What sportster engine is this
#11
12-28-2007, 10:52 AM
Seasoned HDF Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas! Ya mean there's someplace else?
Posts: 11,065
Received 1,297 Likes
on
484 Posts
RE: What sportster engine is this
ORIGINAL: red76harley
the good news is it is a 72. Problem is in early 72 they were still 900cc's and late in 72 they changed the them to 1000cc's which is the one you want i would think. It is missing the crossover valve, and i would weld that baby up. I have had loads of trouble with them. As far as any numbers on the outside of the cases being good or bad, never trust them. I am talking from experiance here as i had a show bike (76 ironhead) taken and taken apart because of those numbers and i had a good title for the frame..
i will go into detail later. That bike was in iron works magazine, had another iron head softail in hot bike,. Anyhow, if you want to build it, do it. Most will tell you not to bother and save your money. I say do what you want. They are good bikes and are a lot of fun.
Be well, and dont hesitate to e-mail if you have any questions i can help you with.
There is nothing i havent done to iron heads in the past, stroke, big cames, thunderjets, cutting the tranny off and running a bog twin tranny, modifying the frames cutting the rocker boxes in two.. all kinds of stuff. I dont mess with them any more but it was fun.
the good news is it is a 72. Problem is in early 72 they were still 900cc's and late in 72 they changed the them to 1000cc's which is the one you want i would think. It is missing the crossover valve, and i would weld that baby up. I have had loads of trouble with them. As far as any numbers on the outside of the cases being good or bad, never trust them. I am talking from experiance here as i had a show bike (76 ironhead) taken and taken apart because of those numbers and i had a good title for the frame..
i will go into detail later. That bike was in iron works magazine, had another iron head softail in hot bike,. Anyhow, if you want to build it, do it. Most will tell you not to bother and save your money. I say do what you want. They are good bikes and are a lot of fun.
Be well, and dont hesitate to e-mail if you have any questions i can help you with.
There is nothing i havent done to iron heads in the past, stroke, big cames, thunderjets, cutting the tranny off and running a bog twin tranny, modifying the frames cutting the rocker boxes in two.. all kinds of stuff. I dont mess with them any more but it was fun.
#12
12-28-2007, 11:41 AM
Outstanding HDF Member
RE: What sportster engine is this
'the good news is it is a 72. Problem is in early 72 they were still 900cc's and late in 72 they changed the them to 1000cc's which is the one you want i would think.'
I cannot disagree with you more. The engine size for 1971 was 900cc. The 1000cc engine began in 1972 and there was no overlap of 900's being put into any 1972 models. Hell, that was the big news of the day back then....This increased engine size. Truth is, just a bunch of marketing hype was all it amounted to.
The std bore on a 900cc is 3 inches.
The std bore on a 1000cc is 3.188 inches.
Both engines have the same stroke (3.8125 inches) and the same torque (52 ft lbs @ 3800 rpm)
The advertized horse power for a 900 was 58HP at 6800 rpm.
The advertized horse power for the 1000 was 61HP at 6200 rpm.
So, the 1000 had 3 more horse power but the 900 reached it's max HP at 600 rpms more than the 1000. This was a wash, as the 600 rpms wiped out the 3HP gain. Both engines are the same. One is no better than the other...........pg
I cannot disagree with you more. The engine size for 1971 was 900cc. The 1000cc engine began in 1972 and there was no overlap of 900's being put into any 1972 models. Hell, that was the big news of the day back then....This increased engine size. Truth is, just a bunch of marketing hype was all it amounted to.
The std bore on a 900cc is 3 inches.
The std bore on a 1000cc is 3.188 inches.
Both engines have the same stroke (3.8125 inches) and the same torque (52 ft lbs @ 3800 rpm)
The advertized horse power for a 900 was 58HP at 6800 rpm.
The advertized horse power for the 1000 was 61HP at 6200 rpm.
So, the 1000 had 3 more horse power but the 900 reached it's max HP at 600 rpms more than the 1000. This was a wash, as the 600 rpms wiped out the 3HP gain. Both engines are the same. One is no better than the other...........pg
#13
12-28-2007, 03:39 PM
RE: What sportster engine is this
ORIGINAL: pococj
I'm sorta wondering why you would tell him to go ahead and do the build with what are probably bad numbers, especially after you've had a bike taken apart because of bad numbers? Spreadin' the bad karma around?
ORIGINAL: red76harley
the good news is it is a 72. Problem is in early 72 they were still 900cc's and late in 72 they changed the them to 1000cc's which is the one you want i would think. It is missing the crossover valve, and i would weld that baby up. I have had loads of trouble with them. As far as any numbers on the outside of the cases being good or bad, never trust them. I am talking from experiance here as i had a show bike (76 ironhead) taken and taken apart because of those numbers and i had a good title for the frame..
i will go into detail later. That bike was in iron works magazine, had another iron head softail in hot bike,. Anyhow, if you want to build it, do it. Most will tell you not to bother and save your money. I say do what you want. They are good bikes and are a lot of fun.
Be well, and dont hesitate to e-mail if you have any questions i can help you with.
There is nothing i havent done to iron heads in the past, stroke, big cames, thunderjets, cutting the tranny off and running a bog twin tranny, modifying the frames cutting the rocker boxes in two.. all kinds of stuff. I dont mess with them any more but it was fun.
the good news is it is a 72. Problem is in early 72 they were still 900cc's and late in 72 they changed the them to 1000cc's which is the one you want i would think. It is missing the crossover valve, and i would weld that baby up. I have had loads of trouble with them. As far as any numbers on the outside of the cases being good or bad, never trust them. I am talking from experiance here as i had a show bike (76 ironhead) taken and taken apart because of those numbers and i had a good title for the frame..
i will go into detail later. That bike was in iron works magazine, had another iron head softail in hot bike,. Anyhow, if you want to build it, do it. Most will tell you not to bother and save your money. I say do what you want. They are good bikes and are a lot of fun.
Be well, and dont hesitate to e-mail if you have any questions i can help you with.
There is nothing i havent done to iron heads in the past, stroke, big cames, thunderjets, cutting the tranny off and running a bog twin tranny, modifying the frames cutting the rocker boxes in two.. all kinds of stuff. I dont mess with them any more but it was fun.
#14
12-28-2007, 03:41 PM
RE: What sportster engine is this
ORIGINAL: piniongear
'the good news is it is a 72. Problem is in early 72 they were still 900cc's and late in 72 they changed the them to 1000cc's which is the one you want i would think.'
I cannot disagree with you more. The engine size for 1971 was 900cc. The 1000cc engine began in 1972 and there was no overlap of 900's being put into any 1972 models. Hell, that was the big news of the day back then....This increased engine size. Truth is, just a bunch of marketing hype was all it amounted to.
The std bore on a 900cc is 3 inches.
The std bore on a 1000cc is 3.188 inches.
Both engines have the same stroke (3.8125 inches) and the same torque (52 ft lbs @ 3800 rpm)
The advertized horse power for a 900 was 58HP at 6800 rpm.
The advertized horse power for the 1000 was 61HP at 6200 rpm.
So, the 1000 had 3 more horse power but the 900 reached it's max HP at 600 rpms more than the 1000. This was a wash, as the 600 rpms wiped out the 3HP gain. Both engines are the same. One is no better than the other...........pg
'the good news is it is a 72. Problem is in early 72 they were still 900cc's and late in 72 they changed the them to 1000cc's which is the one you want i would think.'
I cannot disagree with you more. The engine size for 1971 was 900cc. The 1000cc engine began in 1972 and there was no overlap of 900's being put into any 1972 models. Hell, that was the big news of the day back then....This increased engine size. Truth is, just a bunch of marketing hype was all it amounted to.
The std bore on a 900cc is 3 inches.
The std bore on a 1000cc is 3.188 inches.
Both engines have the same stroke (3.8125 inches) and the same torque (52 ft lbs @ 3800 rpm)
The advertized horse power for a 900 was 58HP at 6800 rpm.
The advertized horse power for the 1000 was 61HP at 6200 rpm.
So, the 1000 had 3 more horse power but the 900 reached it's max HP at 600 rpms more than the 1000. This was a wash, as the 600 rpms wiped out the 3HP gain. Both engines are the same. One is no better than the other...........pg
Didnt mean to upset you, that was not my intention
#15
12-28-2007, 03:43 PM
RE: What sportster engine is this
ORIGINAL: piniongear
'the good news is it is a 72. Problem is in early 72 they were still 900cc's and late in 72 they changed the them to 1000cc's which is the one you want i would think.'
I cannot disagree with you more. The engine size for 1971 was 900cc. The 1000cc engine began in 1972 and there was no overlap of 900's being put into any 1972 models. Hell, that was the big news of the day back then....This increased engine size. Truth is, just a bunch of marketing hype was all it amounted to.
The std bore on a 900cc is 3 inches.
The std bore on a 1000cc is 3.188 inches.
Both engines have the same stroke (3.8125 inches) and the same torque (52 ft lbs @ 3800 rpm)
The advertized horse power for a 900 was 58HP at 6800 rpm.
The advertized horse power for the 1000 was 61HP at 6200 rpm.
So, the 1000 had 3 more horse power but the 900 reached it's max HP at 600 rpms more than the 1000. This was a wash, as the 600 rpms wiped out the 3HP gain. Both engines are the same. One is no better than the other...........pg
'the good news is it is a 72. Problem is in early 72 they were still 900cc's and late in 72 they changed the them to 1000cc's which is the one you want i would think.'
I cannot disagree with you more. The engine size for 1971 was 900cc. The 1000cc engine began in 1972 and there was no overlap of 900's being put into any 1972 models. Hell, that was the big news of the day back then....This increased engine size. Truth is, just a bunch of marketing hype was all it amounted to.
The std bore on a 900cc is 3 inches.
The std bore on a 1000cc is 3.188 inches.
Both engines have the same stroke (3.8125 inches) and the same torque (52 ft lbs @ 3800 rpm)
The advertized horse power for a 900 was 58HP at 6800 rpm.
The advertized horse power for the 1000 was 61HP at 6200 rpm.
So, the 1000 had 3 more horse power but the 900 reached it's max HP at 600 rpms more than the 1000. This was a wash, as the 600 rpms wiped out the 3HP gain. Both engines are the same. One is no better than the other...........pg
#16
12-28-2007, 04:38 PM
Outstanding HDF Member
RE: What sportster engine is this
Don't worry, you certainly did not upset me. I simply do not agree with what you had said, and of course I meant no offense.
Also, I continue to disagree because I do not want to see members mis-lead by information that I feel is incorrect.
Case in point.....
'also what i meant about the 1000 being better was that the parts are easier to get and there are lots more options to play with on the 1000'
There is not a dime's worth of difference between the two engines. The parts are exactly the same. The part numbers are exactly the same. There is no such thing as 'more options' for the 1000. That is simply incorrect.
The difference in the engines consists of just 2 items.....the pistons and the piston rings. Everything else is just the same and carries the same part number.
Maybe you want to do a little research before you offer someone a solution to their problem. And again, I mean no offense to you by that remark.......pg
Also, I continue to disagree because I do not want to see members mis-lead by information that I feel is incorrect.
Case in point.....
'also what i meant about the 1000 being better was that the parts are easier to get and there are lots more options to play with on the 1000'
There is not a dime's worth of difference between the two engines. The parts are exactly the same. The part numbers are exactly the same. There is no such thing as 'more options' for the 1000. That is simply incorrect.
The difference in the engines consists of just 2 items.....the pistons and the piston rings. Everything else is just the same and carries the same part number.
Maybe you want to do a little research before you offer someone a solution to their problem. And again, I mean no offense to you by that remark.......pg
#17
12-28-2007, 05:01 PM
Seasoned HDF Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas! Ya mean there's someplace else?
Posts: 11,065
Received 1,297 Likes
on
484 Posts
RE: What sportster engine is this
ORIGINAL: red76harley
Thats ok, we can agree to disagree... i had a 72 that was a 900, yep all the numbers were good ect... you can tell the difference in the head bolts.. 6 point is a 900 and the 12 point was the 1000...
Didnt mean to upset you, that was not my intention
Thats ok, we can agree to disagree... i had a 72 that was a 900, yep all the numbers were good ect... you can tell the difference in the head bolts.. 6 point is a 900 and the 12 point was the 1000...
Didnt mean to upset you, that was not my intention
#18
12-28-2007, 07:28 PM
Outstanding HDF Member
RE: What sportster engine is this
I have never seen an ironhead made before 1975 with anything but 6 point head bolts. I will venture to say that 12 point bolts did not even exist back in the early 1970's. I have not seen them at any rate, and I have turned a few wrenches since 1957.
Now my 2003 Dyna has them, but that is only because it is a newer machine....pg
Now my 2003 Dyna has them, but that is only because it is a newer machine....pg
#19
12-28-2007, 08:48 PM
RE: What sportster engine is this
ORIGINAL: piniongear
I have never seen an ironhead made before 1975 with anything but 6 point head bolts. I will venture to say that 12 point bolts did not even exist back in the early 1970's. I have not seen them at any rate, and I have turned a few wrenches since 1957.
Now my 2003 Dyna has them, but that is only because it is a newer machine....pg
I have never seen an ironhead made before 1975 with anything but 6 point head bolts. I will venture to say that 12 point bolts did not even exist back in the early 1970's. I have not seen them at any rate, and I have turned a few wrenches since 1957.
Now my 2003 Dyna has them, but that is only because it is a newer machine....pg
In my experience the 70s 1000 Sportsters were not as fast as the earlier bikes. I know none of them I encountered was as fast as my 61 which at that time was stock except for the P cams.
Here's a cut-and-paste from the Sportster home page.
1972: [ul][*]The 61 cid (called a 1000cc) XL replaced the 900.[*]Rated for 61 hp, 9:1 CR, 110+mph, 13.38 sec � mile (97.7 mph), and 43 mpg.[*]Bendix/Zenith carb.[*]Wet clutch.[*]New oil pump.[*]Oil tank placed near chain[*]Seat is thinner w/less padding.[*]Production Information: [ul][*]XLH (7,500) $2,120[*]XLCH (10,650)[/ul][/ul]
#20
12-28-2007, 11:32 PM
Road Warrior
RE: What sportster engine is this
ORIGINAL: piniongear
...There is not a dime's worth of difference between the two engines. The parts are exactly the same. The part numbers are exactly the same.
The difference in the engines consists of just 2 items.....the pistons and the piston rings. Everything else is just the same and carries the same part number...
...There is not a dime's worth of difference between the two engines. The parts are exactly the same. The part numbers are exactly the same.
The difference in the engines consists of just 2 items.....the pistons and the piston rings. Everything else is just the same and carries the same part number...