Wood TW6-6 TW-555 Cam Dyno Test by Fuel Moto

[soccer princess♥]

No, I meant the Chart where you superimposed a 255 and TW6-6 together.




I noticed that you have an 07 with different gearing. Most of us with the newer gearing run a few hundred RPMs more than you at speed. I mean, if you want to do 70 miles per hour your going to be running over 2500. So it's not a case of what I "want to run" it's a case of what I have to run so I won't get run over by a semi. lol

Other thing is I don't understand the "weakness below 2500" comment. The woods cams seem to offer more torque than stock in those areas too. Maybe not 255 power but definitely enough considering most of us run stock cams and they do just fine in that area. Am I going to loose torque at the bottom end using the woods cams? Definitely don't want that...



Oh I know. Like I said...I don't care about peak numbers but I actually ride the bike above 2500. Have to. In that area the woods are performing better..and all the way to redline should I decide to be a hooligan and rip my bike up.

Given my inputs would you consider the woods cams a better choice for more 09+ riders? Just asking.

lp

[miley fan]

When I swapped in cams in my 103 last spring, I didn't just focus on building torque on the left side of the chart or on building hp on the right. The dyno charts are great to help give you an idea of a direction to go, but poring over dyno charts and focusing on one particular rpm band isn't the best way to go faster. My goal was simple: build a quicker bike. I wanted it to accellerate as well as possible from a standing start. It takes less than a second to spool the motor up above 3000 rpms in 1st gear. From that point, I'll keep in the throttle until 5000 or so, and when I upshift, I won't ever go below 2500. So a torque heavy cam like the Andrews 48 doesn't do it for me. I would never just roll on the throttle at 2000 rpms to pass a car on the highway.

A good friend of mine has a 07 RK with the SE stage II upgrade. It definitely runs better than stock, but I wanted more performance in my bike than the stage II kit brings. I don't "drag race", but I can easily pull away from my friends bike rolling down the freeway onramp.

If my goal was to minimize downshifting, I might have chosen different cams, but my goal was to increase performance as much as possible with the stock heads on my bike, and still have a bike with decent low speed manners.

[Viacheslav Sovanrithy]

Alright, time to settle the debate once and for all.

I'm running 255s in my SE103. You guys chip in and buy me 555s. I'll do before/after dyno runs and post the results

[mandee.totherescue]

It's attached to my post #98, page 10.



I'm running 2700rpms at 70mph actual (GPS). It has a speedo error of about 5% (fast), so I'm indicating about 73.5 when I'm really going 70.



It may not be a fair comparison (TBW vs. cable), but I have a Fuel Moto chart for an '07 RK with Jackpot mufflers, PCIII, AC, and stock cams--and the the 6-6's are 6 ft/lbs. down at 2500 rpms. They are up 2-3 ft/lbs. by 3000, though, and after that it's a blowout.



I think you will, but it may not be relevant to you or many other riders. I spend a lot of time between 2000-2500 and don't want to sacrifice power down there, but I may be in a minority. There are quite a few bagger riders who keep RPMs above 2500 at all time while cruising, and for those guys I think the weakness below that may be unimportant.



In that case you may be better suited for the Wood 555. Just my 2

[stardawn]

I don't think you can say that the Woods cams are "flat" on the bottom end.... sure may not be as fat as the 255s or 48H's, but definitely no worse than stock and definitely not "flat". Add a 2-1 pipe and bottom end TQ gets even better.... Until you ride a bike with the woods cams properly installed and tuned you cant make generalized statements like that.

Andrews is selling the 48H and Steve at GMR was the one who did the testing and he posted up his dyno charts comparing the 48H to the SE 255s.... Use the search function and I'm sure you will find the chart somewhere (sorry I don't have a link to it)... Yes the 48H did better than the 255 pulling longer and harder.

Even though you say you spend most of your time at 2000-2500 rpm, if you want to pass a truck you still have to rev the bike up higher into the rev range and then the Woods cams would still get you past that truck before you know it.

[nae_butt]

Compared to stock cams? No, not if the bike is properly tuned.

Are there some other cam choices stronger than the Woods cams below 2000? Sure.

The woods 6 is a good example of a cam that will offer balanced performance across the rpm range in stock motors. A couple of others are the Andrews 26 and the Crane HTC-310. There are some other cams that emphasize the bottom end at the expense of the top, and others that will produce good hp numbers at higher rpms, but you'd lose on the bottom without raising compression.

[Kez1991]

This I still don't understand.... Jamies chart comparing the 6-6 to the 555 showed that the 555 performed better and had the TQ come in earlier than the already excellent 6-6..... His comparison using the 4* adv gear also revealed that it doesn't make that much of an appreciable difference. Being similar cams, I'm sure this would be the case also with the 555.

So how can it be that the 555 needs more compression than the 6-6?? Sure, it may BENEFIT more from compression increase than the 6-6, no argument there - but again the tests Jamie did were on 96" motors with stock compression and the results speak for themselves. Great cams both of them but back to back it would be hard not to favour the 555 when comparing the results.

[ora shinchan]

I agree.... and If you are riding below 2000rpm you are likely lugging your bike and not using the motor as it was designed to be used.

[djannika]

I pointed out earlier that a FM dyno run of a stock '07 RK with Stage 1 was up 6 ft/lbs. at 2500 rpms compared to the 6-6 in the subject '10 bike. I think I used the phrase "weak in the low-end," and I'll stand by that. Add some compression and these cams should really shine, however. I think if you'll ask Bobby Wood he'll tell you the 6-6's need over 10:1 compression for best results.



The Jackpot dyno-tuned mufflers are very close to a 2-1 in performance, so I doubt if you'll get much of a low-end bump with a 2-1 setup. Also, based on a FM test of a stock '07 RK with Stage 1 and Jackpots, the 6-6's on the '10 bike were 6 ft/lbs. low at 2500 rpm. When I say "weak" my baseline is a stock Stage 1 setup.



I saw that one and the TW48 looks very promising indeed. They didn't have these when I did my cam job, but if they were available I would've had them on my short list. I would probably still go the same route, however, as I did my cam job for $285 which included $90 for the inner-bearing tool. That's what puts the 255 in the "best buy" category for me when you can buy them on eBay for $150, especially when they have the performance characteristics I'm looking for. Again, they're not for everyone.



Either will get around the truck PDQ. If you're cruising at 2200 in 5th you will probably want to downshift with the 6-6's, but the 255's have the gumption to pass without a downshift. Admittedly, that may not have as much import for some as it does for me.

Don't misunderstand my thrust in these discussions. The 255's are not for everyone, but they do have a niche and fit into it very well. The Wood cams are great, but I think they need a bit more compression than 9.2:1 to perform optimally. It's an apples and oranges comparison, IMO, as they both have their niche.

[Ceila M]

This being the case, what is the best way to raise compression on a 96" motor?