I've been doing research in the way of cams on this forum for a few good weeks, trying to weed through good, sound advice, and, well, the not-so-good. I've got experience building car motors, but even though I've been riding for years, I'm just now getting interested in the internals of motorcycles. I'm looking for an excellent cam design to drop into an otherwise internally stock 96". I need great mid-range and top end pull. I've seen a lot of people recommend the SE-204 for this, and post 9x hp and 10x tq numbers. I'm leaning heavily towards this cam. Others swear by the Andrews 48. I'm going to assume that either one would be a great choice?

Thank you for helping me decide.

Sam

 

The 203 is a really nice cam however I have not heard that it was a good mid rang or top end cam. If you want great top end and mid range I would suggest the woods #8. Just an awesome cam, the Tman 590 is also a good choice. any question just ask danvanceracing.com

 

I was looking for the same thing and I went with the Wood TW-555 setup. I have a 2-2 exhaust and a Stage 1 air filter, but is otherwise stock. It seems to have a little more torque than stock from 2000-2500RPM, but pulls hard from there all the way up to redline.


Here's a dyno chart off the Fuel Moto website:

 

Thanks, guys. I've heard some good things about that T-Man cam, too. When it comes to anything engine related, I have to be 100% sure about my decision. Almost to a fault. Lol.

 

203's wont even fit in a 96" and these other two cams are WAY too big for a stock compression 96". The bike would a complete turd! Maybe not even a complete turd and just a piece of a turd!

If you intend to stay at stock cubes and compression, the 48's would probably be a pretty good all around choice.

 

Neither one of those cams are right-side dyno chart performers.
However they are a very good plug/play cam for that 96", and the Andrews being the better of the 2.
If looking for a plug-play cam that really seems to deliver very well, check the new Wood 222.
If you looking for this engine to scream off a big hp number, while still having very good torque, then the Wood 8, as already mention is a great choice.
An S&S .585 will be a mid-high rpm charger as well, but will not strike as hard as the Wood 8.
In a 96" engine, surrounded by all the correct pieces/parts, upper-teens can be had, and may touch 120 hp, tuned correctly.
The 2 owners of Phoenix Coach Works, have 98"ers(of ours) that are tapping on 120 hp, SAE, that they have ridden to/from Sturgis, from Eastern, PA.
Scott

 

Good info, guys. I generally see a thousand different answers from a thousand different people recommending a thousand different cams, all saying they're the best ones for the job. LOL. So though the Andrews 8 is a big player, like INDEPENDENT_1 was saying, it would seem I'd need to bump compression, no? I do still need great mid-range with at least some get-up-and-go down low, as I ride two-up occasionally. I was looking at the specs for the Wood 222 last night, and it looks interesting as well. Thanks again, guys.

 

The only thing I don't like about the TW-222 is that itadvertises emphasis on low-end to mid-range, making me think that it won't make power at a 6200 rpm redline. Now as far as Wood cams go, the TW-555 or even the TW-777 look much more appealing.

 

You will need more than stock compression to make those cams perform the way you want.

In the context of a cam upgrade for an otherwise stock or Stage I 96"er; the Andrews 48 will deliver more all around than the other cams being tossed around; it will deliver good low end, strong midrange and will hang to the rev limiter. If you are prepared to give up a bit on the lower end (not wise if two up riding is part of the plan), then the next two cams worth a look are the Woods 222 and TMan's 555Torqster. JMHO

 

I agree the 555/777 would probably be best with a higher CR, and I always have an open mind, but I just can't get over the fact the Fuel Moto literally says it's a low-end and mid range cam. Obviously personal experience is different. I know I won't get a tire-scorcher in there with a stock CR and stock headwork, so my options are limited. But like you and many others have said, the 48 looks good. Thank you. I think I'll grab a couple of those.