Bobby's series of M8 cams is an interesting subject for sure, we co-developed a good share of these grinds. The most unique aspect was no so much the performance characteristic of each cam, but the big surprise was how different was the overall objectives were based on what M8 customers were looking for. The initial M8 cams were WM8-222 and 777 in winter of 2016 early 2017, very impressive cams respectfully with horsepower gains as much as 25-35Hp, however we found right away that many M8 owners wanted to run in a much lower RPM range and became accustomed to the low RPM response of the M8; a very different experience than Twin Cam and our traditional customer in that regard. We would post a dyno chart and half the comments would be asking torque in the 2200-2500 range. So, we went back to the drawing board and developed the 22X to really stack up the torque down low with early power delivery characteristics, then in winter 2019 we sat down and had 4 different "hybrid" cams ground. I tested each of them straight up and also with +/- 4 degree advance, the 22XE came from this group and then later the 22XD. The newest WM8-777XE evolved from the original M8 777 with more duration, we did 3 test revisions in our shop 22 Low Rider ST and it just kept making more steam; that cam is an animal.

 

Jamie,

Thanks for the insight on the development of the cams.. Bobby was pretty much always a symmetric cam guy. Most of this early M8 cams appear that way. Specs have only been published for the early cams and the 2 ??x cams. It would be interesting to see what the -D and E cam changes are but I expect that they will be keep secret for a while.. Others have picked up that asymmetric cam cams work better due to the increased intake flow of M8 heads / intakes. IMO overlap is less of an issue with M8 due to increased scavenging efficiency. I'm sure that some of the early cams made good HP but were in the upper RPM range and were very exhaust dependent.

 

Dont answer this but having half of comments harping on 2200-2500rpm range and caring about 5-10 ft/lbs at that range must have triggered some eye rolls in the FM boardroom. Disturbing trend I’ve noticed post M8 builds (scrutinizing dyno charts to that pointless degree)…..you can’t convince me that 140 ft/lbs vs 130 ft/lbs at 2500 makes any difference to anyone knowing what they’re doing. But of course the industry had to give the masses what they want…..I would have let them eat cake.

 

I'm picking up what your putting down... I regularly like to visit 120-130 mph and torque down there ain't gonna do it.

 

Wow! Just when I thought you were a lost cause you have to go and say something I couldn't agree more with. WTF...

 

I think you guys are missing the point.. Sure 110 fp is fine and once you have a motor that is 124/128 ci, that number is easy to hit. The problem is that picking a cam that does it in a 107 or 114 is a little harder. For me I like a flat power band. Don't want the torque jumping from 80 ft to 120 rolling it on out of a 35 MPH corner. If you live in the flatlands where everything is straight, yeah, it will yank your shoulders out of the sockets and you might get wheelie or smoke the tire but straight lines are boring after a while.. Gotta have some turns..

 

can’t disagree on those examples of #s but I’ve read dozens of comments over there at HTT where half the goobers pick apart much smaller and irrelevant dyno sheet specs. I think because TCs couldn’t generate low end that high and now that M8’s can makes for hysteria when they don’t. Believe me lots of M8’s never seeing north of 3200 rpm’s, I’ve spoken to these types….disturbing. But maybe it’s all a moot point if a certain political party cheats again in 21 months we’ll all be transitioning to automatic electric alternatives!

 

As each new line of technology is introduced and brought to market It's always bigger and better, well not always better but usually always bigger and the predecessor gets left behind and it'll always be like that.. look what we were trying to do to 80" Evo's.. or for that matter 74" shovels taking them up to 93" or 106".. Even The evos up to 124", all that **** used to be the limit and now we're buying up the $143 inch right from the factory with gobs and gobs of ****ing torque... Looking back is fine but you can't compare the past with the present.. It's useless..

 

That's the riding I do and like here in the midwest. Somewhat hilly twisties on the 2 lanes. The more twisties the better.
Flat straight line interstate is boring and I will go out of my way to avoid it.
It is not my form of transportation.

I agree about a flat, wide power band too. Mine in not as flat as I would like but not.peaky either.
That 777XE for the M8 is the only cam I've seen here worth a ****.
I'm not sure where the desire for low end torque that nose dives from 3000rpm up comes from and I have no interest in the M8 anyway.
110ft.lbs. to 125ft.lbs. from one end to the other suits me just fine and gives me the fun factor I am looking for. I ride solo on a softail tho.
The gearing change helps a lot.
One problem I see concerning low end torque with cams that carry out is the 180psi CCP that has somehow managed to be condidered the norm.
Most likely due to the canned map craze.

 

This is the second time you made this statement,
"One problem I see concerning low end torque with cams that carry out is the 180psi CCP that has somehow managed to be considered the norm.
Most likely due to the canned map craze"
Not sure where you're getting your information from but I've never ever heard a single word about 180 ccp being the norm.. Please feel free to quote your source..