evo or another twincam?
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 21,028
Likes: 7,549
From: Poolville
Love my carbed 98 fatboy. It can be a hotrod, a cruiser, or an everyday ride. Very versatile and the lack of ecm's and pcm's keep most repairs to a minimum. The lower end of the mid to late nineties are pretty much bullet proof and overall reliability I is unremarkable...I will never part with my hotrodfatty......period....
Last edited by 98hotrodfatboy; May 20, 2015 at 11:45 AM.
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,324
Likes: 3,869
From: Upstate New York
Still loving my '94 with Factory remanufactured motor ('02). The great thing about the motor is that in the remanufacturing process, I got all the upgrades of the last Evo motors (stronger cases, etc.).
Cruiser
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 210
Likes: 15
From: Belgium, Brabant
To each his own...
ride both and you'll feel the difference between both engines.
To me, a Tc feels somewhat generic, but thats me...
If you're a handy person, get a EVO, do some minor upgrades, add or loose some chrome
And you'll still get it better and cheaper than a Tc!!
ride both and you'll feel the difference between both engines.
To me, a Tc feels somewhat generic, but thats me...
If you're a handy person, get a EVO, do some minor upgrades, add or loose some chrome
And you'll still get it better and cheaper than a Tc!!
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,938
Likes: 30
From: North Florida
That is not a fair question to ask in here:-)
They both have there good points, and warts. The tc need to be separated into four groups.
The 01-02 were the best motor with the tightest tolerances, timken bearings, but you have to do regular mantaince or change out the tentioners.
The 96's have eleminated that, have more power, but the tolerances are getting worse.
The 10+ are a wiring nightmare, no need to carry a tool kit with these, any problem it is going into the dealer for a computer checkup.
Biggest problem with the tc is it's a great design that got hacked to death by the accounting department.
Still these motors go 150k on a top end, with regular maintenance.
Stock parts are cheap, due to take off from people wanting more power, even full motors.
The new trend is tc motors in evo frames.
Talk about a split personality.
I would not have Fuel injection, especially the early years.
I think the secret is buying a clean, unmolested low mile bike that was someone's trophy.
When bikes get old and ridden, electronic get corroded, plastic deteriorate, start breaking.
Get the cleanest taken care of bike that you can afford.
They both have there good points, and warts. The tc need to be separated into four groups.
The 01-02 were the best motor with the tightest tolerances, timken bearings, but you have to do regular mantaince or change out the tentioners.
The 96's have eleminated that, have more power, but the tolerances are getting worse.
The 10+ are a wiring nightmare, no need to carry a tool kit with these, any problem it is going into the dealer for a computer checkup.
Biggest problem with the tc is it's a great design that got hacked to death by the accounting department.
Still these motors go 150k on a top end, with regular maintenance.
Stock parts are cheap, due to take off from people wanting more power, even full motors.
The new trend is tc motors in evo frames.
Talk about a split personality.
I would not have Fuel injection, especially the early years.
I think the secret is buying a clean, unmolested low mile bike that was someone's trophy.
When bikes get old and ridden, electronic get corroded, plastic deteriorate, start breaking.
Get the cleanest taken care of bike that you can afford.
Tourer
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
From: southern Alberta Canada
OP I'd agree with the others who said stay away from the earliest evo's and the fuel injected ones, mid 90's bikes are great!
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 36
From: Houston, TX
for the longest time after the twin cam came out I just assumed they were overhead cams, to this day the advantage of having 2 cams down low in the motor instead of just 1 baffles me.
OP I'd agree with the others who said stay away from the earliest evo's and the fuel injected ones, mid 90's bikes are great!
OP I'd agree with the others who said stay away from the earliest evo's and the fuel injected ones, mid 90's bikes are great!
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,938
Likes: 30
From: North Florida
The bathtub shape of the TC is much more efficient than the d shape of the evo, plus the squish zones of the TC are placed by design, not necessity because of valve angle, causing better controlled turbulence in the combustion chamber.
Its pretty easy to get one horse per cube on a TC, where getting that out of a EVO is much much harder. Given the displacement of a TC 88 compared to a 82 cu EVO, this adds up pretty fast, then you have the 96, 103, 110, ect you can see the advantage of the larger displacement motor that does not have to strain or be pushed to the maximum to make the power.
Also want to look at the efficiency of the TC, it is common for a TC to get 45-50 mpg where I have not heard of many cases of EVO doing that and this as well as the hp is due to the head design, and the twin cam.
Stellar HDF Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 115
From: Boston, MA
Yea what he said, the motors power and efficiency comes from the design of the heads and pistons. Having one cam limits the location and angle of the valves.
The bathtub shape of the TC is much more efficient than the d shape of the evo, plus the squish zones of the TC are placed by design, not necessity because of valve angle, causing better controlled turbulence in the combustion chamber.
Its pretty easy to get one horse per cube on a TC, where getting that out of a EVO is much much harder. Given the displacement of a TC 88 compared to a 82 cu EVO, this adds up pretty fast, then you have the 96, 103, 110, ect you can see the advantage of the larger displacement motor that does not have to strain or be pushed to the maximum to make the power.
Also want to look at the efficiency of the TC, it is common for a TC to get 45-50 mpg where I have not heard of many cases of EVO doing that and this as well as the hp is due to the head design, and the twin cam.
The bathtub shape of the TC is much more efficient than the d shape of the evo, plus the squish zones of the TC are placed by design, not necessity because of valve angle, causing better controlled turbulence in the combustion chamber.
Its pretty easy to get one horse per cube on a TC, where getting that out of a EVO is much much harder. Given the displacement of a TC 88 compared to a 82 cu EVO, this adds up pretty fast, then you have the 96, 103, 110, ect you can see the advantage of the larger displacement motor that does not have to strain or be pushed to the maximum to make the power.
Also want to look at the efficiency of the TC, it is common for a TC to get 45-50 mpg where I have not heard of many cases of EVO doing that and this as well as the hp is due to the head design, and the twin cam.
. These people with 255's or whatever else they get (555?) Get les than 15% more performance. Still faster than a stage one Evo but a stage two with decked heads polished chambers and the like... I'd take me chances on the Evo.Their pricing is higher since they almost always pay somebody to do their work for them. Lol
Good debate!
Tom
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Harley-Davidson Needs to Fix in 2026
Verdad Gallardo
Southpaw Super Glide: A Left-Hand-Drive 1979 Harley FXE Built to Fit the Rider
Verdad Gallardo
Tourer
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
From: southern Alberta Canada
Yea what he said, the motors power and efficiency comes from the design of the heads and pistons. Having one cam limits the location and angle of the valves.
The bathtub shape of the TC is much more efficient than the d shape of the evo, plus the squish zones of the TC are placed by design, not necessity because of valve angle, causing better controlled turbulence in the combustion chamber.
Its pretty easy to get one horse per cube on a TC, where getting that out of a EVO is much much harder. Given the displacement of a TC 88 compared to a 82 cu EVO, this adds up pretty fast, then you have the 96, 103, 110, ect you can see the advantage of the larger displacement motor that does not have to strain or be pushed to the maximum to make the power.
Also want to look at the efficiency of the TC, it is common for a TC to get 45-50 mpg where I have not heard of many cases of EVO doing that and this as well as the hp is due to the head design, and the twin cam.
The bathtub shape of the TC is much more efficient than the d shape of the evo, plus the squish zones of the TC are placed by design, not necessity because of valve angle, causing better controlled turbulence in the combustion chamber.
Its pretty easy to get one horse per cube on a TC, where getting that out of a EVO is much much harder. Given the displacement of a TC 88 compared to a 82 cu EVO, this adds up pretty fast, then you have the 96, 103, 110, ect you can see the advantage of the larger displacement motor that does not have to strain or be pushed to the maximum to make the power.
Also want to look at the efficiency of the TC, it is common for a TC to get 45-50 mpg where I have not heard of many cases of EVO doing that and this as well as the hp is due to the head design, and the twin cam.
This brings up a point however OP I guess a part of your decision should be made on how much power you want or need
Dirt don't hurt
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 21,062
Likes: 4,547
From: Haslet Texas
Thank's for explaining I suppose the valve angle thing makes sense, hovever I've always been underwhelmed when guys talk about how much more power twinkies make than evo's the 88's didn't have that much more power and all of the other motors are a ton bigger so it's not really an apples to apples thing. my personal opinion is still that the whole design was a waste of time and effort they should have either increased the size of the evo or bit the bullet and went to overhead cams.
This brings up a point however OP I guess a part of your decision should be made on how much power you want or need
This brings up a point however OP I guess a part of your decision should be made on how much power you want or need
I don't think the Harley motor would have a chance in hell but I could be wrong.