Black and Chrome gave you some good advise..

If you're just looking for a 2k-4k cam with a lot of torque then you might consider the SE255 cam as well... The SE204 is a viable option as well.. Of the 3 cams you have listed above in post the 525 and 6-6 might be a better option than the 54H for lowend torque.. All 3 are cams you can grow into if you decide to do some motor work in the future.. Not sure I would consider the 255 or the 204 if you plan to bump the motor down the road..

 

I wanted to change gearing before cam would still like to this thing cruises at100 mph with ease

 

OK thanks for the advice..... so if because I'm running true duals, I'm going to lose a bit of torque down low, right?? So my cam choice should be more an Andrews 48H rather than a 54H, right??

 

OK, I have 2 more questions:

1. what exhaust are you running?
2. did you lose any bottom end TQ when you went to the 408-44 cams?

I am running true duals and I would be worried that with that cam I would lose too much TQ down low.

 

I want to reiterate... read the article in AIM (there's also a minor article in Vtwin). 96's have more top end than 88's. The pulley ratios are different. The strokes are different. Thus, the cams need to be different. Even the difference in the rod lengths can have an impact. The article has been chopped up to fit in the mag, but it still gives a pretty good overview of the different characteristics of the various Harley engines and what cam features might do what...

If you already understand this stuff, then, please excuse me...

C#

 

Thanks, yes the 54H needs a bit of compression to maintain low end TQ especially seeing as though I am running True dual pipes.

Because I'm running true dual pipes I think maybe the Andrews new 48H cam would be a better choice, or even the Woods TW5-6.....

What do you think?

 

I don't have a copy of this mag - I will have to go and get one. Thanks.

 

I am running V&H BSS I cant tell where it lost any low end torque call Bob Woods he can answer all your questions,I am very happy with the cam but you may not like it that is why you should call Bob every one has a different opinion on cams I would hate for you to spend your money and be unhappy

 

My CR is set at 10.25-1 in a 103" and when I spoke with Andrews they said it would work good in my build but that my compression might be a bit high for it so tune would be very important.. They suggested to change pulleys rather than cams.. This is the email I got from them.. I'm not well versed on the Woods cams as I've never used one but many speak highly of them.. I just never liked the idea of paying a $200 premium for a cam and possibly dealing with a noisey valve train.. I have no 1st hand knowledge of the valve noise, just repeating what others that have them have told me.. Again,many people swear by Woods cams so I may be missing the boat..

 

BTW, that dyno sheet he sent showed a 54H in a 103 motor pulled 117.9 torque and 108.4 hp.. Doesn't say if anything was done to the heads or was just a stage II 103 kit..