V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
606 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I will be picking up my 06 SG in late Feb. I am planning on a 95" build. Looking for more tq than hp. I hardly ever ride over 80mph. Prefer stoplight to stoplight power.

Looking for suggestions. Was considering SE stage I.
 

·
Infidel
Joined
·
6,331 Posts
nt30,

I moved this thread over to the Engine Mods forum, more appropriate than racing/dyno forum. :yes:

Sounds like you want a good stage II set up.

First, pick your cam. SE 204, Andrews TW26 or TW37 are good choices for low end torque.

Obviously, you'll want 95" barrels, keep the compression ratio under 10:1 and you'll have no pinging/fuel issues.

If you want some top end, add heads that'll breath.

The possibilities are only limited by the amount of $$$$ you want to spend.

There are TONS of posts on this topic, spend some time reading them and then post up with some specific questions for the tech gurus.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
606 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
wyodude,

Thank you for the input. I plan on starting to research and bug the parts guys at the dealership to get what I want before I pick up the bike.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
591 Posts
wyodude said:
nt30,

I moved this thread over to the Engine Mods forum, more appropriate than racing/dyno forum. :yes:

Sounds like you want a good stage II set up.

First, pick your cam. SE 204, Andrews TW26 or TW37 are good choices for low end torque.

Obviously, you'll want 95" barrels, keep the compression ratio under 10:1 and you'll have no pinging/fuel issues.

If you want some top end, add heads that'll breath.

The possibilities are only limited by the amount of $$$$ you want to spend.

There are TONS of posts on this topic, spend some time reading them and then post up with some specific questions for the tech gurus.
Wyodude,

What's the difference between the SE 203 and 204 cams? I know that people have expressed a preference for one over the other. Is the 204 a better low range power choice? I am looking at the SE catalog and the lift duration stats don't mean that much to a semi-technical person like myself. I will probabl going with a factory Stage II for warranty reasons and the 203 is the stock choice, but I don't know if I should have them use the 204 instead. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.

P.S. Hope I didn't hijack the thread too badly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Exactly, you are dealing with a inputed air/fuel constant(the cam) vs a input air/fuel varible (The map or jets) However the constant sets the playing field. Some cams work in the 1800 to 5000 rpm range and some 3000 to 6000 range. Comp ratio are the little varibles that can f.u.b.a.r the cam choices. Trick is to get the right balance for your riding preference. What isnt talked about much here is most standard Harleys have a rear tire not much bigger than a bicycle. If you lose traction thru your shifts its as good as trying to ride from one end of a pool to the other. When we get to the end to of it .. it all comes down to E=MC^2...lol:yes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,385 Posts
nt30, i did a stage 1 95 on my Electra Glide. I am totally happy with the power up to a ton and it has excellent low speed manners. Low end tq is much improved over stock, good mileage and smooth running. I posted a graph on the dyno board.
 

·
Infidel
Joined
·
6,331 Posts
Lunker said:
Wyodude,

What's the difference between the SE 203 and 204 cams? I know that people have expressed a preference for one over the other. Is the 204 a better low range power choice? I am looking at the SE catalog and the lift duration stats don't mean that much to a semi-technical person like myself. I will probabl going with a factory Stage II for warranty reasons and the 203 is the stock choice, but I don't know if I should have them use the 204 instead. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.

P.S. Hope I didn't hijack the thread too badly.
Hi Lunker,

Sorry for the delay in replying.

The differences between the 203 and 204 aren't great, they are both pretty mild.

Here's a snippet of a discussion on 203 vs 204 from J&P cycles forum:

PM me if you want the whole thread.

I'm back now that I've had time to look at the cam specs some more.
I'll be the first to admit that cam theory is not my best subject so I had to go do some research. It made my head hurt, and then made me wonder why more people aren't running the 204's.

What I see in comparison to the 203:

Wider LSA, good thing, wider torque curve.

Intake open, 22deg BTDC, 4 degrees sooner than the 203, good thing, gets the intake charge moving sooner, makes better low end torque. MIGHT make for more noise from the air cleaner though??

Intake close, 34deg ABDC, good thing, makes for more cranking compression, which means more low end.
MIGHT be more likely to ping though, depending on the rest of the combination??

Exhaust open, 52deg BBDC, this is one that confused me as it is early for a "low end" cam, but it does get the exhaust moving sooner which will make up for the lame exhaust port, as will the higher exhaust lift. Should run more free(free-er??) on the upper end, widening the powerband. Does make for bad emissions.....but.......

Exhaust close, 8deg ATDC, seemed way early but drops the overlap and lets less fresh air/fuel mix out the exhaust which helps torque and makes up for the emissions issue from the early exhaust.

Overlap, 30 degrees, 5 less than the 203 already covered this, should be good for emissions and fuel economy.

.025" more exhaust lift, good thing in an attempt to make up for the small exhaust port/valve.

Take it with a grain of salt, but that's what I see judging by the seat of my pants. Overall it looks good.

The 204 actually looks like an updated 203(actually looks somewhat like a Crane 310). As I said,I'm beginning to wonder why more people don't run it, but I'm not sure that it shows up in any of their pre made "recipes" in the parts and accessory book??
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
591 Posts
Thanks Wyodude,

From what I recall, knowledgeable people around here seemed to prefer the 204.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,114 Posts
The 204 does rock for a bolt in cam, I've gotten 88 hp and 99tq from a build with stock heads and a 204 installed...Dyno Tuned of course.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
591 Posts
hdmd88 said:
The 204 does rock for a bolt in cam, I've gotten 88 hp and 99tq from a build with stock heads and a 204 installed...Dyno Tuned of course.
Thanks Doc,

I guess that clinches it. Now I just have to find a good tuner in Jersey. I haven't heard about one yet, but I bet there's at least one here somewhere.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top