s that max horse would occur at 5800. Imo, hardly a top end grind, and I think anyone looking for that will be disappointed. I have experience with 203s and 204s in mild 95" carb'd bikes with flat tops and stock heads. Both heavy touring, similar exhaust, stock heads. The curves and peaks were very similar, although the 204s held on a little longer on the dyno.
The 204 bike was mine, and imo, the 9.3-1 CR 95" was an excellent two up touring cam for my style, but I never lug an engine. Later, the same 204s were used in a 10-1 CR 95' with some port work. Huge torque, but still peaked well below 6000. Fwiw, this tells me that 236* is not enough duration even for a 95" if you want to be anywhere near square.
Fwiw, the 204s are ground on 96/112 centers, [+8*]. I've always wondered what they would do backed off to 100/108. Close would still be early at 38* after. I wanted to try it, but I moved up to a 10.3-1 ported 1.94" head with 251 cams [huge wide curve and 6200 max with fatcat - excellent do not lug it heavy bike combo imo]
Dave