As usual djl is providing sound advice

my back story: back in 02 my friend and I had 99 models and his spit out broken needles from the inner cam bearings and the shoes were quite worn. The outer bearings “appeared” to be fine. Given the understanding of this problem back then we blamed the entire chain drive set up and were determined to eliminate future issues. Ordered 2 510g. Kits and installed. Unknown if 509s were available at that time. Both bikes ran better and seemed to labor less above 4K rpm with a slight increase in power. Smoother less “tight”
mine ran fine until my recent upgrade to compensate for taller 2:88 final drive
my friends performed well for 6 years before he succumbed to prostate cancer
we cleaned and rinsed his cases but did not split the cases

 

I forget which year S&S introduced the 509 but I do know, for sure, it was not availble in 2002. Sorrry to hear about your friend; sometimes I think cancer, in one form or another is going to kill all of us. Those motors would labor less above 4K rpms but I am betting the low end suffered which is my only complaint about the 510 cam. If compression is boosted, say CCP up around 195psi, the 510 will wake up a bit in the lower rpm range. Same can be said for the Andrews TW37 which was one of the "go to" bolt in cams for the early TC88 motors as well but it was soft on the bottom like the 510; similar profiles.

 

To use stock pushrods with the 570, did that require heads being off to get the new ones in?

That is what I originally wanted to do, have a bit of a stronger base in there for a cubic inch upgrade later on, but crank runout will need to be checked first if I decide to go that route still.

Hey DJL, I hear what you are saying about cost effectiveness. When I was building motors for cars, it was the same thing, over camming for the cubic inch and compression could result in a lazy motor down low. That said, I would like to eventually make this motor larger (that was originally the plan for this winter, but with both of my bikes needing maintenance and other things going on, I figured this would be a good compromise since it at the very least needs new tensioners).

The bike has about 80,000Kms on it (not sure what that is in miles, maybe 45,000?) so I want to do tensioners. Is there really no benefit going the hydraulic tensioner route? I don't mind changing just the shoes if thats adequate, but I thought it was the design itself that made this tensioner setup somewhat unreliable?
Also, going with the 510's, even if that should be a bit over camming for the motor, am I good to still just replace the shoes, do the cams, lifters, and adjustable pushrods? I don't 2 up with this bike much, I will be honest, its a bit of my around town hot rod and I am not easy on the throttle, so having a bit of mush down low won't bug me too much if it'll be a bit more of a screamer up top. What ya think? Are there other cams comparable to the 510 that would be a better option?




Thanks for all the advice so far fellas!

 

To mshred: reusing stock pushrods does require removal of the rocker boxes but NOT the cylinder heads.

Kind of a wash, you save time/labor with adjustables but they cost more than the rocker box gasket set.

Just my preference as I was not paying for labor.

 

I don't want to add to your list of to-dos, but at that miles changing the rocker breather elements and checking all that would be on my list while in there.

 

Its your money man, but way cheaper to just change the shoes to the new CYCO shoes. I had those and also S&S 509 and S&S lifters and S&S adjustablePushrods. Only thing I would do differently if I was to do it again is to get the Quickee pushrods

 

.510" lift is about the limit for the '04 valve springs, so forget the 570 for this application. Furthermore, even if the 570 lift would work, it is never a good idea to select a cam based on future modifications; cam selection should match up with the existing components.

The problem with the early OEM tensioners was the tensioner material, Delron. It was not designed to hold up well under the constant tension from the spring loaded carriers and exposure to heat and oil. The CYCO tensioners are a different material and are designed to operate under those conditions. Replace the OEM tensioner pad with CYCO and check them every 20K miles or so.

Short answer is yes; replace the shoes with CYCO, intall the 510 cams, replace inner and outer cam bearings, and no need for adjustable push rods with the 510 cam but your call. I like adjustable push rods for the flexibility of setting preload to minimize valve train noise. I still like the 509 and the SE204 would work well also; the SE204 is a very underrated cam IMHO. Good luck with the project.


EDIT: Andrews 26 would be another cam option.

 

Does the gas tank need to come off though to remove and reinstall rocker boxes?

Rocker breather elements? I didn't even know there was such a thing, I will look into that! Thanks!

How did you find the S&S 509 cam, noticeable bump in power from stock? (even if small)

 

I was never going to go as far as the 570, was just wondering what the experience was from that user. Seriously over camming, aside from incorrect valvetrain parts, would make for a dog of an engine, I know that firsthand.

I will have to look into these CYCO tensioner shoes. Forgive my ignorance, but I am going to assume that is a brand name?

My only reason for even wanting to go adjustable pushrods is for less labour removing things...To me, this is a Harley, not a drag car motor like I am used to where pushrod length was crucial in making power and not eating the engine up, so valvetrain noise does not bother me lol

Im going to look into those milder grinds that you mentioned....out of the 3, which is your preference? (509, Andrews, SE)

Thanks for all the advice and insight guys, I needed this kinda direction

 

No; however, removing the rear breather can be challenging as overhead space is limited but it will come out. No issue installing the new stamped breathers as they are thinner and come with shorter bolts. The HD PN is 17025-03A and the newer breathers are supposed to be more efficient. Inexpensive upgrade so why not include with the rest of the work? If you don't have the service manual for your bike you should get one; the HD manual is the only one worth having.

Have never run the 509 but have attached some dyno numbers that will illustrate the difference in performance over stock which is 60HP/70TQ. All are options except the Andrews 48; too much lift. Remember that these are peak numbers and don't represent partial throttle response. The 37 and 510 cams are going to be softer on the bottom than the others because of the later intake close and the general cam profile; they just need a bit more than stock compression to wake up.

CYCO is the brand; they are a US Seall product. I like the SE204 for your application but you should be happy with either of the three. Adjustable or stock push rods is your call. If you like adjustable, consider the SE tapered quick install (PN 18404-08). The "kit" includes pushrods, tubes, clips and o-rings.

https://twincamtensioner.com/