V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What cam will give more low end torque on a 2005 Ultra?
It is a TC88 with Stage 1 air filter, SERT, and SE 1 Piece slipons?
Would an exhaust change help?

Thanks,
magnoliarunner
 

·
Life is what you make it
Joined
·
3,568 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
946 Posts
magnoliarunner said:
What cam will give more low end torque on a 2005 Ultra?
It is a TC88 with Stage 1 air filter, SERT, and SE 1 Piece slipons?
Would an exhaust change help?

Thanks,
magnoliarunner
Andrews 26B (chain drive) or 26G (gear drive) should work good with the changes that you have. If your bike is fuel injected you need to get a S.E. Race Tuner or Power Commander and have your bike tuned afterwords.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
Bob Wood will definitely have something for you. I run a W6H in my evo FXD. VERY strong low and mid range. Probably not the right cam for your bagger. Ask Bob what to use. I can't remember which cam Bob recommends for baggers. I think it's a TW8 (or W8 for twincam).

Know that his load ramps are very aggressive, especially if you go with the high lift versions. There was no price difference between a W6 and a W6H, but DAMN! That's a lot of work to accomodate a .590 lift. Had to go with adj pushrods, roller rockers, clearance my tappet blocks, clearance my crankcase around the pinion gear to make room for that porkchop sumbitch, performance springs and associated hardware, and new tappets just in case. For a TC I think you'd also have to clearance rocker box lids. And the valve train is kind of noisy even when perfectly set up. Doesn't hurt anything. I don't think the high lift is intended for airflow. I think the "H" cams require more lift because the snappy load ramps would loft the tappet into free space without a tall cam under it. The .500 lift version of his cams may have a gentler ramp. Obviously this cam doesn't need .590 lift for airflow because it starts running out of air at about 5K, though it'll still pull strong well after that. Very tight LSA so you can't expect high revving power, but that's not what you're asking for.

Also, the cranking pressure can be significant due to early closing intake. Bob said 10:1 would be great with the W6H, but I don't recommend anything above 9.75:1 (I can only speak for W6H with light bike and ported head with big valves). My bike pinged in E. S.D. with crappy 87 octane, fully loaded plus some, windshield, 110-deg ambient, 75 mph into a headwind, trying to go up gentle grades on highway. Backed off timing and poured in some booster but it didn't completely solve it. Worst conditions, I know. So I consider mine right where I want it. With 90+ octane I'd probably have been fine. My cylinder pressure check with oil on the rings was 185 lb, which is right at the ragged edge of pump gas I think. Not sure what it would be with dry rings after breakin. Haven't checked since I put it together. Also, I may be better off without the big-assed valves and ported heads. I say that because I didn't ping at 80+ mph no matter what. Only at lower revs around 75 did it ping. Above 80 the improved turbulence of higher revs/flow increased my margin to detonation. It seems strange to think you could "lug" an engine at 75 mph but that's what is happening. So far as heads go read the Nightrider site if you want to see what stock heads on a well built engine can do.

Learn about quench (squish). It matters. If you're doing a top end at the same time (you are getting your CR up, aren't you?) you might as well tighten up your quench clearance. Set it around .035-.040 to improve turbulence and increase your margin to detonation. You gotta shorten your cylinders or use thinner gaskets to do this. You can shave your heads all day long and all you'll do is increase your CR and decrease valve clearance. Trim the base of your cylinders if you can find someone with a mandrel to hold the cyls. Trimming the base trues them up. They get wallowed out into a not-flat condition at the bases after a lot of miles. If your bike is new-ish you can trim the tops just as well. And for crying out loud don't use straight pipes or 2" dia pipes if you want torque. You probably already knew that.

Regards,
Chilly
 

·
killer sperm
Joined
·
2,852 Posts
magnoliarunner said:
What cam will give more low end torque on a 2005 Ultra?
It is a TC88 with Stage 1 air filter, SERT, and SE 1 Piece slipons?
Would an exhaust change help?

Thanks,
magnoliarunner
If yer just gonna change the cam & you wanna tractor go with the Andrews 21.
At that level changing slipon's won't gain significant power. BUT, just about anything will sound better. No insult intended, it's just that my ears hate those pipes.
 

·
07', 04', 03', & 02
Joined
·
1,099 Posts
Chilly,

What pipes/slip-ons do you like for good low-end torque on a bagger?:huh:

Stock Headers??
Tru-Dual Headers??

Thanks,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
The baggers have nice big fat free-flowing collectors. I'd probably get a set of performance slip-ons and call it good. You can spend a lot more but I think the gains will be marginable if even noticeable. And some pipes will rob you of power/torque (like 2" head pipes or straight pipes).

Chilly

edited to say the stock collectors probably aren't that good because of the obstructing flap, but big bagger style collectors have good flow characteristics. A friend knocked out the tabs in his cans but they sound kind of strange.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,385 Posts
I have a Supertrapp 2:1 on my EG. I love the way it performs it made a big difference. I posted a graph in the dyno section under something like (Doc how is this). I am going to an Andrews 21 shortly. "Baggerdad" posted some good looking graphs with that cam.
 

·
semi-retired
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
try these

bedemonster said:
Chilly,

What pipes/slip-ons do you like for good low-end torque on a bagger?:huh:

Stock Headers??
Tru-Dual Headers??

Thanks,
khromewerks
 

·
your ad could be here
Joined
·
380 Posts
bedemonster said:
What pipes/slip-ons do you like for good low-end torque on a bagger?

Stock Headers??
Tru-Dual Headers??

Thanks,
I'm not Chilly, but a good 2:1 is normally considered best by most of the tuners here for torque... then stock headers, then dual setups, as long as you are using an 88" or 95" configuration. Not sure about much larger builds.

-2$en#e-
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
574 Posts
magnoliarunner said:
What cam will give more low end torque on a 2005 Ultra?
It is a TC88 with Stage 1 air filter, SERT, and SE 1 Piece slipons?
Would an exhaust change help?

Thanks,
magnoliarunner
I have a 06 EG Standard with 203 cams
Stage1 remap
PCIIIusb
SE ac
Rush slipons with Thunder monsters installed.
I am very happy with the way my bike runs, loads of bottom end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,460 Posts
magnoliarunner said:
What cam will give more low end torque on a 2005 Ultra?
It is a TC88 with Stage 1 air filter, SERT, and SE 1 Piece slipons?
Would an exhaust change help?

Thanks,
magnoliarunner
Magnoliarunner, welcome to the forum, try the TW5 in gear drive and get your heads done by Dewey.......this will produce oodles or torque in the usable rpm range and make you happy...............quite a few of the guys on here have gone to 3.37 drive ratio and have had a happy ending also.

Either get your barrels done to 95" or consider 98" as this will get you moving...........

I would not go with the TW8G as this is more of a mid/top end cam and you would definiteley have less power in the usable rpm than what you desire.

The TW5G is not as hard on the valve train as the TW6HG but puts up absoluteley respectable torque and hp numbers.

Pipes....................well up to you................

If you dont want to go to high lifts, roller rockers, etc...........then try the tw6 as this is a bolt in number and you can live with stock rockers.................I would still go to forged rocker plates as the cast numbers appear to be hit or miss with performance applications.

Merry xmas...............Ozzie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
FYI, I do run a 2-1 Supertrapp with none of the magical discs, and certainly no discs with the open end. If one runs a supertrapp with open ends the discs don't do jack. I do think my engine felt like the torque came on sooner with a bunch of disc but it also fell off sooner than with no discs. Just seat-of-the pants feel, no charts to prove it. I pulled the baffles once...ONCE. That mammajamma sounded HOT but the fun wore off before I got to the end of the road. Stupidly loud. WAY louder than any straight pipe I've ever heard. Conventional wisdom is that a 2-1 is good for torque but I'm not sure the gains over bagger headers with good slip-ons is worth the $500 they'll cost you.

Chilly
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
I would agree with the 203 cams. I have
1550, 203 cams, SE a/c, stock heads and D&D pipes on
02 FXST. 96 TQ, and 77 HP
88 in TQ at 2600
 

·
43 Fuel Curves
Joined
·
819 Posts
magnoliarunner,

I'll second Milehog on the Andrews TW-21 if you are going to stay with an 88 on your Ultra. I disagree with him on exhaust. I think you would see some improvement with Cycle Shack slip ons at the top end.

If you want a little more top end the Andrews TW-26 can stay with you even if you go to a 95" and or headwork, though they don't need either but benifit from them and then the Cycle Shack slip ons would prove even more benificial.

The next level up for a heavy bagger is the Wood's TW-5G that requires headwork and roller rockers. A Vance & Hines Pro-pipe would go well with this.

And you'll need at least a TFI/DFO for your stage II.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top