I'd just do some head work, put in a good set of cams and be done with it....It's not hard to get power out of an 88" motor.

 

Only problem is that I've seen a lot more Twin Cams with slipped cranks than I have Evo's. Most of them have been modified. But still.......

 

Well, yeah. It's harder to get more cubes with an Evo because the cases have to bored to put bigger jugs on it. So what I'm saying is that if you own a classic Evo 'Glide and want to put big power in it for pulling a trailer, the S&S 111 while not cheap, is a good option to have a big power carb'd classic that is right on par with a Screamin Eagle 110. With a better warranty as standard.

 

[QUOTE]90% off the people I ride with have been on the look out for these riders, so far we havn't ran across a HD that outruns farm machinery. Will keep searching for nut cases and if I see a HD pull away a combine, I found one.

 

[QUOTE=1997bagger;14575969]Why is it that 80 cubes worked fine for 15 years? Actually longer than that because the Shovels were 80 cubes too since '78. But anyway - in order to "upgrade" we had to go to 88. Then 96. Then 103. And now it'll probably be 110. For what?

It's all marketing. Bigger is "better" and sells bikes. The automotive industry already went thru these growing pains years ago. And finally common sense set in when they could pass anything but a gas station.

 

[QUOTE=Harley-Davidson;14575993]i'll have to agree with HD on this my 80"evo pulled a trailer out to sturgis and back and around for a few other trips without any problems. keep it at a steady speed and don't go nuts trying to get there first. it pulled fine at 67 mph all the way there. when i went to get the lifters replaced recently, the mechanic started to talk about all the top end things i need to do to get it to perform better. i told him "it runs too good" to be doing any performance tricks to it, "just change the lifters" i said. i'm not a hot rodder so all the "upgrade" talk isn't something that i understand. 85, stock flhtc with about 100k on it.

 

Mine can outrun farm machinery ... but they catch me up again on the corners.

Apart from the "bigger numbers is better" marketing mentality, there is another reason why. People genuinely are getting bigger, times two if your partner rides with you.

H-D's competing with BMIs in the touring market, rather BMWs.

But why not just make more efficient engines?

You could chart H-D's cubic capacity to this upwards curve.

 

[QUOTE=bagga;14576180]There's no doubt that for pulling a trailer all the time, a bigger engine with 100 lbs of torque at cruise rpm's is nice. But you're gonna pay for it in gas mileage. If you want big horses they have to fed to keep 'em healthy, or they'll starve and die.

Every manufacturer, just like in the automotive industry, is guilty of this "bigger is better" mentality. But when it came to meeting EPA and fleet fuel mileage targets auto manufacturers had to correct the error of their ways. That's coming in motorcycles too.

 

[QUOTE=Harley-Davidson;14575993]Why? EPA! Progress.

Increasingly tight exhaust and noise emissions have driven the entire motor industry to find ways of maintaining and improving vehicle performance while we customers want to go quicker and faster. Simples! H-D doesn't sell 120" and 131" engines for no good reason.

 

Pulling a trailer will increase fuel consumption, regardless of how big the engine is, compared with riding solo. As for 100+ lbs of torque that doesn't increase consumption under normal riding circumstances over a less powerful bike. Consumption on my ole Glide hasn't changed much throughout it's life, with several performance upgrades over the years.

You're mixing up 'then' and 'now'. Gas guzzlers and monster engines had their day decades ago and mostly died out then, like the dynosaurs. Big, even more powerful, engines have enjoyed a fresh start in the current emissions era and have no link with the previous generation. The performance available to us today, in all vehicles, is much higher than in the early era.