Eww sounds like I hit on a touchy subject. The technology I was talking about is cooling. There isn't much technology in air cooled engines. Fins: you can't get simpler than that. But as I pointed out the main advantage is the air cooled engines are reliable due do their very simple design. But the other manufactures have gone to liquid cooled decades ago. Harley Davidson is one exception along with all the Harley wana be's.

I very much like simple designs. It's the main reason I went with a Harley this time.
Here's a '55 Harley

Want a brand new motorcycle that looks like something from the 40's of 50's get a Harley. The retro look is in but Harleys always had that look because they have never changed. Oh sure I've got ABS and a burglar alarm but these technologies are hidden. I love the classic look.

But since the topic of overhead cams came up, they are the main reason the rice burners rev over 10,000 rpm vs. 5500. That and smaller pistons. You want an engine with a high redline? Use 4 pistons and overhead cams. Then you can cruse around at 2500 rpm. Downshift a couple of times and give her some gas. Up at 10,000 rpm you've got far more horsepower due to more power cycles.

My last cycle was a Hayabusa. First gear would do 80mph. 2nd would do 108 at redline and there were 6 gears in all.

 

There's more to air cooling than just fins. H-D perfected the science of air cooling in the 45 degree V-twin while the rest slapped water jackets around the jugs and hung radiators on the front. Ever try to measure a Harley piston with a regular micrometer? Can't be done because the shape of it is too complex. They are both cam shaped, and tapered, so they can run tight tolerances even at temperatures that would seize a liquid-cooled piston in its bore.

SAE HP is torque x rpm / 5252. Your 10,000 rpm engine is great on a race track, not so great on the street where most of us ride our motorcycles. An engine that produces 100 lbs of torque at 3,200 is a lot more usable on the street than one that produces 100 hp at 10,000 rpm. Too many people confuse horsepower with torque and forget that horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you.

Hildo knows the difference between horsepower and torque. Ricky don't, and he still don't understand it

 

You had me until you showed this dopey video. I still think Ricky was baggin' it for the youtuberverse.

 

I doubt it because I've seen it done before at various dragstrips. They were racing, what - probably a city block or two? As soon as the high-revving four comes on cam the Harley will be in its dust. Otherwise it's the basic physics of drag racing applying instantaneous torque and tractive effort without overwhelming the rear tire and the Harley will take him on the launch every time. If the sportbike rider takes it up into the narrow peak torque band at launch he'll either light the rear tire or wheelie it and the Harley will still win.

The Harley has a broad torque curve and it's easy to launch. The sportbike has a narrow peaky torque curve and it's very difficult to launch.

The published 1/4 mile times for most of those sportbikes are not achievable by any but professional riders. At dragstrips over the years, I've seen very few average street riders that can actually push one to its full capability.

 

Evo's are rebuildable to infinity.

Twin cams should come with a label that says "Don't be a litter bug and put garbage in it's place when done"

 

In that video, Hildo has done something with his Transmission. It's n12345. at the 2:20 mark watch as he pulls UP on the shift lever to get it in 1st gear. I think he'd modified it which is probably why he's kicking that rice burners ***.

 

My personal opinion is that is why Harley discontinued them. The Evo got them out of the AMF years and allowed them to overtake the metric manufacturers in market share. But in order to keep selling new bikes Harley had go to cheaper manufacturing and machining processes.

Multi-piece cranks and replaceable lifter bodies are a lot more rebuildable.
-using CNC machining to cut lifter bores in a casting, eliminating separate pieces
-using one-piece flywheel assemblies and pressing them together with a jig
-using roller bearings and not having to set proper end play and preload on timken style bearings

All cheaper to build.

The Evos do have some problems with the angle of the exhaust lifters at higher valve spring loading and rpm's. But as S&S proved with their Evo designs, that is not difficult to overcome.

 

I'm sure Hildo put custom primary and final ratios in it, and probably has some aftermarket transmission in it. And he's got S&S patches on his leathers and that is one nice sounding Evo, so I doubt it's stock.

But still, it's the principal of easy launch with the Harley with gobs of torque on tap simply by letting out the clutch and grabbing a handful of throttle. An sportbike rider in that same situation has to learn how to use the clutch as a torque converter to make things happen, and it takes lots of practice to get it right.

My statement stands - low end torque in a street engine is a lot more usable than high end horsepower.

 

Simple. They guys who like the TC bikes are the ones who are not really turned off by digital dash and complex engine sensors on a HD. The guys who appreciate the simple and elegant mechanics of singe cam HD V twins are turned off by that stuff and feel that completely flies in the face of what we like about Harleys. Nobody is right or wrong, neither is better. I don't think you will ever see guys who are really into Evo's, shovels and pans jumping to and from Jap cruisers, but you can more often see it with TC guys. I remember before the TC, there were a very rare guys who did not like the EVO...they were mostly Panhead rigid type guys. But almost everyone embraced the EVO in it's day, even if we thought it was ugly. Here, 17 years later and many HD guys are not wanting the TC. As to mechanics, I know very little about the TC. But the EVO is a 100,000 mile engine and from what I have been learning, the TC is no better as a powerplant in reliability. Mostly larger and changed to address modern emission standards. Guess it is kind of like 68 Mustangs v 88 ones. Is one better? Depends on what you are wanting get out of it and value. For me the HD's are retro by definition and what I love in them. They are timeless. Kind of like a classic Rolex. If I start having crank and O2 sensors, then IMHO they loose me. That is the stuff I want on my crotch rocket, a marvel of high tech engineering...love that too....Just not on my time machine. You either love knowing what every part is doing on your HD and how they work together to make you go and love that, so get a single cam V2. Or you simply appreciate the look and heritage of the HD and get a TC. Really depends on what Harley cruisers represent to you. I know having gone through my bike and other evos, my evo should be more reliable than any TC. There's really few things I can't fix on one when on the go, or easily diagnose. and as someone else mentioned, many less things to fail. So simple in fact, that when maintained, there is very very little to fail. So to me, mechanically the evos are a better bikes.

 

I'm seeing a common theme in the replies to this thread - the folks that got Evo's are refusing to part with them, even if they got newer bikes. I see them on the road all the time, and the newest ones are over 16 years old now. But never a single one at our dealer's used lineup.

It took me by surprise a little bit when our dealer told me that he has a waiting list of people that want them if he takes one on trade.

It also took me by surprise when we recently sold our '89 Electra Glide Classic with 90K miles on it. I put a price of $7,500 on it, which was more than we paid for it. We put 20,000 miles on it since we bought it back in June - rode it to Nova Scotia and Denali, Alaska and back. Then took it to Sturgis.

I had the full "pedigree" on it with the receipts from it's top where it got S&S heads, Andrews cam, V&H pipes, etc. before we bought it. Plus the receipts from what we had put in it while we owned it. The fellow that bought it looked all that over, started it up and listened to it, and didn't bat an eye or even attempt to barter a lower price on it when he handed me the $7,500 cash. I was actually hoping to get $6,500 for it when I listed it. So I'm like, holy crap! If he's happy, I'm happy.

Our dealer has two older FLHTCUI Twin Cam 88's priced at less than $8000. I know one is a 2002 and has 88,000 miles on it, and we were looking at it because my wife likes the red color. Don't remember what the other one had but it was blue and white and she didn't like that color so we didn't look at it that close.

But the point is, I just sold a 26 year old Evo for the same money that early Twin Cams are going for with roughly the same mileage.