Almost every person who says the 255 cams are great rides a heavier, bagger, bike.

Want my opinion, don't even mess with the 255 cams. Your bike doesn't need all that low-end torque because your bike is much lighter. I'd go straight to the 204 or 555 like Scott suggested. A 555 or cam with similar specs will give you all the low end you need and will thrill you above 4,000 rpm all the way to the top.

Time putting in the 255 is wasted in my opinion.

Jim

 

Go with the Hostess Ho-Hos ... J/K

No way to know for sure but your own personal experience ...

Most of these opinions are worth what you paid for them ... mine included ....

I'll send you my invoice via PM ... LoL

* * *

BTW, I say just go for it ....

 

If the budget is real tight and you already got 'em, surely you'll enjoy some benefit, without the added cost. Darn sure will rid you of that horrible stock cam. LOL

I still think you'll want to change again later after the budget gets better.

If you have to pay for a tune, well you might want to reconsider. Paying for 2 or 3 tunes will not be cost effective.
Edit: I just reread your first post. Seems you have some tuning capability that trumps the above sentence.

 

Total waste of time imho..I installed them in a 103 & replaced them within 500 miles...I replaced with s&s 570g & liked them fairly well for that application.

 

Do not forget that he has a 96 inch engine not a 103. Being that we tested many cams in stock 96 inch engines you might be suprised at how well that junk 255 cam really does. Being that he has the cam, it will do fine in the stock set up and provide good every day power. Myself would say the 555 or the 54 S&S 570, t man 555 or the 525 and if the budget is super tight do a basic cast piston 103 build and run the heads stock for a year or so.

But really that is not where this guys is at. Be happy to post up the sheets on a 96 incher with a 255 cam and the andrews 48 with a tune pipe and a/c. Being that I have to deal with the mountians the little cam woke the 96 right up. Not so with a few other cams that are really set up for more compression and really work with more cubic inch.

Pulling a woods 555 this week and putting the guys 255 back in his softail.. Until he can get the money together for a BB kit and some head work. Not how I would do it but he already has a tuned map for the 255 cams so not out a ton of money. He has issues riding two up with the larger cam. ( his words not mine)

Once done with a BB kit the woods cam that will be a sweet running bike though

 

Faast Ed, budget got blown on Slotted 6 Spoke Mags for the bike along with ME880s, sleeves, and bearing, rotor bolts, spacers, and sprocket bolts. :-)
The mags are due in Friday. The tires are already in along with everything but the sleeves. Which I almost just had a shop cut, but for $15 for both, I just ordered them.

The exact one thing that I do not want to do is to weaken the already low torque/tall 1st gear. If putting in some "bigger", "better", "racer" cam is going to make the low end lower. Then I am not interested.

The only way that I think I could enjoy the "bigger" cams is to put in a 30T pulley, but then I have the speedometer jacked up, and I like the gearing from say 2nd gear to 6th gear. So I am not into changing the gear ratio. I know it would help with the pull, and probably put me in the range of the SE204 more often, but seriously. I do not hot rod my bike, but I do not lug the bike either. My general cruise is 50-55 mph in 4th gear. That is pretty much what will get you around town, and everything sounds and feels smooth.
I like the post about the extra pop around town while keeping the interstate cruise the same.

 

WOW that was quick as requested here is the sheet, Run 81 is the 255 cam, the other is the andrews 48. We did most of the testing for andrews on that cam. as you can see very close to the 255 down low.

 

Those are numbers I can live with. I feel that will keep reliability, and help resolve the issues I have with the roads I ride. Like I mentioned, I ride on very steep hills, and sometimes get stuck at lights on steep inclines, or have to follow a slow car up these hills. Very ruff, and a lot of clutch feathering. I am wanting to up my HP around 5-8 more HP, and boast the TQ to around 100 ft. lbs.
My bike dyno @ 1000 miles was 77 HP and 89 ft lbs TQ with a Stage 1 A/C and Thunderheader. I thought that was pretty generous. Possibly the SE255 is just what I am looking for. An EPA cam that keeps me in the reliability of pump gas on hot days while upping my HP and TQ to assist in the area I live in.
Don't give a **** about impressing other guys @ bike night. I come home to a good woman. Just out to make the ride more compatible with my terrain, and daily commute. Having a cam that gives me mega HP and TQ @ 4000 RPM doesn't do me any good when I am following a school bus to work up and down hilly, country roads.

EDIT:: wasn't trying to sound all cocky. I think I have made my mind up to give them a go when I can afford to get the parts needed to continue the project.

 

take a look ... at around 90+ ft-lb of torque at 2100 RPM ... and on to 100+ at 2500 RPM ... looks like what you are about ....

 

I just rode from Central AR to MO on the stock cam, and got 50 mpg doing 70 mph. Gotta love these Harley Davidson motorcycles. I tuned the bike again today bumping up the VE Cells about 2.5% where you would be at in 1st gear. Seemed to help the bike pull a little better off the line.
I guess this made the mix a little more rich in this area if I am thinking correctly. I also evened out my table in cruise. There were some peaks that did not make sense, and I watched the video that was posted today about how reversion can jack with the VE in some places.
So I basically followed the TTS tuning manual, and leveled off the graph where needed. Not actually flattening the VE Table, but just shaping it. There are still some peaks, but the transitions are much more smooth. I would not call them peaks actually. Before they looked like a Tee-pee. I think this helped even the power transitions out. While doing this I did a few short recordings to verify that the O2 voltage wasn't haywire, and that each of the sensors were running close to each other. That video seemed to help.
It seemed that instead of using the CLB to bias the lean mix, you could bump the VE a bit to make the computer add more fuel. This is just all a good learning experience. I hope someone can verify some of these techniques.

Anyway. I am getting more confidence, and I think when I install the cam I will be able to tune it.