V-Twin Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
FLAME Ev'rything
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Haven't seen any new troubleshoot threads in a few so I'm assuming all our Shovels are in fine shape (but you know what they say about assume)
Northern California has had some EXCELLENT weather for about 2 weeks and the ridin' has been awesome (I'm sure you can relate New Ultra)
Anyway, I just wanted to know how many Ponies a stock 1340 Shovel put out in '82 ? I know I can do a little WEB research but figured I'd come to the faithful VTF site.
Thanks fellas!
Later, Tony
 

·
Highly Seasoned Rider!
Joined
·
4,884 Posts
Tony S said:
Haven't seen any new troubleshoot threads in a few so I'm assuming all our Shovels are in fine shape (but you know what they say about assume)
Northern California has had some EXCELLENT weather for about 2 weeks and the ridin' has been awesome (I'm sure you can relate New Ultra)
Anyway, I just wanted to know how many Ponies a stock 1340 Shovel put out in '82 ? I know I can do a little WEB research but figured I'd come to the faithful VTF site.
Thanks fellas!
Later, Tony
Yo, Yep, the weather was good. Got the old Shovelhead out on Monday and put about 65 miles on her. The weather was 65 deg. heading for 70 over my way in Southern Sacramento County.

As to "ponies", the Owner's manual for my 1982 FXS (For FL/FX P/N 99460-82) says the following on page 57:

Horsepower: 65 @ 5400 rpm.
Torgue: 67 lb-ft. 67 @ 3600 rpm.

Just a guess but I suspect that these are at the crankshaft.

Interestingly, if I recall correctly from my tattered past, the service manual for the 74" big twin 1941-47 (AKA knucklehead) said that it was rated at about 38 hp, with the 61" knucklehead bike (1936-1947) at around 35 hp.


.
 

·
Highly Seasoned Rider!
Joined
·
4,884 Posts
Tony S said:
That is interesting & kinda peaks my curiosity as to what the Panhead put out...
Thanks NewUltra, always a pleasure!

You are welcome. It's nice talking to someone who is genunely enthusiastic.

I looked on Google and was unable to find any reference to stock HD Panhead horsepower. There are obvious differences between the knucklehead engines and those of the panhead era. The aluminum heads of the panhead were very likely more efficient at eliminating some of the heat. It was not uncommon for knuckleheads in the era of tetraethyl lead 100+ octane pump gas to overheat and continue running when they were shut off.

The panheads did have the right angle manifold like the earlier bikes and up to 1952 they had the hydraulic lifters in the top of the pushrods where they got little oil so noise was not uncommon. I think the later ones, with the outside oilers and the hydrauic lifters down in the lifter blocks were a very good engine though. They are rather rare anymore.

Maybe someone else will come on and tell us what the factory rated the panheads at for hp and torque. It would be interesting to know.
 

·
FLAME Ev'rything
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
It will be interesting to see the upgrade transitions in horsepower from the Knuckles on up to the Shovels...I'll be standin' by.
 

·
Highly Seasoned Rider!
Joined
·
4,884 Posts
Tony S said:
It will be interesting to see the upgrade transitions in horsepower from the Knuckles on up to the Shovels...I'll be standin' by.

Since we are talking abouut factory rated hp, Cycle World this month has a comparison between the HD SE 103" Ultra, the BMW K1200LT and the GL 1800 Goldwing. The 103 Harley was rated by someone on their specification sheet at 79 hp and 79 torque. I presume that is rear wheel hp/tq. They ultimately voted for the BMW because it was much less expensive that the HD and is rated at 25 hp more. The Goldwing is also about 25 more than the Harley.

The Harley sells as ridden with HD GPS installed for more than $33K!!!!!!!! Man, that's a lotta Jack. I'm still reeling from the price on my 2004 Ultra. Phew.

The Goldwing is a nice bike but rather heavy and low speed handling is poor. Yes, I've ridden one and can vouch for that. The BMW handles very well according to the testers. The main problem with the BMW is that the seat height is very high, over 31". Another issue is the dealer structure which is very sparse.

All three of the bikes are very nice, though, and I could learn to live with any of them. As far as horsepower, though, Harley continues to be rated the lowest from the factory of the three main touring bikes, even with the 103 stroker kit. Go figure.
 

·
Ironbutt
Joined
·
7,412 Posts
newultraclassic said:
Since we are talking abouut factory rated hp, Cycle World this month has a comparison between the HD SE 103" Ultra, the BMW K1200LT and the GL 1800 Goldwing. The 103 Harley was rated by someone on their specification sheet at 79 hp and 79 torque. I presume that is rear wheel hp/tq. They ultimately voted for the BMW because it was much less expensive that the HD and is rated at 25 hp more. The Goldwing is also about 25 more than the Harley.

The Harley sells as ridden with HD GPS installed for more than $33K!!!!!!!! Man, that's a lotta Jack. I'm still reeling from the price on my 2004 Ultra. Phew.

The Goldwing is a nice bike but rather heavy and low speed handling is poor. Yes, I've ridden one and can vouch for that. The BMW handles very well according to the testers. The main problem with the BMW is that the seat height is very high, over 31". Another issue is the dealer structure which is very sparse.

All three of the bikes are very nice, though, and I could learn to live with any of them. As far as horsepower, though, Harley continues to be rated the lowest from the factory of the three main touring bikes, even with the 103 stroker kit. Go figure.
Seems like HP ratings are not very big concern for HD. Which brings up an interesting question - how much HP do you really need? I think the bone stock 1450 has more then enough HP for the average rider. I've been back and forth myself on doing some engine upgrades on my Heritage. I mean it does everything i want it to do now. Sure, i could spend a few grand and make it a faster but why do i want to make it faster? Sometimes i think i'm more influenced by the threads on here and what other people are doing to their bikes. I'm so confused :confused:
 

·
FLAME Ev'rything
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Harley may be rated the lowest in horsepower from the factory, but would it be safe to say that they have sales & popularity sewn up?
Anyway, I've written to AllExperts about factory Panhead horsepower...says they return emails within 24 hours.
 

·
Highly Seasoned Rider!
Joined
·
4,884 Posts
Tony S said:
Harley may be rated the lowest in horsepower from the factory, but would it be safe to say that they have sales & popularity sewn up?
Anyway, I've written to AllExperts about factory Panhead horsepower...says they return emails within 24 hours.

I'd sure like to know about that, too. I don't believe I ever heard a panhead horsepower figure and also, I think HD wasn't publishing much in those days.

You know, we're talking about years where few bikes were built. I went to that other Shovelhead website and discovered that even as late as 1982, only about 1,800 FXS's were built. That's a really small number if you think about it. It's understandable, though since the company had nearly gone Tango Uniform in 1980-81.
 

·
Shithead
Joined
·
4,836 Posts
newultraclassic said:
I went to that other Shovelhead website

...........

the company had nearly gone Tango Uniform in 1980-81.
Mod Hat on - it's perfectly OK to post the link to any other site as long as you have no commercial interest in it, and I, for one, would be very grateful if you would, Sir.

Please.

Pretty please ?

Tango Uniform would translate into English as T I T S Up, I presume :boobies:

Jeez - Real Bikers only ride Iron fer Chrissakes :sofa:
 

·
FLAME Ev'rything
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
The reply from AllExperts is this: The panhead put out 57 HP at 5200 RPM.
Thats all we got N.U. They didn't elaborate at all...oh well!
 

·
Highly Seasoned Rider!
Joined
·
4,884 Posts
Tony S said:
The reply from AllExperts is this: The panhead put out 57 HP at 5200 RPM.
Thats all we got N.U. They didn't elaborate at all...oh well!

I got the following response from a fellow on Harley Tech Talk (URL omitted to prevent my being banned by Logan....ahem, but I digress...:))

I found another spec that lists the FL at 55 Hp at 5,400 RPM and 62 ft/lb torque at 3,00 RPM. The FLH is rated at 60 Hp at 5,500 RPM and 65 ft/lbs torque at 3,200. The high torque at low RPM comes from the 32 pound flywheels! [/B


So, I would say that close to 60 hp/62+ torque would be the norm for a good-running FLH Panhead.

NUC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
I had my 81 FXEF dynoed years ago and it made 54 hp and 60 lbs to the rear wheel. It had an S&S E and stock crossover pipes with SE slip ons. Other than that it was completely stock with 45k miles on it. I never had a problem keeping up with my buddies 99 Wide Glide. He was a bit faster but not that much.
 

·
Highly Seasoned Rider!
Joined
·
4,884 Posts
FYRKNG said:
I had my 81 FXEF dynoed years ago and it made 54 hp and 60 lbs to the rear wheel. It had an S&S E and stock crossover pipes with SE slip ons. Other than that it was completely stock with 45k miles on it. I never had a problem keeping up with my buddies 99 Wide Glide. He was a bit faster but not that much.

That would be about right considering the factory said 65 hp at the crank. The Shovelhead has a good amount of punch if in good condition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
My 1983 FXRS. bone stock, and I mean down to the last washer and nut. Dyno'd in 2002 with only 10k original miles on the clock. HP 41.3, Torque 50.5. Not impressive, but this is the sweetest running bike you would ever want.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
871 Posts
miles to go said:
Seems like HP ratings are not very big concern for HD. Which brings up an interesting question - how much HP do you really need? I think the bone stock 1450 has more then enough HP for the average rider. I've been back and forth myself on doing some engine upgrades on my Heritage. I mean it does everything i want it to do now. Sure, i could spend a few grand and make it a faster but why do i want to make it faster? Sometimes i think i'm more influenced by the threads on here and what other people are doing to their bikes. I'm so confused :confused:
HP is a basically worthless indicator of a Harley's performance. TORQUE has much more influence on how the bike runs and feels! You want as much torque over as broad an RPM range as possible. This is what gives you that "kick in the pants" when you crank the throttle. High HP numbers don't come on until after 5252 rpm, which is the point where it will start to exceed torque. Who rides above 5000 RPM all the time, anyway? :D
 

·
Highly Seasoned Rider!
Joined
·
4,884 Posts
ToddM said:
HP is a basically worthless indicator of a Harley's performance. TORQUE has much more influence on how the bike runs and feels! You want as much torque over as broad an RPM range as possible. This is what gives you that "kick in the pants" when you crank the throttle. High HP numbers don't come on until after 5252 rpm, which is the point where it will start to exceed torque. Who rides above 5000 RPM all the time, anyway? :D

I don't ever rev that fast. 99% of my riding is between 2000 and 3,200 rpm. At 3,200 rpm, I'm doing 80 mph on either the Shovelhead or the Ultra. They are both geared very similarly. Both of them have lots of torque in that range, too. Just the way I like it.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top