I found my old 2003 OEM cams....


They look really good for being in my attic for 20 years in that box...

I just now saw your PM. Send another with your name/address if you want these cams, and I'll send them to you....

We can handle the rest via PM, but I wanted to post the pics of the cams in this thread, so others could comment if they felt they needed to...







PS- I won't be able to mail them to you until Wed......

 

I will press on the new sleeve on the rear - I have an HD kit for that - I also believe that some crap - went trough the pump - no evidence this was recent - no crap in oil or cam chest - one odd thing - when I use my machining magnifiers - I can see pits that are actual small holes in the pump housing where it is worn - like the casting had defects....cecked run-out - 0.003 overall - Im not rebuildin the bottom end for 003 out - the bike is a town rider for me - work and back - 15 miles a day

 

Well, we may never know how that happened.... at least there is no obvious defect that will cause a new pump to fail...

Those run out numbers are fine..... They certainly wouldn't cause the oil pump damage you had....

Believe it or not, as the run out numbers increased in the '05+ Twin cams, the MoCo in it's wisdom kept changing the max allowable run out. I think it got to max allowable runout of .012" in 2010ish.. Absolutely absurd runout numbers, but it cut back on warranty repairs for the MoCo...

 

Agree; I would run that pump.

FYI, runout numbers changed for warranty purposes in the 2007 MY from .003" to .012" when crank supply was outsourced overseas; maybe China, not sure. The MoCo anticipated issues quality issues with the new supplier and there were a higher incidence of crank issues with the '07 model year than previous. Quality issues pretty much resolved that year but, of course, the MoCo did not reinstate the .003" warranty standard for crank runout.

Good on you for helping out the OP with a cam set; that's one of the benefits of this forum

 

I have trued a lot of shovel and ironhead 3 piece wheels - well 5 pieces if you include the sprocket shaft and pinion - anyway - I would never let a set off the table with more than 002 out - I usually get them to 001 to 002 - some just true up - with no measurable runout as well - .005 is pretty significant on the truin stand - I use my overhead mill with centers - - I cant imagine .010 - and it is incredible that the pinion bushing would not get gored out causing poor bi end oiling of the rods - what an embarassment - I have no idea how modern HD cranks are trued at the factory - I can certainly say that no honest mechanic would allow a crank to leave the table with 010 runout - do they balance them anymore? WTF happened - and we used to hate on AMF ----- I'll tell ya somethin' - those 70's AMF shovels at least had a soul - and HD saved that soul when they launched the Evo......

 

I owned a '78 FXS Low Rider (stolen after 2 years & 30K miles) and an '80 FXS Low Rider (traded for an EVO after nine years and 78K miles).

I loved those bikes, they ran extremely well, and they were my only transportation from '78- '82.... They never had a problem that wasn't self inflicted...

 

My 84 was that way. The only time it left me stranded was a battery cable the came from custom chrome broke.
It did develop a head gasket issue, but definently got me home. I guess 80 inchers were known for that.

 

Since AMF sold Harley-Davidson to a group of Harley employees in February of 1981.... I'm reading that your real H-D Low Rider had more problems than my two AMF Low Riders.....

Just kidding..... I know AMF caused a lot of headaches within the MoCo, and quality control dropped significantly in the AMF years.

Yet, I was always proud of the fact that my two AMF Harleys were well used and never gave me an issue....

There are a lot of former AMF Harley owners that would scoff (rightfully so) at my claims...

I can't tell you how many times after the buyback, newer ('81+) Harley owners would tell me my bike wasn't a REAL Harley because it was an AMF Harley...

I'm still a little sensitive about that....

 

While many hate on the AMF years there were a couple things that AMF did that actually improved the servicibility of those shovels and ironheads - while the quality of assembly and the quality control was true horse **** - the engine cases were strengthened to be more durable and less likely to fail and efforts to reduce moving parts did simplify some service and costs - what this meant to the builder is guys like me had a platform we could build on and improve - the cone shovel bottom end had a good run - and as someone that has welded a good number of 60's and 70's era cases those late 70's sets were robust platforms that took massive abuse. The early castings were thin and melted away under the torch - in fact - I use special hi silicon rod when welding those older cases - I also prefer the later frames to chop as well - say what you will about those 79 shovels and ironheads - yeah - those particular years were transition years when technology was beginning to replace traditional over-engineering and simplicity - they were easily made reliable though because it was quite simple to replace all those cheap flimsy parts with components from prior years or good aftermarket stuff - I recently rebuilt (crank-up) and 83 FLHT - **** - those early FLT's with rubber mounts and 5 speeds were the foundation for the transformation of the MOCO - well - softail probably was the true catalyst for the mid-80s rise of HD as a reborn again religion