Originally Posted by Harley-Davidson

Actually, S&S Cycle already does that. When H-D's patent on the Evo design expired, S&S took it and ran with it - improved it and builds NEW engines (not remans) that surpass the original Harley engines. Take a look at their V111 and T111 engines. They even build fully emissions compliant engines (the only ones I know of) that meet current 2016 emissions specs for new-build customs.

The S&S 111 cube engines are square (same bore and stroke) instead of being under-square (long stroke, smaller bore) like the H-D engines are. So they vibrate less because they have better primary balance. And they are torque monsters, producing over 100 lbs of torque at cruise rpm. And they come with a three year unlimited mileage warranty for the touring versions:
http://www.sscycle.com/go-fast-showc...-engines/v111/

http://www.sscycle.com/go-fast-showc...state-engines/

These engines aren't cheap and many people say "why do that when you can buy a new Harley?" BUT - there's a lot of people that don't want all the electronic BS in the new Harleys. And instead will gladly spend $12 Grand to have a classic that's reliable, outperforms the new Harley's, and turns heads because it's rare.

Many people say Harley dropped the Evo and went to the Twinkie because the Evo couldn't meet emissions. This is not true. S&S has been building them for over a decade - with carbs instead of fuel injection.

Originally Posted by Uncle G.

That's all well and good, but I'm not interested in a "torque monster". I'm quite happy with my stock 80" motor, and have been for 22 years. I'm just trying to keep it alive for another 200,000 miles (well, maybe being realistic-another 100,000 miles). By then, I'll be dead or too old to ride.

Originally Posted by Harley-Davidson

Many people say Harley dropped the Evo and went to the Twinkie because the Evo couldn't meet emissions. This is not true. S&S has been building them for over a decade - with carbs instead of fuel injection.

Originally Posted by Lucky Luke

So why did they (H-D) ?

Having to do something new purely for the marketing value of having done something new? Or to deliberately obsolete out something old for the sake of selling new models?

Thicker cases, wider bores, closer tolerance machining, what really does the single cam design give away at our level of performance?

Twin cam does have advantages if you are getting into asymmetric cam designs, but they don't really push that. And they are still *way* behind the times as far as variable or other advantages systems.

I think there are actually good arguments against not going crazy and sticking with healthy 80 or 96 ci engines. I can understand why someone wold not want too much.

More equals more wear.

That's what I learnt with big Japanese sports tourers when I started going through tyres at around 3,500 miles at both ends!

Yes, I'd start with a junker Evo with a dead engine, and swop it out for an S&S for my next project.

Originally Posted by texashillcountry

If you ever want to know how to find me, follow the DIRT trail

Originally Posted by traildog

Fixed it for ya........

Originally Posted by Lucky Luke

So why did they (H-D) ?

Having to do something new purely for the marketing value of having done something new? Or to deliberately obsolete out something old for the sake of selling new models?

Originally Posted by texashillcountry

I was told HDs patent expired on the EVO and they needed a new motor to keep getting the royalties on the aftermarket motors.

Originally Posted by Lucky Luke

That makes sense, change it but only change it just enough to make a difference.

I'm not clear how the royalties system works though.

Originally Posted by texashillcountry

Personally I think it is much simpler than all that.
I was told HDs patent expired on the EVO and they needed a new motor to keep getting the royalties on the aftermarket motors.


If you ever want to know why a company does something follow the money.