Any pan head fanatics here?

[BIBS]

Fellas, I wanted to post a few questions ta yall about my current steed.I have a 74" pan motored bike.The motor is totally after market with a torque monster flywheeled lower end and new rods,STD heads and I'm runnin an A grind.Right now I've only got about 8.5-1 compression.....she dont run too bad but I'm looking to get the most outta 'er I can get away with,whats the most compression I can run with out longevity issues


I also run a C.V. carb for easy startin,Top oilers and drains for slightly cooler running and I am using an S&S billet oil pump to keep her blood circulatin.

I'd be interested in knowing what you have done in the past to get your pan ta haul arse!!! thanks in advance....Dave,panhead fanatic

[FL84FXWG]

To tell you the truth that motor sounds like it's set up about right

to be reasonably quick and still streeable and reliable, especially with today's

crap gas.

Bottom line is there's no substitute for cubic inches, 93in or better

is a huge difference over 74" as far as performance is concerned.

Quick and easy solutions would be to lower the gears and/or add Nitrous.

Just my 2 cents.

Good luck
IKE

[claydbal]

be happy to sell you8 a 120 inch pan, new in shipping box.

[BIBS]

Thanks claydbal,thats really helpful.

[claydbal]

Originally Posted by BIBS

Thanks claydbal,thats really helpful.

anytime, but actually, it sounds like you have done about all you can do. your std heads are actually shovel design, so thata give better performance. baisley does offer roller rockers to work with those heads, but from a performance standpoint, dont expect it to start frying the tire in 3rd gear.

[BIBS]

I have baisley roller tip rockers in it now.My thinking was to go with 9.5-1 pistons and a "b" grind or similar.
I've heard from several peaple that you cant extract 1 hp. per cubic inch at the back wheel.....since it isnt actually a "panhead" motor and an aftermarket one using the best of everything I thought it just might be possible to achieve that number!?....yes...no...?

[ROY YOUNG]

Extremely hard to make a HP per cu. in. with Shovel heads

[claydbal]

Originally Posted by BIBS

I have baisley roller tip rockers in it now.My thinking was to go with 9.5-1 pistons and a "b" grind or similar.
I've heard from several peaple that you cant extract 1 hp. per cubic inch at the back wheel.....since it isnt actually a "panhead" motor and an aftermarket one using the best of everything I thought it just might be possible to achieve that number!?....yes...no...?

the accurate motors run 7-8 hp per cubic inch at the motor. the r and d that went into the smaller engines for panzer proved reliable at that ratio, when going bigger, there were a few problems.

have you considered a close ratio baker six speed to help performance?

[ROY YOUNG]

I have a '78 1/2 which was the first year for the 80" Shovel. I had a guy here in town that is well known for his Shovel work rebuild the engine 6 years ago. He put 3 5/8" bore Axtell cylinders on to make it 88" with TRW 10-1 forged pistons, Jims pin, C grind Andrews, Rivera lifters and blocks, did some flow work to the heads, to what extend I don't know, dual pluged the heads, took some weight out of the flywheels. I'm also running the Crane Hi-4 single fire with the dual plugs. If I'm not mistaken, these stock made somewhere around 45 HP at the back wheel. This bike pulled slightly over 80 HP in Myrtle Beach 3 years ago.

[newultraclassic]

Originally Posted by ROY YOUNG

I have a '78 1/2 which was the first year for the 80" Shovel. I had a guy here in town that is well known for his Shovel work rebuild the engine 6 years ago. He put 3 5/8" bore Axtell cylinders on to make it 88" with TRW 10-1 forged pistons, Jims pin, C grind Andrews, Rivera lifters and blocks, did some flow work to the heads, to what extend I don't know, dual pluged the heads, took some weight out of the flywheels. I'm also running the Crane Hi-4 single fire with the dual plugs. If I'm not mistaken, these stock made somewhere around 45 HP at the back wheel. This bike pulled slightly over 80 HP in Myrtle Beach 3 years ago.

My 1982 Owner's manual (page 57, bottom right) states that the 80" Shovelhead engine produced 65 hp at 5,400 rpm and 67 lb.-ft. of torque at 3,600 rpm. This is with 7.4:1 compression ratio. I don't know whether this was at the crankshaft or at the rear wheel. If it was rated by the factory as crankshaft hp., that compares favorably with your 80 hp at the rear wheel with a dyno.

My bike has the standard 7.4:1 compression which was the rule of the day with the then relatively new unleaded fuel. Personally, the last thing I would want is an engine with a hemispherical compression chamber AND 10:1 compression. I know that dual plugs will help but the gasoline is only getting worse. Now we have 10% ethanol and Lord knows when they will stop changing the stuff.

At this point, with OEM parts for these old bikes drying up, my goal is to just keep it running since I ride it every week and have for the last 15 years. Performance is fine as long as you can get gasoline to run your machine on.

By the way, nowadays, at least in California, there dosn't seem to be much difference in octane grades. I can't tell the difference between 87 and 91 even on my TC with 8.9:1 compression.

[L.Linkert]

Some hard facts, the late 62 to 65 panheads had what old timers called see through ports, with both valves removed, a small amount of daylight could be seen looking through the ports.
Then they hatched the shovel, and what a boo boo. the big intake valves and the most horrible ports ever designed make for terrible swirl so as the fuel doesnt mix well and tumbles into the cylinder with air pockets that detonate and causes ping.
As far as flow work on a shovel, the best that can be done without welding up the bottom of the ports to force the flow to the top for better mix is try to balance the flow for the pair of heads. Often this requires making the head that flows the best, flow as bad as the other one.
As far as the big inch pan style engines, money is better spent on a big inch Evo style engine, the old syle engines are not happy with todays pump gas.
I ride a 65pan

[newultraclassic]

Originally Posted by L.Linkert

Some hard facts, the late 62 to 65 panheads had what old timers called see through ports, with both valves removed, a small amount of daylight could be seen looking through the ports.
Then they hatched the shovel, and what a boo boo. the big intake valves and the most horrible ports ever designed make for terrible swirl so as the fuel doesnt mix well and tumbles into the cylinder with air pockets that detonate and causes ping.
As far as flow work on a shovel, the best that can be done without welding up the bottom of the ports to force the flow to the top for better mix is try to balance the flow for the pair of heads. Often this requires making the head that flows the best, flow as bad as the other one.
As far as the big inch pan style engines, money is better spent on a big inch Evo style engine, the old syle engines are not happy with todays pump gas.
I ride a 65pan

I feel so dirty now, thinking about my terrible, terrible ports. I may have to have another Budweiser. LOL

[L.Linkert]

Well, an S&S super B carb helps with more stand off, But they can be hard to start.

[BIBS]

oooooook alright oooook!!!! how 'bout bathtub chambered heads?? like I said this thing aint no stock pan....STD said they'll make up any kinda heads I wanna spend the bucks on
I,d prolly be better off with a 100" "short" EVO huh?

[newultraclassic]

Originally Posted by BIBS

oooooook alright oooook!!!! how 'bout bathtub chambered heads?? like I said this thing aint no stock pan....STD said they'll make up any kinda heads I wanna spend the bucks on
I,d prolly be better off with a 100" "short" EVO huh?

With 90% gas at $3.219 and rising, you would probably be better off with 7:1 compression.


.