More Blonde Questions...
Road Master
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 39
From: NW Florida
First just looking at the original three pics the one showing the swing arm bolt SCREWED into the frame and not ending with a nut says the frame is 1973 or later.
Since the FL/FX frame can be either a bagger or superglide, it's up to you to make it anything you want. I suppose they ground the serial off the motor case too, so that's a no go also.
There's some differences in swingarms that will help determine stuff, and if that's the original engine the date codes up on the top of the heads will tell you when it was made.
BOB
Since the FL/FX frame can be either a bagger or superglide, it's up to you to make it anything you want. I suppose they ground the serial off the motor case too, so that's a no go also.
There's some differences in swingarms that will help determine stuff, and if that's the original engine the date codes up on the top of the heads will tell you when it was made.
BOB
Stage III
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Sioux Falls, SD
I think at this point the first thing is to figure out if this old girl started life as an FL or FX, obviously the FX didn't get invented until 71... From the limited pics we could be going either way. BUt the bolt is the way I always dated them. I'm an FX guy not an earlier FL guy.
How about this? The next test is: If they have ground off SERIAL NUMBERS on the neck before restamping it is definately a 1970 or later bike, 1969 and older had no serial number on the neck.... It was all engine serials at that point.
If looking close at the neck, if there is no grinding, just stamping then it is 69 or earlier; does that sound right?
BOB
Last edited by rbonner; Nov 21, 2009 at 05:18 PM.
Road Master
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 39
From: NW Florida
HUM, FL... let me get back to you on this detail. My frame is at the powder coater right now, should have it back early in the week. The Motor Company did some really bizarre things back in the olden days.
I think at this point the first thing is to figure out if this old girl started life as an FL or FX, obviously the FX didn't get invented until 71... From the limited pics we could be going either way. BUt the bolt is the way I always dated them. I'm an FX guy not an earlier FL guy.
How about this? The next test is: If they have ground off SERIAL NUMBERS on the neck before restamping it is definately a 1970 or later bike, 1969 and older had no serial number on the neck.... It was all engine serials at that point.
If looking close at the neck, if there is no grinding, just stamping then it is 69 or earlier; does that sound right?
BOB
I think at this point the first thing is to figure out if this old girl started life as an FL or FX, obviously the FX didn't get invented until 71... From the limited pics we could be going either way. BUt the bolt is the way I always dated them. I'm an FX guy not an earlier FL guy.
How about this? The next test is: If they have ground off SERIAL NUMBERS on the neck before restamping it is definately a 1970 or later bike, 1969 and older had no serial number on the neck.... It was all engine serials at that point.
If looking close at the neck, if there is no grinding, just stamping then it is 69 or earlier; does that sound right?
BOB
There are tells on most frames to give you an idea when they were made whether they still have the vin or not. The flat areas on the swing arm mount. The brake hose fitting for the drum brakes on the left down tube. It was present until at least 73. The single hole square passenger mount on the rear down tubes for 75-76. The double hole mounts for 77 and later. The missing floorboard and brake mount tabs on the 77 FX frames, built in key locks for the 58-68 frames.etc.
Road Captain
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 695
Likes: 394
From: Western Australia
Sissy, I agree your frame was manufactured in late-1967. The letter J may represent October but it may represent September. At certain times, the letter I was omitted from some engine and transmission casting date codes and I'm still investigating whether that omission applied to the stamped-on frame date codes.
In your photo below you'll notice there is no reinforcement gusset plate attached forward of the left rear downtube and and lower casting section. H-D introduced the gusset as standard fitment for late-1968 and later although it was available as repair part #47261-68 for Big Twin frames back through 1958. Therefore, it seems your frame was manufactured in either October or September 1967 and is an early-1968 model.
In your photo you'll also notice a casting number in the recess of the lower rear right-hand casting section and it may be 47651-58. In the corresponding area of the lower rear left-hand casting section you may find 47653-58. Can you please tell us what casting numbers you find.
The -58 indicates those two sections were first used for 1958 and I believe the same casting numbers were used through 1972. Some changes to the castings occurred for 1973 and they then received casting numbers ending in -73. More frame info to follow. Eric
In your photo below you'll notice there is no reinforcement gusset plate attached forward of the left rear downtube and and lower casting section. H-D introduced the gusset as standard fitment for late-1968 and later although it was available as repair part #47261-68 for Big Twin frames back through 1958. Therefore, it seems your frame was manufactured in either October or September 1967 and is an early-1968 model.
In your photo you'll also notice a casting number in the recess of the lower rear right-hand casting section and it may be 47651-58. In the corresponding area of the lower rear left-hand casting section you may find 47653-58. Can you please tell us what casting numbers you find.
The -58 indicates those two sections were first used for 1958 and I believe the same casting numbers were used through 1972. Some changes to the castings occurred for 1973 and they then received casting numbers ending in -73. More frame info to follow. Eric
Road Captain
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 695
Likes: 394
From: Western Australia
On the left side of your frame steering head you may find extra ID stamped and if present it may consist of a capital letter followed by either three or four numeric characters. But they are small and may be hard to spot. The picture below shows B5 as the first two of five such characters on a 1963 frame and will give you an idea where to look. If you find anything in that area of your frame just tell us what the letter is.
If your swingarm is genuine H-D then it will be 1973 or later due to it being square tube. (H-D Big Twins used a round tube swingarm for 1958-1972.) Eric
If your swingarm is genuine H-D then it will be 1973 or later due to it being square tube. (H-D Big Twins used a round tube swingarm for 1958-1972.) Eric
Road Captain
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 695
Likes: 394
From: Western Australia
Quote from post #9: 'First just looking at the original three pics the one showing the swing arm bolt SCREWED into the frame and not ending with a nut says the frame is 1973 or later. Bob
Bob, I have a genuine 19581964 type H-D Panhead frame here and also a genuine 1982 H-D Shovelhead frame. Neither of them use the nut you referred to. And I have had other genuine H-D Shovelhead frames over the years. None of them used the nut you referred to.
Please advise exactly where you got your info from. Eric
Bob, I have a genuine 19581964 type H-D Panhead frame here and also a genuine 1982 H-D Shovelhead frame. Neither of them use the nut you referred to. And I have had other genuine H-D Shovelhead frames over the years. None of them used the nut you referred to.
Please advise exactly where you got your info from. Eric
Thread Starter
|
Advanced
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
From: New Mexico
Like Wow
I didn't think finding out the year of my frame could be so interesting. One more time, with feeling, the only numbers on the FrankenBike [beside theJ7] are on the neck and the lower right hand casting section...
NM 81959 [rebuilt title]
Y'all know enough about frames and numbers to write a book but I guess the controversy has not been solved. So I will post some more pix here and if there is a view that I don't have, please let me know and I will take some more.
Thanks as always,
NM 81959 [rebuilt title]
Y'all know enough about frames and numbers to write a book but I guess the controversy has not been solved. So I will post some more pix here and if there is a view that I don't have, please let me know and I will take some more.
Thanks as always,
Last edited by Sissy69; Nov 24, 2009 at 06:40 AM.
Banned
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Pälli
Brave girl... Rarely woman have not enough courage open and rebuild Shovel engine.. Thanks God it is quite simple engine.. I have also Shovel. I do not rebuild my own engine myselt but former owner. I only regulate it ready.
I have also engine repair just now but not Harleys.. Damn it is more difficult than old simple Shovel..
Good luck.. Shovel have perhaps best Harley voice.. Do not give you frame number here because some malicious peoples perhaps stole it..
I have also engine repair just now but not Harleys.. Damn it is more difficult than old simple Shovel..
Good luck.. Shovel have perhaps best Harley voice.. Do not give you frame number here because some malicious peoples perhaps stole it..
Last edited by Pälli; Nov 24, 2009 at 04:04 PM.
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Times Harley-Davidson Chucked Tradition Out the Window
Verdad Gallardo
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Verdad Gallardo
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
Road Captain
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 695
Likes: 394
From: Western Australia
Quote: 'I didn't think finding out the year of my frame could be so interesting. One more time, with feeling, the only numbers on the FrankenBike [beside theJ7] are on the neck and the lower right hand casting section...'
Sissy, I'm still of the opinion that your frame is an early-1968 model manufactured in late-1967. But I would like to clear up a couple of things which is why I asked about the casting numbers in the recesses of the two lower rear cast sections. In your photo below I can see what appears to be a casting number in the recess of the left-hand casting section and it looks to consist of seven characters. Can you tell me what those characters are please. Eric
Sissy, I'm still of the opinion that your frame is an early-1968 model manufactured in late-1967. But I would like to clear up a couple of things which is why I asked about the casting numbers in the recesses of the two lower rear cast sections. In your photo below I can see what appears to be a casting number in the recess of the left-hand casting section and it looks to consist of seven characters. Can you tell me what those characters are please. Eric
Thread Starter
|
Advanced
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
From: New Mexico
If at first you don't succeed, find someone else to do it!
Thanks Eric, that's my son's name, so you must be COOL! And thank you so much for helping me. As a matter of fact, you are right. It looks like those were the old numbers that were not completely removed before the rebuilt numbers were applied.
So I left my snuggly warm computer chair and went out to see for myself if there was more I could find out. And sure enough
after some shivering [25 degrees out now. wa-wa] Here is a picture revealing what looks to me like 83 or 85 or......
But it also looked like they did a good job of mangling the rest. Look forward to your opinion.
Thanks Sis
So I left my snuggly warm computer chair and went out to see for myself if there was more I could find out. And sure enough
after some shivering [25 degrees out now. wa-wa] Here is a picture revealing what looks to me like 83 or 85 or......But it also looked like they did a good job of mangling the rest. Look forward to your opinion.
Thanks Sis