V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is the full list. Tell what you think of the build and what you think it should cost.

9198T 2 Bearing Tort 9198
SS33-5212 1 Heavy duty cam bearing pl
8990A 1 Ball bearing
25533-99A 1 Cam drive gear retention
17045-99c 1 gasket kit cam service
17997-99A 1 Quick install pushrod kit
16101-01 1 Kit gasket TC cyl head
SS93-3030 4 Long head bolts TC88 & 95
SS93-3036 4 SHT head bolt Thk wshr
17052-99B 1 Gasket kit Top end
29440-99C 1 SE A/C kit
32107-01D EFI Race Tuner kit
V17533 1 PRO-Pipe Vance & Hines
65324-83A 2 Exhaust Seal
DS-199538 1 4 Gear set gear drive cams
288167G 1 67G Andrews Cams
DS-223264 1 PRO-Clutch
22851-99A 1 Kit 1550 Piston flat top
34901-94C 1 Gasket Primary Cover
99887-84 1 Chaincase lube

I'm also having my jugs bored out and the rocker boxes clearanced. My stock heads are also getting a full port and polish with valves. The heads are being done by a local guy who has been doing them for as long as i've been alive so the heads will be as good as any head out there.

P.S. Sorry if what I wrote is hard to understand I'm new here and still learning
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,389 Posts
the 67g is as close to the se257 chain cam as you can get. That cam needs at least 10.5:1 or better to make good numbers...especially down low. All the good numbers will be from 3200 and up. You dont see this kind of build often on a heavy bagger. I would rethink the cam selection before the heads are done.
Use a 37g at 9.6-9.8:1 with a .030 squish. lots more torque where you ride that heavy bike. Make as much torque as you can from 2500-5000...the horsepower will be what it will be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I know the 67g is a lot of cam and it needs aleast 10.0 to 10.8 C.R. to run.
Andrews said it should pull hard from 2600-6200 RPM. Other than the cam being on the large side I think this build should be alot of fun even on a bagger. What do you think?
 

·
Knower of Stuff
Joined
·
1,978 Posts
I have to agree with SYCLONE.
Sorry but I think you are making the classic mistake of overcaming the bike.
Do no beleive everything you read in the cam spec sheets. With an intake closing at 48* ABDC it will not come on that cam until after 3000 rpm even with high compression.
If you want high lift and low end TQ look at the woods cams. The TW5G or the TW6HG are a great bagger cams with tons of TQ down low.
If you do any 2 up riding, then I think you will be very disapointed in the 67G performance on you ultra. IMHO
Just my -2$en#e-
 

·
07', 04', 03', & 02
Joined
·
1,099 Posts
06ultraclass said:
I know the 67g is a lot of cam and it needs aleast 10.0 to 10.8 C.R. to run.
Andrews said it should pull hard from 2600-6200 RPM. Other than the cam being on the large side I think this build should be alot of fun even on a bagger. What do you think?
That cam may start pulling around 3K with the late intake closing(but don't count on it); and I would not be doing a ton of cross country trips running the kind of compression you need to make that cam work. I would opt for the 21 at 9.2-3, the 26 at 9.5-6, or the 37 at 9.8

I think you will be happier in the long run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
I made that same mistake before on my bike. It was a DOG below 3500, Could not keep up with stock 88 under 3500. Listen to Syclone, the 37's work a lot better in a bagger!
 

·
IronButt
Joined
·
6,364 Posts
I have pulled many a "big stick" to replace with a cam that will work where the rider really rides the bike. I think the main issue is with numbers that are spoke about. Perfect example a 95 that make 99hp and 104 tq and a 98 that makes 94 hp and 108 tq. From the numbers no reason to spend extra money for a 98. Well at first glance,....... sure, but when you look at the two on paper and look at where the tq starts and ends then it makes sense. The 98 making 25 more ftlbs of tq at 2500 and 19 at 3000 and the 95 just below at 3500 and seeing that the 98 keeps the tq big & fat all through the range,.... then it comes together and really hits home.

Not to say that a 95 is not worthy or that it is a poor build. I was at a AMI shoot out. I saw some great numbers but when you see the graph you see the tq being under stock until 3500-3700+ I saw a 95 that made great numbers and the tq peak was at 5400 with a max rpm of 7200. Great on paper but I bet I could beat him on the street with my HUFFY DAVIDSON:hystria:

Really you are getting some great advice, I have seen way to many bikes that are over cammed . Now mine I am eyeing that new S&S 675 !! Gotta be a few more ponies to have some where.
 

·
killer sperm
Joined
·
2,852 Posts
With a big cam your gonna have to regear. What you really want is less cam and more (100 plus) cubic inches.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
304 Posts
I have a 95" with the SE-257 and Rineharts on an 06 Ultra. I wouldn't recommend this cam or the Andrews 67 unles you like to start your power at 3400 RPM's. The bike actually pulls good and long from the line through the gears, but at cruising speed 65-70 mph 5th gear is useless and 4th only starts to come on at 70 mph. I am going to have the guy tune some of it out , but you'd be better off with a different cam. I tried a different map and the power comes on a little better in 4th, at 65mph, but my advice is go with a different cam. My numbers should be on the dyno attached with a little better action now at 3000 RPM...not much though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
304 Posts
I have a 95" with the SE-257 and Rineharts on an 06 Ultra. I wouldn't recommend this cam or the Andrews 67 unles you like to start your power at 3400 RPM's. The bike actually pulls good and long from the line through the gears, but at cruising speed 65-70 mph 5th gear is useless and 4th only starts to come on at 70 mph. I am going to have the guy tune some of it out , but you'd be better off with a different cam. I tried a different map and the power comes on a little better in 4th, at 65mph, but my advice is go with a different cam. My numbers should be on the dyno attached with a little better action now at 3000 RPM...not much though.
 

·
Addicted to American Iron
Joined
·
460 Posts
Just finished a fatboy motor build and already starting an Ultra torque build.

Doing most of the same things you are except going with custom ground cams simular to a TW-6 just slightly higher lift of .550 and a tad more duration. Did not want to go with the TW-6H that has a .590 lift as I wanted something a little easier on the valve train than the 6H. With a heavy bagger it all about torque low to midrange for me. I usually ride my Ultra 75-80mph on the interstate and rarely ride above 3500rpm except passing and on-ramps. Baggers are fun to ride with usable grunt and your cams won't have much of that in the realistic riding range of a bagger. Also did not see a Baisley spring on your list, what ever you do get one of those.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
If later I find out I don't like the 67g cam what would it cost and what would I need to do to change the cams? Could I just put in new cams or would I need to change the cam and gears too? Also what does it take to re-gear a TC88?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,389 Posts
06ultraclass said:
If later I find out I don't like the 67g cam what would it cost and what would I need to do to change the cams? Could I just put in new cams or would I need to change the cam and gears too? Also what does it take to re-gear a TC88?
Your problem when you find out you dont like the 67s is gonna be your compression ratio. The compression needed for those cams will really limit your cam choices for torque cams to like almost none. The 21g likes a max of about 9.0:1. The 26g around 9.3:1 is tops ..and the 37g about 9.8:1. the S&S 510 is between the 26 and 37.
A head gasket change cant bring you down from 10.5:1 or higher to these numbers..especially without screwing up the squish.
to change gear cams..all you need is the cams,bearings and gaskets..no new gears.
I really dont advise a high horsepower build on a bagger. Its much easier to go from a torque build to a horsepower build ..than the other way around.
A primary gear change to a 3.37 involves a comp sprocket and clutch basket change. For part #s and prices just do a search here for "3.37 gearing"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I'm still not sure why some of you don't think this build will work on a bagger. I know some of you think the cam is to big but I talked to the shop a they said this thing is going to kick a$$. I know one thing I can't wait to see for my self.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
06ultraclass said:
I know the 67g is a lot of cam and it needs aleast 10.0 to 10.8 C.R. to run.
Andrews said it should pull hard from 2600-6200 RPM. Other than the cam being on the large side I think this build should be alot of fun even on a bagger. What do you think?

I have a 67G on a 107" engine, even at 10.4 static comp torque is lower compared to a 55G or a 50G up to about 2800 rpm. I would only use this cam in a 95 light weight bike with short gearing to make up for the low end torque loss.
.
Currently, the heads in combination with the 0.04 Cometics and the flat top pistons give me 0.047 squish (a little too high) at 10.4 comp, with the dished pistons (-10 cc) and a Cometic 0.030 I am back to below 10 comp which opens up the cam choices like a TW 50G or 55G. I have not used the bike riding 2 up yet, it's a new build but if I find there is not enough oomph down low, I have a fall back position.

Just my $0.02
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
304 Posts
06Ultra, to sum up the opinions of the guys on this forum who build motors for a living, "this is not the right cam for your bike." Give me a call and I'll be glad to tell you all the joys and pitfalls of my SE257. Its essentially the same cam as the 67G as far as when it opens and closes and the duration. My lift is .569 the 67G is .570. In the meantime see if the dyno down below is viewable and remember I have SE performance heads at 10.1:1 compression. They say this cam works alot better with 10.5:1.

309-243-7063
Scott Robinson:beatdh:



P.S. The dealer was thinking of something different ,I guess, when he picked this cam out of the air (see my post under Dyno runs). The lift and duration is too long and tall for this set-up. I talked to Woods yesterday and he's got a gear drive with .575 lift, but a shorter duration that's a torque monster for a Bagger. It's the TW5G. See what the others think about this cam.
 

·
IronButt
Joined
·
6,364 Posts
Ok guys I will answer this


FIrst off we dont "think" it will not work well we "know" . Most have offered great advice to you and laid it with the how and the why. Bottom line you have choosen the wrong cam for a bagger with your current parts list.:beatdh: You asked and then it would seem that you are not happy about the advice you have been given. With a colllective years of experiance here I think that in fact you have been given great advice and if you head it you will save your self money down the road and end up with a great package. I have been doing this for 17+ years and I have learned a thing or two, you have one guy that that is making a claim, you have dozens here that have all said choose another cam. I could go into a long post on VE and Cam closing points, TQ volume verse's velocity but in the end it will come back to this.....,,,,,, THE CAM IS WRONG .

I am know for my straight forward post's and did not intend to offend anyone but you asked a question, and it would seem that you are not ready to accept the advice that was greatly offered to you.


Oh by the Morning guys , any one got coffe????
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top