Andrews 37G vs HQ-0034-G
#11
01-22-2007 | 10:37 AM
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 2
From: Pittsburgh, PA
RE: Andrews 26G vs Andrews 37G vs Woods TW-6G
ORIGINAL: Twolf
Bro, I will agree with PhilM and say that unless you are willing to raise your compression and sacrifice your bottom end, stick with a cam that is no more than 230-235 degrees duration @ .050.
The Andrews 26 cam is about the limit for those of us who want a GOOD daily driver bike.
Any more than that will start taking theRPM curve upward, and you will begin designing a race bike.
The only Harleys that run a lotta cam are wearing wheelie bars.
Go with the gear drive.
Bro, I will agree with PhilM and say that unless you are willing to raise your compression and sacrifice your bottom end, stick with a cam that is no more than 230-235 degrees duration @ .050.
The Andrews 26 cam is about the limit for those of us who want a GOOD daily driver bike.
Any more than that will start taking theRPM curve upward, and you will begin designing a race bike.
The only Harleys that run a lotta cam are wearing wheelie bars.
Go with the gear drive.
Are you a speaking from experience, or from having read theory on cams and lift?
I do not have a "race bike", nor a high RPM cammer. I have TW37G's, and have real world results to back up my stance that these are great daily driver cams. Look at the torque curve in the dyno run chart. The cams start early and the benefit of the 37G's is that they do not run out of steam at 5,000 RPM. Drop a gear to pass and you fly, no runing out of power.
You get basically the best of both worlds with the TW37G's.
Why run out of cam at 5,000 RPM when a TW37G wil deliver 88.9 ft/lbs of torque at 5,000 RPM, yet still wail till the rev limiter kicks in.?? I hated the fact that my original cams were wasting RPM's past 4,500 RPM. No any more!!!
#12
01-22-2007 | 03:25 PM
Road Warrior
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
From: NH
RE: Andrews 26G vs Andrews 37G vs Woods TW-6G
ORIGINAL: PhilM
I'll take a stab, as I'm sure plenty of others will....
The 37 and the 6G really need higher than stock compression to really get the results they are capable of.
Given your stated criteria, I think a better pool to choose from would be the Andrews 26G and the Head-Quarters HQ-0034G.
Between those two... I'd go for the HQ-0034G.
from the HQ website: http://www.head-quarters.com/html/tc_cams.html
Bolt-in cams for 1450 and 1550cc engines using stock or modified heads. Good power increases throughout the whole RPM range. Makes the mid-range very responsive. This cam is extremely popular with the dealers that use it It could “agruably” be the best bolt in cam on the market if we had the advertising budget to market it properly.
John’s Performance in Washington state used one of these in a stock 88 cubic inch 2006 Street Glide using a Power Commander and Rhinehart Tru-Dual exhaust. John made 89.8 HP and 95.4 foot pounds of torque. A very impressive dyno sheet and said he could have got more if the customer would have paid for more dyno time.
We have seen the 95 cubic inch motors at 9.6:1 produce 88 HP and 101 foot pounds with stock heads.
I'll take a stab, as I'm sure plenty of others will....
The 37 and the 6G really need higher than stock compression to really get the results they are capable of.
Given your stated criteria, I think a better pool to choose from would be the Andrews 26G and the Head-Quarters HQ-0034G.
Between those two... I'd go for the HQ-0034G.
from the HQ website: http://www.head-quarters.com/html/tc_cams.html
Bolt-in cams for 1450 and 1550cc engines using stock or modified heads. Good power increases throughout the whole RPM range. Makes the mid-range very responsive. This cam is extremely popular with the dealers that use it It could “agruably” be the best bolt in cam on the market if we had the advertising budget to market it properly.
John’s Performance in Washington state used one of these in a stock 88 cubic inch 2006 Street Glide using a Power Commander and Rhinehart Tru-Dual exhaust. John made 89.8 HP and 95.4 foot pounds of torque. A very impressive dyno sheet and said he could have got more if the customer would have paid for more dyno time.
We have seen the 95 cubic inch motors at 9.6:1 produce 88 HP and 101 foot pounds with stock heads.
Phil's run many combos, so he is speaking from experience.
Good luck.
#13
01-22-2007 | 10:14 PM
Ultimate HDF Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,939
Likes: 3
From: TX
RE: Andrews 26G vs Andrews 37G vs Woods TW-6G
Here ya go..... they finally got that dyno sheet posted that I was looking for. http://www.head-quarters.com/html/bolt_in_cam.html
The 37 will NOT do this.... I have tried!
The 37 will NOT do this.... I have tried!
#14
01-23-2007 | 01:51 AM
Road Master
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
From: Albuquerque, NM
RE: Andrews 26G vs Andrews 37G vs Woods TW-6G
Buttman,
I DO speak from experience, but let me clarify some things.
I screwed up, I read the specs wrong. The 37G seems FINE as a good daily driver cam.
If I have not seen a bike/car/truck and checked out all of the stuff involved in making a parts decision, IADVISE on the conservative side. Personally, I will push it a bit. I just don't advise others to do the same.
My apologies. I have seen too many nice vehicles get overcammed, overcarbed, etc.
My comments about race bikes and wheelie bars were a mistake. Forgive me, late and a lil' too much beer. I know better.
Thanx.
I DO speak from experience, but let me clarify some things.
I screwed up, I read the specs wrong. The 37G seems FINE as a good daily driver cam.
If I have not seen a bike/car/truck and checked out all of the stuff involved in making a parts decision, IADVISE on the conservative side. Personally, I will push it a bit. I just don't advise others to do the same.
My apologies. I have seen too many nice vehicles get overcammed, overcarbed, etc.
My comments about race bikes and wheelie bars were a mistake. Forgive me, late and a lil' too much beer. I know better.
Thanx.
#16
01-23-2007 | 01:04 PM
Road Warrior
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
From: NH
RE: Andrews 26G vs Andrews 37G vs Woods TW-6G
ORIGINAL: 20NightTrain03
how much are those headquarters cams?
they look VERY tempting
how much are those headquarters cams?
they look VERY tempting
Call them, they are great people.
#18
01-23-2007 | 03:39 PM
Ultimate HDF Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,926
Likes: 138
From: NE Ohio
RE: Andrews 26G vs Andrews 37G vs Woods TW-6G
ORIGINAL: PhilM
Here ya go..... they finally got that dyno sheet posted that I was looking for. http://www.head-quarters.com/html/bolt_in_cam.html
The 37 will NOT do this.... I have tried!
Here ya go..... they finally got that dyno sheet posted that I was looking for. http://www.head-quarters.com/html/bolt_in_cam.html
The 37 will NOT do this.... I have tried!
#19
01-23-2007 | 05:57 PM
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 2
From: Pittsburgh, PA
RE: Andrews 26G vs Andrews 37G vs Woods TW-6G
ORIGINAL: msocko3
I guess its the skeptic in me, I have a hard time with those 2 dyno's. When you read the description of the mod's I see no mention of head work, I just can't buy it. Not saying that HQ cams are bad, just can't swallow the pie in the sky dyno numbers from such a mild cam. I always take dyno numbers with a grain of salt.
ORIGINAL: PhilM
Here ya go..... they finally got that dyno sheet posted that I was looking for. http://www.head-quarters.com/html/bolt_in_cam.html
The 37 will NOT do this.... I have tried!
Here ya go..... they finally got that dyno sheet posted that I was looking for. http://www.head-quarters.com/html/bolt_in_cam.html
The 37 will NOT do this.... I have tried!
I am also a skeptic, especially any posting of dyno runs from the maker of the product being promoted.
My dyno is real world, no bias on my part nor the dyno operator's part. If anything,the dyno shop would want to supress my actual results so they could get me to go to the 95 or 98 C.I. upgrade they are suggesting I do.