You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join HDForums.com community today!
I hope to post the comparison later tonight or tomorrow. Kevin from HQ is a good friend and he "saved" most of the previous website before site was changed. He's sending the case study to me.
If you plan on continuing to use the fuelpak you will need to go to the 103.
V&H does not have a map for thee 96 ci with SE 255 cams.
When I went with the SE 255 cams they made a map for me and altered it once. The bike ran pretty good. I changed to the pcv with auto tune.
Bike runs cooler, stronger, and a lot smoother.
I have never had my bike on a dyno, I do not race only tour and ride. I have about 8,000 miles on the cams now and very happy. I was not trying to compete with others, only satisfying myself.
A 103 w/se255 cams can not walk away or leave me,I am able to stay right there with em, I give the 110 a hard time. upper gears is where they get me.
I usually run in mid-to-high 2000s. Only time I get over 4000 is when playing around on the bike and when alone on it.
I decided to call 2 HD techs that I know somewhat. Both said the following: If going with just a cam upgrade, go with the 204. If there is a chance of going to a 103 build later, then go with the 255. They both said both cams are good choices, and the 255 just works better in the 103 builds. Neither had experience with the HQ500.
Of course, the plot thickens. I just have to find that file from HQ on the comparison between the HQ500 and SE255 to figure out the differences between both.
It depends on where you want the power to come in. I've seen a few charts on 204's, including one in this thread, and there's no doubt that they shift the curve to the right, with HP peaking at around 5500 or higher. TQ also peaks at a higher RPM than it does with the 255's, but I can't see that the TQ amount is any higher. There's a cam out there for every whim and desire, and you'll have to decide where you want the power to be. IMO 204's will weaken the low-end, which is where I ride a considerable amount of the time, and although they provide a nice flat curve it shifts it too much to the right for me.
As for your tech's opinion that the 255's do well with a compression and displacement bump with the Stage II kit, this is true, but it's true for any cam. I disagree with them if they say it is not suitable for a stock motor, as in my bike and for my taste this wasn't the case.
One of the points I've tried to make all along about the 255's is that you can make this mod for a very low price if you DIY and shop around for a used or new cam on Ebay. For $200-400 it is a very nice bang-for-the-buck mod, IMO.
__________________ 2007 Street Ultra
Stage 1½: Fuel Moto Power Package, SE255 cams.
I guess that answers my question on the limited. No one could tell me if the stock Ultra Limited already has an SE 255 cam.
The Limited's have the same cam as the 96" motors.
__________________ 2007 UltraClassic\103"BB\.030 Cometic Head Gasket\SE 255's Doherty PowerPACC w/vents\Supertrapp SE's\SERT\Bagger Brace M1 15W-50 incrank\Redline MTL in Primary\Redline Shockproof in Tranny My other toy!
Would love to hear more feedback on the HQ cams/build beacuse thats what I am considering for a winter project on my 2006 Street Glide. I'll keep an eye out for the report from the old HQ site
__________________
2006 FLHXI Street Glide - Black Pearl
1450 SE Breather
SE Race Tuner
Rinehart True Duals becasue they sound so good...
I went with the 204's on my Ultra for several reasons:
I cruise at about 3000 rpms, and the cams come on at about 2700 or so, so for passing and merging, the powerband was right where I want it. Several people who have the 255's mention they can be abrupt at lower rpms due to the tq it puts out. When riding 2 up, I don't like bumping helmets, I like a smooth ride. In my CVO 110 with 255's softail springer, it is abrupt and I did not want that on my Ultra.
So I went with the 204's-it is very smooth at the lower end, comes on strong where I ride. For you though, where you say you ride at 2400-2700, the 255's should work fine.
Manny
__________________
1981 LowRider and 2000 RK both gone
2007 FXSTSSE, '09 Ultra 204's, V&H power duals
w/ tapered V&H slip ons, SE a/c, SERT, 80 hp 94 tq
I went with the 204's on my Ultra for several reasons:
I cruise at about 3000 rpms, and the cams come on at about 2700 or so, so for passing and merging, the powerband was right where I want it. Several people who have the 255's mention they can be abrupt at lower rpms due to the tq it puts out. When riding 2 up, I don't like bumping helmets, I like a smooth ride. In my CVO 110 with 255's softail springer, it is abrupt and I did not want that on my Ultra.
So I went with the 204's-it is very smooth at the lower end, comes on strong where I ride. For you though, where you say you ride at 2400-2700, the 255's should work fine.
This is a very good example of how a given cam is good for one person yet may be not so for another, as our riding habits vary. That's why they make so may different cam grinds.
As for the "abrupt" nature of the 255's, it is true--but I got used to it after the first day. It is more like increased throttle response in the low-end.
__________________ 2007 Street Ultra
Stage 1½: Fuel Moto Power Package, SE255 cams.
