Road Glide banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Whats everyones thoughts on the new H.O. cams in the 103s. I repacked my exhaust with some fiberglass today which helped some but this cam seems really short lived. Bike wakes up at 28-3k and is all outta gas around 5k. Was planning on waiting for the warranty to be up but im not sure I can wait that long now. Was looking at the se204 ( I must admit im a sucker for a lopey heavy idle). But having trouble finding real world experiences for some of these cams. I know a choppy idle doesnt mean good power but to have a mix of both would be great. Any other suggestions or personal experiences with some of these cams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
420 Posts
I'm loving the Andrews 57H. It's docile below 3000 rpm but some report it taking off as low as 2500. I had head work done so that might have pushed it to the right. I need to enable my rev extend to get all I can out of it. It bounces off the stock rev limiter real easy and I have heard this cam tops out at 5500rpm. I believe it. I can't wait to make use of the extra 1200 rpms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,242 Posts
The stock Rushmore cams are a big step up over the prior years stock cams, but they are down on power compared to the aftermarket offerings. Andrews 48's will be going in the wife's bike if I ever get the bug to cam it. Its all about the torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,110 Posts
Whats everyones thoughts on the new H.O. cams in the 103s. I repacked my exhaust with some fiberglass today which helped some but this cam seems really short lived. Bike wakes up at 28-3k and is all outta gas around 5k. Was planning on waiting for the warranty to be up but im not sure I can wait that long now. Was looking at the se204 ( I must admit im a sucker for a lopey heavy idle). But having trouble finding real world experiences for some of these cams. I know a choppy idle doesnt mean good power but to have a mix of both would be great. Any other suggestions or personal experiences with some of these cams.
The stock HO cams are meant to produce power at early rpm's and yes they do hit the wall at 5000 rpm. If the power seems soft at lower rpm's something caused it to be that way. Usually the culprit is your exhaust choice
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
987 Posts
Out of curiosity, what kind of riding are you doing that you will need more power at or above the 5k rpm range?

Lil Chief
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
420 Posts
The woooohooooo I just got new cams installed kind of riding. I rode with the stock cams for just about 5 years so the difference is exhilarating but I also noticed that my gas gauge has been moving faster as well. I've started to tone it down a bit and cruise at around 3000rpm over the 2500 I used to. The power is right there if you need/want it. It is real easy to just let the cam work and shift at 4k now. It's a totally different bike. With stock heads and cams the motor sounded strained at 5k. This one wants more. It's a lot of fun but like I said I'm starting to cool down... a little bit... sometimes.:grin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,588 Posts
I put in a 103 HO engine in my bike and I don't think the HO cams are that bad. The HO cams are a lot better than the OEM cams that came in the 2013 and earlier bikes. If you're running a HO cam I don't really see why you would need to swap them out for a aftermarket cam until you need to do a R&R in the cam chest.
Will a aftermarket cam give you more torque? I would think it would but is it worth the money for a extra 5 ft lbs of torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
If leaving the motor stock except for a pipe change, the torque delivery of the stock 2015 & up cams is excellent IMO. Fully loaded, 2 up on the way to Sturgis, no down shift needed to pass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,931 Posts
I had a Andrews 57H cam installed. I love it. 2500 RPM's on up it pulls had. Want to have head work done soon. My Dyno torque is 106 and HP is 95. :grin:
Completely agree with you on this. I've have the dyno sheet to prove this statement contrary to what others have said. This cam comes alive in the 2500 range and really pulls strong to over 5200 rpms. Very manageable in low rpm's in traffic and if tuned right should get you 42 mpg at cruising range. Great cam at a great price. The really big difference between this cam and the stock HO cam is it mirrors the power band down low but pulls out much further instead of running out of gas in the 4500 rpm range like the HO cam. The other plus is with the proper tune it will run much cooler than the stock cam as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
967 Posts
I had a Andrews 57H cam installed. I love it. 2500 RPM's on up it pulls had. Want to have head work done soon. My Dyno torque is 106 and HP is 95.
Completely agree with you on this. I've have the dyno sheet to prove this statement contrary to what others have said. This cam comes alive in the 2500 range and really pulls strong to over 5200 rpms. Very manageable in low rpm's in traffic and if tuned right should get you 42 mpg at cruising range. Great cam at a great price. The really big difference between this cam and the stock HO cam is it mirrors the power band down low but pulls out much further instead of running out of gas in the 4500 rpm range like the HO cam. The other plus is with the proper tune it will run much cooler than the stock cam as well.
Am with you. The 57H have work well for me too. Plenty of power available while cruising no need to downshift of six gear just roll the throttle contrary to the stock cam, early and late 103's.
About the mls per gallons if tune properly 42 to 45 mls/gallons possible depending on how aggressive you ride.
When trade my 04 RK stepping to the RGC with 103 was disappointed of the power of much bigger engine until upgrade the cam. Out run friends riding the new 103.
The new 103 cam with stage 1 will not deliver 95/100 HP and 105/110 TQ (depending on exhaust) as with an after maket cam.
If have the extra change upgrade your cam to an aftermarket one, 57H or TW 555 have good results on stock 103's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,588 Posts
Am with you. The 57H have work well for me too. Plenty of power available while cruising no need to downshift of six gear just roll the throttle contrary to the stock cam, early and late 103's.
About the mls per gallons if tune properly 42 to 45 mls/gallons possible depending on how aggressive you ride.
When trade my 04 RK stepping to the RGC with 103 was disappointed of the power of much bigger engine until upgrade the cam. Out run friends riding the new 103.
The new 103 cam with stage 1 will not deliver 95/100 HP and 105/110 TQ (depending on exhaust) as with an after maker cam.
If have the extra change upgrade your cam to an aftermarket one, 57H or TW 555 have good results on stock 103's.
I guess you didn't see the dyno sheet posted by dyno guy in the thread "Returned Again" in the dyno section of this forum.
According to the sheet dyno guy got 114 ft lbs of torque out of the stock cams on a 2015 103 with just stage 1 upgrades.
On my 103HO with stock cams I can just roll on the throttle in 6th gear at 50 mph and the bike pulls hard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
967 Posts
Ride the 103 with upgrade cams and you will feel the difference. I have ride the new bikes. Better than the older 103 but can not compared to after market cam.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top