Welp...came up again the other day...Thanks to the MoCo and the "B" Softail engine...
some folks have decided that the EVO that was in Softails, was balanced Differently...in fact some say that the RubberMount engines were balanced rather haphazardly...some claim not at All!!
I Have a '99 Softail Evo Mill in my 1994 FXR. It seems smoother than the '93...but... very hard to Quantify in two different Bikes!!
No Guessing Please....I really would like to Know this Definitively!!
My Guess is...All The Same...Machine balanced and go!!!!
Game On!!!

 

My vote, has nothing to do with difference in how the motors where put together, but more about may QC of parts to spec, and if the workers where more pissed off that year for upcoming union contract renewal.

 

Yea...Them Numb Nuts nearly put MoCo/AMF out of business...along with their own dumb self!!!!
Didn't track such Crap thereafter... so what was going on in the '90's is News to Me...

 

Smith when we asked in the 70s said - equal weight flywheels his testing worked out to 60 percent was a 3000 RPM come into the smoothest balance below and above its going away again ‘

dump truck wheels in early machines one thick ( mud bogger ) and one thin wheels - 57 percent seems to be the spot the factory used backing up an untouched machine flywheels

racing is different and every engine combo is against the idea - 54 percent is sporty road racing at hi sustained RPMS 52 percent we used - every race the rider feed back lent its self to those numbers @ plus 150 it shows up and a unrideable and another fatigue issue

getting back to evo engines - we went up and down the balance numbers as we did a pile of strokers and hot stock stroke machines - 60 percent is not the end all of thats it the sweet spot BUT for almost all engines that is the right choice - we feel the actsented rear rod loop is the reason they require a finesse - the lighter you make the reciprocating pieces ( both pistons rings pins and clips — and both 1/2 the top of the connecting rods 1/2 top weight ) the smoother it becomes - we found the lighter we made the top the faster it revs and smoother it got - the lower balance stuff rotating weight - is the Mud bogging stuff and the changes are not countable in the factors BUT lighter over all in weight does have a direct affect on how fast measured on a dyno with an engagement bottom — the time it takes to rev up is measured < speed of torque is what your after not HP in this equitation HP is the wide open power number - and not the drivability power you use when you turn the throttle < its the torque ( grunt ) and how fast the unit can make it is what racing it all about

 

That is a Great summation John... Useful Information to Builders Certainly...
My Question really Is... Did the MoCo use Different Factor? Or Even do this with a Humanoid??? and Were the Softail (rigid mounted) differ from the Rubbermounted?

 

Flywheels as i know it from a Harley tech that was a 25 years employ - all of them were what you got some right on some were not - flywheels were picked for the next assembly when done it was on a meat hook and pistons were an average weight same thing rod set and nuts as well

what they never accounted for was a hard spot in the metal and that dense spot was heavier then the iron around it - i had a 1/2 dozen sets that could not be balanced out using the old method BUT. The new spinning machine said they were in spec and zeroed them

we used them 600 miles later the heritage softail the rear fender was broken in 3 places and the directional foot long holder only had one light on it

the static machine found it - the only other way that it was done was a military hang crude but its combat balancing a machine that has a life of around 1 hour WW2

military hang flywheels with one rod and piston and a drill with a bit placed across two pieces of thin steel - and have at it till it stops moving

 

Never had a stock motor in my Softail so I couldn't say.. BUT I did go through a lot of tail light bulbs and the rear fender is cracked considerably at the mounts.. They can vibrate like all hell.. Not so much anymore thanks to John..

 

Somebody correct me if I'm off here but I didn't think the moco had a counterbalanced engine in the evo line, though all that came about with twinkies.

I know they pissed around with several flywheel configurations across the life span, later ones were heavily automated during production and assembly processes. Held tighter specs.

 

About the only thing that I know of that ever differed with the Evos was a five-piece to a three-piece set of wheels.. Never a balanced setup like the twin cam that came out with the TCB...

 

The thin wheels came along in late 1981 when they was changing back to Harley from AMF but. They used the straight rods as did very early evos

now no one noticed the extra vibes as they were paying attention and were hands on so to speak - by 83 the first of the evos were showing up in show rooms spotty one hear and one over that place — my recall was the more they got the less interest in the shovelhead and many dealers took a good while to empty the show room of them — sure the die hards bought them but - the evo was new life - stock options were booming in sales and they were advertising again first time in many moons — and the machine quality was up - ***** wanted to make the company a haberdashery and in malls would have been the the cats a$$ instead they closed all the mom and pop shops that fed them for a century - you need to spend millions on a show room to sell bike -

then discontinue making the old parts that were a main stay in sales in the old dealers - did it work the bean counters will tell you yea - but now they flooded the market with throw away cookie cutter rambler Americans special edition only 26 thousand built in that color — yea now they are are crying once again - who ya gonna call maybe ghost busters