Isn't the stroke the only difference between the 88 and 96?

 

I like my 88. The only mods. are SE2 slip-ons and an intake kit, and it runs great. I've got 23,000 miles on it andwhile it runs as good and strong as it does, I'll not do anything else to it.

[IMG]local://upfiles/49112/86831277B1A04A5FA988A0B9EC5C47D6.jpg[/IMG]

 

The 88 is a proven motor, the 96 is still too new.

 

I've got a 95'
Never had the 96".
The only difference between the two is a ton of upgrades.
The only shortcoming and complaintsabout the 96" are all EPA lean issues.

I'd take the 96", no brainer to me.
Add the 103" kit and a SERT to fix the lean problems, than all is well.

 

For displacement, yes. engineering wise, the 96 is very different. I forgot the number for difference in parts, but it was pretty astonishing. I have both the 88 and the 96. Don't really have a preference either way, though my stage 1 88 runs and performs much better than the stock 96.

 

I have a 96 will go to 103 will fly. It flies now with upgrades 6 speed why would anybody have problems with it?

 

I own both a 04 RK with an 88" and a 07 StreetBob with a 96". To me, and this is just my opinion, I like the 88better. Not sure why that is, it just feels better to me and seems to runs more comfortably at a better RPM range than the 96"er. With the 96" I seem to be runnig higher RPM's and it seems I'm shifting more often to find a good RPM range to run it in.If given the choice I'd take an EVO over either of them.

 

I am no motor head, but I like the 96" pretty well. I had the 88" in the 02 Ultra. It had eventually a Stage I with HD download, and Mackie 510G cams just before I traded it in on the 07. It took the Stage I and cams to give it the right amount of torque and power I needed, but the gas mileage went down anytime I revved it past 3000 rpm. At least 10%.

When I bargained for the 07, I got the dealer to throw in a Stage I at cost. I decided to wait until the 1000 mile service to install that. I was pleased to find that the 96" motor had all the performance I needed with out the Stage I. I don't have heat issues, pinging, noisy trans or any of the other complaints, well, maybe the valve train noise is a bit much but not bad. At this point, I don't think I will do any performance upgrades. This bike is more than equal to the demands I make on it.

 

Ask me in 10 years.

I "buy into" the logic of the '96er but...Time will tell the real tale.

Even though the MOCO is cutting costs, much of this has actually benefited the 96. Lighter components such as rods etc for less reciprocating mass = less load (wear).
I am not overly concerned with the cam plates "bearingless" setup. Think about this one for a second. Everywhere there are hardened ball or roller bearings is an object depositing is wear to softer goods such as the oil pump, the lifter blocks, the rocker bushings, the pistons, the cylinder walls etc.

God help me for this comment, but the metric bikes, and love em or hate em,make a damn fine technical machine - mostly on plain bearings, well lubricated. Your lawnmower, which takes horrendous abuse when you think about it, is the same with virtually no roller or ball bearings. But I digress.

Tolerances and metalurgy are getting better - you can pretty much just "bolt on" jugs and pistons now. This was competely unheard of 10 years ago - you had to hone, fit check, hone fit and assemble.

Since HD has been offering 2 year warranties, they pretty much have to continuously improve to ensure shareholders remain happy.

American Iron / Donny Petersen talks about the TC96 in detail - it's a good read.

 

88

But then I have two of them with over 30,000 miles each.