63 oiling

[socalpig]

hi i went to look at a 63 flh i was interested in buying. it did not have the feed hole for the top end oilers on the right case just back of the rear tappet block. the oil feed came from the top of the cam cover. like the knuckles. i did not bother writing the numbers down because i took a couple of pictures. the pictures came out blurry and now i can't remember them. the vin was 63flh1???. since this is such a low vin could they have late 62 cases and not have the port for the oilers on the case? thanks

[RUBONE]

The top oiler fittings on '63-'65 cases are between the tappet blocks, not behind the rear one.
Robbie

[panhead_kicker]

top oiler fittings on '63-'65 cases are between the tappet blocks

yep, see the brass fitting. (64)

overhead oiler.JPG

[Speeding Big Twin]

socalpig, a feed hole just back of the rear tappet block makes it sound like you’re thinking of the way a Shovelhead case would be. Anyway, I doubt that any 1963 Pan would have been produced with a right-hand case which didn’t have provision for the top end feed line fitting.

My buckle from H-D would have some think Harley made an early Panhead with a Knuckle type of feed line but I believe that's an ERROR (and H-D didn’t reply when I asked about said buckle):



Getting back to the bike you looked at:
1. How do you know it was really a 63 model? Do you know what a factory-stamped 63 serial number looks like?
2. Even IF the serial number was factory-stamped that doesn’t necessarily mean the other case (right-hand one) is a 63. A lot of cases become mismatched over the years.
3. Did you look at the belly numbers on both cases? IF the right-hand case was a 63 then maybe someone blocked the feed hole between the tappet blocks because they wanted to run a feed line from the cam cover for whatever reason. What sort of cam cover was it? Were the heads 63-65 style or did the line enter the heads at a different point than standard H-D practice?
4. You said you were interested in buying the bike so why not go back and get better pictures of everything?

You mentioned the serial number was 63flh1??? and that SOUNDS okay in that it complies with the 1960-69 even-odd code but we need to see a clear photo of it to determine whether or not it looks factory-stamped. And even if it was that still doesn’t mean the other case is a 63, as I said above.

NB: In some documents you’ll read that the even-odd code began for 1962. But those documents are mistaken because the even-odd code began for 1960, not 62. Eric

[Schwee]

I seem to recall that some early 63s did not have outside oilers; also, did not have dual point timer.

[socalpig]

thanks guys. the heads were 58-62 big fin they were fed through the cylinders internally. the heads were cracked all the way through. you could see the cracks between the fins from outside as well as inside. i did buy it and i will put up pics. it is in machine shop jail right now. i think the shop guys celebrate turkey day for a week. anyways the left case belly numbers are impossible to make out for sure. the rights are also incredibly difficult to read. i thought the were 62's like 162- but i found out that 63's used round 3's so it could be 163-. there is a space between the - and the first sequence number so i still wonder if it is 162-?31??. it could be 163-31?? but if it is the 3100th motor made for 63. how could it be in the 300th bike built? 63FLH13xx. since 63 was a change year. went to outside oil. did they build a bunch of motors and stock pile them until production began? and because it is such a low production number could it have been built with a left over 62 H motor?