I have heard and read from some different folks that the EVO engine is the best engine that Harley has made. I have nothing to judge that by being new to HD.
So that's my question to y'all. If you think the EVO is the best, why? What makes it such a good motor? If you think there is a better motor MOCO has produced, what is it and why?
I know asking that in the EVO Classic sub-forum might result in a little bias. I'm not trying to start a motor war either. It's just I have heard from a few sources how great the EVO motor is and I really want to know what makes them so good.
I guess I also hope to keep that reassurance going about my bike. I got my bike from a friend who has been solid on maintenance though the bike has sat a good bit the last few years just getting run once in awhile. It's a 93 FLHS with 61K Miles on it. It's had a few things done to it, but minimal considering that you would call needed repair work. Cylinder base gaskets replaced once or twice, a few things like that. My friend also added a S&S carb, K&N Filter, mid-range cam, and oil cooler. Nothing that would be really considered hot rodding.
The general consensus so far I have gotten of the EVO engine is keep it maintained and the fluids changed regularly and the engine should be rumbling right along many miles down the road.
A lot to learn and trying to pace myself at it. Just realizing things like the transmission is a separate unit and not built into the engine case like on metric V-Twins and similar things. Some I kinda knew, but never really gave much conscious thought to as far as differences. If the EVO motor on my FLHS is capable of it, I want to be able to go for doubling the odometer reading if possible by doing the right things.
The EVO has its share of bugs. Some years have base gasket leaks, cheapo bearings that need to be replaced, etc. The Twin Cam - especially in its latest state is perfectly fine. The big bug with that can be remedied. It has more power in stock form and overall feels more responsive to me. The EVO is a machine with endearing quirks rather than absence of quirks.
The word 'best' is a difficult one to define and agree on! Obviously we in here have our views and love our Evos, but best? I've owned new Shovel, Evo and Twincam and they are quite different to ride, in various ways.
The shovel has a heavy crankshaft, compared with later engines, which gives it a slower tickover than the later models. It also a mediocre carb, which gives it that characteristic 'potato-potato' sound that so many talk of wanting. My FX1200 routinely 4-stroked on the front cylinder and 8-stroked on the rear, when hot and idling, which sounded just great, but actually exposed the poor fuelling! I loved it for the lunging acceleration it had, which could put real distance on any brand of bike back in the '70s.
I had friends with all of the must-have brands of bike of the day, who reckoned that when following me they got '2 bangs' notice that I was about to accelerate, from the straight-through mufflers (didn't have to buy aftermarket back then!), but nothing any of them could do enabled them to keep on my tail. Of course they soon caught, but I'm pleased to say I always got in the first word! On the other hand the frame was awful and handling required a great deal of concentration - I reckon it taught me all I know today on how to ride a bike smoothly and properly! It wasn't very comfortable.
The Evo has a lighter flywheel and better carb, plus a slightly faster idle, but has lost much of the 'character' of the shovels. I so wanted a Glide that by the time I could afford one I had no choice but to buy an Evo - although it took me a long time to get to like it! The engine of my FLHS doesn't have the same sensations or torque, but it has grown on me, as you might gather - I still have the same bike since buying it in new 1990. The rubber-mount frames are a world apart from the Shovel's solid mount and gives a superior riding experience.
Our Twincam (actually Mrs B's) was a TC88 Dyna FXDXT, which has an even lighter crankshaft than the Evo. I found it to be a strange thing and quite buzzy, with a frustrating vibration band around 2,800rpm IIRC, bang in the middle of the normal riding range. I cured that by changing the compensator from a 24T to a 21T, which gave the bike a welcome boost in performance, while dropping the vibration patch out of the way. I'm not sure the rubber mount system is actually better than the FXR or FLT touring bikes.
So which one is 'best'? I don't believe we can answer that without considering the bikes as a whole. The last of the Shovels came in FXR or FLT rubber-mount frames which heralded a new era in ride quality for H-D, which the Evo later made great use of. Shovels were made in tiny numbers, compared with the later bikes, and frankly were not very well made. The Evo gave the brand an engine it could build on and output rocketted during their life, however production got a further boost with the twincams and is now around ten times the Shovel annual output. Shovels are comparatively rare, simply because not many were made, compared with later bikes.
Another consideration is that these days we can buy a brand new Shovel or Evo engine from the likes of S&S. I like my S&S 107" even more than the original engine and it is far better made, also gives much better performance. The same benefits can be had with a 'new' Shovel. Having lived through all three eras and owned/ridden new examples of all of them I suggest the shovels in the older solid-mount frames are way behind the Evo, which I personally prefer over the TC88. I haven't owned a later twincam simply because they are too darned expensive and I am much less inclined to change bike these days.
The evo motors are great due to their simplicity. They where made to be easy to work on. While I agree with Jesse that the late model Twinkies have more power than the evos in stock form it is mostly because of an increase in cubic inches. With your setup you will be able to walk past most 88tc engines. Yes the evos did have some issues, but mostly minor compared to the early tc engine. The cam bearing was one issue with late model evos. But with yours having a cam, I would suspect it has a good Torrington bearing installed.
I am biased as both mine are evos, the softail is set up similar to yours and it will smoke an 88tc and keep up with a lot of 96tcs. Now my ultra is basically stock with a mild stage one, pipes, k&n filter, and s.e. map (it's got the m&m injector system). It is a dog compared to the softail bit still has plenty.
Their are a few guys in this section that have 200k on their evos, so yes if you treat her right she will be good to you. The evo motor also tends to run a lot cooler than the tc motor. Furthermore, the evos don't have all kinds of computer/epa crap on them to cause you further grief.
Evos and Shovels are dead-ringers, almost identical, except for external appearance. They are both BSA C15s with an extra cylinder (joke for British bike owners!).
As for EPA crap, Evos suffered significantly. The cam is a compromise, as also are the ignition mapping and carb settings - the stock airbox and mufflers are restrictive. The tuning mods we see twincam owners doing to their bikes these days have their origins in the mods we owners of new Evos pioneered way back, they are simply following in our footsteps!
To revive a stock Evo to non-EPA spec requires replacing the stock airbox, mufflers, cam and ignition system, and tuning the carb.
As for electronics, H-D used solid-state stuff on their Shovels, long before BMW introduced any on their bikes!
Mr Brown, I do agree that the evos suffered from the regs back in the 90's compared to the wide open shovels and pans. However, you will be rather hard pressed to find an evo in the states that hasn't had most if not all of these things rectified in the last 20 years.
And by the electronic crap, I don't mean solid state ignition, they are great compared to points burning out and needing adjustment. What I am referring to is all of the do-dads and gizmos on these newer bike. My ultra is a predecessor to this crap as it has fuel injection with all the sensors and whatnots.
I do understand that FI systems are not terrible, but a carb is so much simpler. I've only had the ultra since the end of last season so I am still learning it, but even being almost 20 years old (1998) the amount of stuff on it is mind boggling. I'm still getting used to the "big" harley, as it is my first for a lot of thing, such as fairing, radio, fuel injection, air suspension, air seat, tour pak , hard bags.
And these newer bikes, good grief, why do you need a tv screen in your fairing? I'm sure guys love all this stuff the newer bikes have to offer, it's just not for me. I don't think I should have to have a degree in computer programming to work on my machine!
I love my evo motor for its simplicity compared to today's standards, hell when I open the hood of my truck it looks like something I expect to see on a space shuttle.
Yeah I think this sums it up. From what I'm hearing the final 5 years of the Twin Cam were pretty good though. The Evo is a simple, less complicated design. Very reliable easy to live with.
It is one of their best motors ever made and definitely one of the cheapest to make additional horsepower with without requiring any special tools and fewer parts to do so.
I have one mostly stock and a 94 dresser with a couple of different motors for it that are far from stock. Still have my 76 shovel I bought in 1978 and stroked in 2003 to 93".
It is to each their own, but evos are better.. LOL..
05-31-2017, 10:53 PM
Is the EVO Harley's Best Motor?
