Ok i am thinking about. Changing My cams to get some more low end power.
The stock se266 and very good cams top end but i want something more low end too so people i am talking to are telling me to go with the redshift 657 or woods 408 i really don't know a lot about this stuff i know from reading up that the woods cams is a little bit more noisy then redshift maybe you guys can help me out I running stock 120r. With 58 stock bottle body And d&d. Boarzilla pipe with Thunder max tune
The 657 is a great cam.....you do not have enough compression to make use of it
Get the heads down to about 90 CC ,.030 head gasket
Then you'll be in business
llok at the 625 t man cams,set them between 10.25-10.5-1
Thanks guys what about woods cams ??
Our go-to Wood cam in those, is a 9B.
Hands-on facts.
Plug and play only with outstanding results from first hand experience, not regurgitated info.
Ok thanks
maybe the TMAN 660ps , I run the TW9BG in a 116" with a +2 advance ,at 11.3 comp. and its a beast , the TW9F with a +4 advance was also a beast if your setup for it , compression wise , but the lower TDC of the 9BG works well , I also ran the TW8G and if you want the best low end it is the best cam I got 132hp 140tq but a little noisy on the ramps mine is gear drive though , but unless your running a higher compression it really does well at 10.5 to 10.8 and in a 120 maybe even less comp, it also has the lowest overlap of the cams listed and for EFI I like less overlap just me but I like getting the fuel in then shut the valve , and the TW8 does that it is only 590 lift but in the 116 it was a beast did make for a touchy throttle being such a short cam. I also run the TMAX and love it , these are just my opinions on what I have tried . ive gone through a lot of cams the one I would like to try is the 660PS but not sure worth the change for the $$ from the 9BG,
funny but when I had the lightweight lifters in, the bike spooled up so fast they were aluminum floating lifters a new design didn't go to well though, and I used light pushrods it revved crazy fast the guy at shop said he never rod a bike that spooled up that fast , and that was with the TW8G , funny how lightening the rods and lifters could make that much difference, sorry for rambling
Overhead cams give the same advantage to a valve train, less mass moving around.
It's OK for rambling It's good to know about all this stuff guys 👍
If you like valve train noise.....bolt a 9B in with the stock springs
At 10.4 ish compression....that's all you'll have
Incorrect information.
Quote from: TorQuePimp on February 07, 2019, 05:06:21 AM
If you like valve train noise.....bolt a 9B in with the stock springs
At 10.4 ish compression....that's all you'll have
Bout the same thing I experienced with it. But I'm not a professional
What springs would be needed going from .658 to .630 lift?
Nothing different needed.
https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=107488.msg1278812#msg1278812
https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?topic=107394.msg1276670#msg1276670
Dave Mackie 598. Quiet better, low end than 266.
I tried the 657s and now the 627s (slightly less lift but more duration), and as of late I have retarded the 627s 4 degrees (the 627s are advanced 5 degrees from the factory) to get more top end. The 266s have a bit more duration and a wider lobe center. P.S. my engine is a 117 w/MVA heads (slightly worked) and makes 135.86 HP at 5930 RPM. Looking for more top end, as I have more torque than I need in my CVO Breakout.
Anybody have any experience with the 266s and 627s? TIMINATOR
S&S .640 as an example, or the .675, if wanting more hp.