I'll second that.I still miss my '85 FXR.I left the bar many a night sideaways and on one tire.

 

The twin cam has stronger cases than the evo did the evo's covers were structual so the twincam is capable of more power with less chance of failure. They were good motors as are the twin cam motors. What is best that is a mater of opinion so who knowes but the twin cam has stronger cases, the evo however has replaceable lifter blocks.

 

If the EPA was in our business back in 1980 like it is now, how hot would that 80" motor run when you picked it up from the dealer. The 96" runs a little hot but where will we be in 10 years? Can we say water cooled?

 

I not sure it is!

 

I miss my old Evo RK too, but I wouldn't go back. The new bikes are just better, and the TC96 is IMO the best engine HD has produced. It is torquey right out of the box, smooth, and mechanically quiet. Gone are the cam bearing and tensioner problems of the older TC's, at least we hope so, and it doesn't need as much to get it up to an acceptable performance level. What all TC's need is an oil cooler, something most Evos never required.

 

Structurally the twin cam is a better design. With the twin cam layout the pushrods are more vertical and at a lesser angle, relieving alot of the torsional stress. The main journals are larger (beefier), also, the motor and transmission bolt up together, removing the stress on the primary in dealing with the twisting torque.

The main thing to do with a Twinkie is to do a Gear driven cam conversion with timken outer cam bearings.

EVO's are nice, but there are definite improvements in the Twin Cam design....ya jsut gotta get that cam chest straightened out....
~Joe

 

EVO was just a progression like the Shovel was. The TC has better pushrod angle and lubrication improvements along with higher HP. Wouldn't say "better"; just a progression, is all, kind of like those dumba$$ counter-balancers. 87K on my '97 FLSTC and only had starter clutch go out for only "major" problem so far. Maybe see ya in Sturgis '09...

 

The cases are stronger but Harley really dropped the ball on the strength of the internals on the twin cam. The crank pins are prone to flexing which will eat your gear drives. If Harley had kept the gear drive setup and gone with a forged crank these engines would be bullet proof. I miss the EVO, I put over 189,000 miles on my 1987 FXLR and never had to open the engine up and she still ran strong with good compression when I sold her..

 

Leo,

I agree a 80" Evo is quicker with a cam change, carb kit, and slip ons . My brother inlaw had a TC88 Super glide and my with a carb kit and slip ons and that 80" Evo would eat it uptil about 80mph then the 88 would start gaining. I kinda mis my ole' 98 Evo Lowrider.

 

There are a number of things that make the twin cam a lot better engine than the old evo. It least by theory that is, the first years of this engine like everything else Harley makes, were always just a bit better. Harley Davidson always finds a way to nickel and dime cheapness into their engines as they progress through the years. But again twin team engine cases as an example, along with how they mate to the transmissions are far better design. Crank up the evo and horsepower and sooner or later torque takes over, and all too often cracks in the inner primaries appear. Valve train geometry is superior in the twin cam along with the oil pump, and the ability to keep those Pistons cool with oil jets. Up until Harley cheapen them like I said, the bottom end bearings were far superior than Evo's ever were. I will agree fuel injection is a rather complicated process especially for performance modifications. But the new Delphi system is far more flexible than what was ever put on an evolution engine.