Just probing for some pros and cons, I've been riding around 10 - 20 000 km yearly for about the last three years and before that it was much more intermittent, and I've been looking at the Harley line up and comparing it to older Harleys, like a lot of people out there, im a fan of the Street glide and dont want to drop the big bucks, how reliable are the older generations (mid 90's) of the touring harleys and how much of the moderen aftermarket still caters to these older rides.

Any info would be great.

 

Mid 90's will net you a Evo motor which was very dependable. You will not have a lot of the luxuries that newer bikes have, but I'm sure you already know that. Aftermarket manufacturers will always follow the market demand and obviously that is newer models, so parts (other than engine) will be much harder to find.

 

many of us think an older evo motor more dependable and more powerful than the first few years of twincams.

i stayed on my 1995 FLHTC until I bought my 2009 FLHTC the first 9 years of the twincam didn't not have much or any advantage for the $.

BUT an older bike may have been abused ( and leaving it under a tarp with old gas and oil in the tanks qualifies as abuse) and may be due for chassis services; forks, swingarm, all the bearings and bushings etc.

If you are truly riding 6 to 10,000 miles a year- then think about a newer model bike- that mileage suggests you are touring, not just putting around

mike

 

Hi from the UK and welcome to HDF. Harley makes far more TCs than ever it did Evos, so there are far more customers to sell to today. That is why there are so many models, such as the SG. You cannot turn an Evo into a SG, but you can get close, using a combination of current and older parts, with a healthy helping of deadly and determined cunning!

 

The Evo's, especially the later model Evo's were great bikes in their time. However, I also wouldn't be afraid of the Twinkies. I think that with a little research, parts for Evo models are still relatively easy to come by and cheap. But, as mentioned before, there have been a lot of improvements in the comfort and conveniences in the last few years and I would buy as new a bike as I could afford.

 

I have a 99 Electra Glide with 45k miles on it now, no major problems, just repalce the cam tensioners when needed and keep up on maintenance, the early twin cams 99 to 03 had forged cranks, good bottom ends and will last a long time if taken care of and not abused as Mike mentioned. I bought my 99 because of cost, $8k, ease of working on it, is a carb, and after test driving new $25k bikes I did not see that much of a difference other then a little more power with more whistles and bells.

 

I was at one period convinced I need to go go old and dump the TC for an Evo but the improvements over time cannot be ignored. There are a lot of little things the engineers have done, some good, some bad, that make the newer bikes better in some regards. What is worse in the newer bikes is the reduction in quality of materials/workmanship, like wheel bearings, crankshafts, etc. I believe 2008/9 or later (?) the engineers changed the wheelbearing design to a weaker product making failures more frequent, plus there is the crank "scissoring" issue, but I personally have not experienced that because I neither lug nor beat on my motor.

Personally, I have put 80k miles on two twincams (combined) with only minor issues. I like the earlier TCs for the solid feel of the drivetrain and gearing, but my TC96 is better for cruising at 75+ and I have grown used to the drivetrain noise, chatter and tall gearing. The heat of the TC96 is an issue, but the fact remain bigger motors make more heat...this can be taken care of with fuel management.

I am sticking with my '07 TC96 despite many people saying this is the "worst year" of the TC96 because it has never failed me and runs really well. Of course now it will probably sh^t the bed when I least expect it, because I just talked about it...!