Rebuild engine from boxes

Requesting advice

All Shovelhead topics
Post Reply
Excalibur
Senior Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:01 pm
Bikes: '61 Pan
'83 FXWG
'74 T150
'41 Indian, '29Norton
'25 HD
'13 JAP
'12 BSA,
'11&'12 NH
'08 Triumph
Location: NZ
Has thanked: 505 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Rebuild engine from boxes

#1

Post by Excalibur »

Am getting an old 1978 Shovelhead engine sorted after been sitting for 10+ years in my shed. It came to me in boxes along with a rolling chassis. Had grenaded on previous owner. It was ridden till it simply wouldn't go any more. Looks like the big end had cried enough. The male rod was cracked right through and opening up. One jug is badly peppered, destroyed. A piston was in several pieces. One can only imagine the racket..

Bores measure 3.5"

10 years is enough time for parts to go missing. I'd even robbed and borrowed bits for the Panhead. To make matters worse, the parts are mixed up with Evo? items. For a start I need to identify the right parts.

These are the flywheel that I believe were in the Shovel. One mainshaft is fixed as one piece with the wheel, the other removable. Can this be the right set? I suspect drive side to be Evo and other is original from my '78 cases. Anyway, will it work?
fw.jpg
This rod set I got all them years ago as a replacement. It has a reasonable looking crankpin and aluminum cages. No rollers. Firstly is it even the right set?
If yes, is the go to resize the rod races, true the crankpin, true rods for straightness and fit appropriate O/S rollers? Book says clearance .001" -.0015"
rd.jpg
These cams came out of the boxes. Will they both work? Suspiciously I think the rh one is Evo? Don't they have a different rocker ratio?
cm.jpg
Cylinder jugs. I can buy locally V-twin manufacturing repop at a very reasonable price. Are they proving viable I suppose is the main question?

Have been studying over the last couple of weeks. What fits what, procedures, etc. There's a fair bit to know. Making a start...
Please point me in the right direction. Thanks for taking the time to help. Much appreciated.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Mongrel505558
Senior Member
Posts: 1418
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:46 pm
Bikes: Rigid Panhead bobber, 68 Shovelhead, 2000 Road King Police bike, 2000 Dyna Wide Glide
Location: Rhode Island
Has thanked: 991 times
Been thanked: 701 times

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#2

Post by Mongrel505558 »

I got my '68 in the same form. A chassis with wheels and several boxes. I lucked out in that the parts were mostly in good condition and whoever took it apart took care to group everything together correctly. They all belongs to the same bike, too. In your case it looks like you have a lot of work ahead sorting things out. The flywheel with the integral shaft is from an Evo. I don't think it will work in a shovel. I was given a set of Evo wheels from a friend and they didn't fit my STD cases (late pan/generator shovel style). I could be wrong. Rather than messing with a crank pin that needs to be trued, if I understood that right, I would just buy a new pin with new rollers and have your rods fit to them. I understand that an Evo cam can be made to work in a shovel, as well as Evo lifters, etc., but is it really worth the work? The rocker ratio is different, as you said. Finally, I'm currently running V-Twin jugs on my pan and they seem okay. The bores are centered and all the bolt holes and oil passages are in the right places. Seem to be of decent enough quality. And all the fins are intact, which is more than I can say for the '53 front and '55 rear swap meet jugs I had on the motor before. Good luck.

Jim
kitabel
Senior Member
Posts: 1500
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:10 pm
Bikes: 1937 U big flathead, 88" stroker, dual port, big cams, pop-up pistons
Location: Lynbrook, New York
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 387 times
Contact:

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#3

Post by kitabel »

Someone discovered that if you put an Evo cam in a shovelhead - it doesn't blow up!
Therefore, it must be better.
If only H-D, Andrews, Comp Cams, Sifton, S&S, Screaming Eagle, Wood, Sig Erson, Leineweber, etc. knew about this...

I'd explain, but I already did.
Mongrel505558
Senior Member
Posts: 1418
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:46 pm
Bikes: Rigid Panhead bobber, 68 Shovelhead, 2000 Road King Police bike, 2000 Dyna Wide Glide
Location: Rhode Island
Has thanked: 991 times
Been thanked: 701 times

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#4

Post by Mongrel505558 »

kitabel wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 2:11 pm Someone discovered that if you put an Evo cam in a shovelhead - it doesn't blow up!
Therefore, it must be better.
If only H-D, Andrews, Comp Cams, Sifton, S&S, Screaming Eagle, Wood, Sig Erson, Leineweber, etc. knew about this...

I'd explain, but I already did.
It won't blow up, but you better figure in the increased rocker arm ratio of an Evo. I don't know the specs of the Evo cam vs. the shovel cam, but if they are close it seems that an Evo cam with shovel rockers will give you less lift (unless H-D figures in the rocker ratio in their cam lift specs). Some people like a challenge, I guess. I ran an 80 inch shovel for years and kept the factory cam in there, and never felt it lacked any performance. And if you want to increase performance, just about all of the manufacturers you mentioned still offer a variety of cams for shovels.
RooDog
Senior Member
Posts: 5327
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:00 pm
Bikes: 1950 Panhead, Resto-Mod
1968 90", 5 Speed Shovelhead,
1984 Home Built Custom Evo 100" Bagger
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Has thanked: 2801 times
Been thanked: 2158 times

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#5

Post by RooDog »

Another consideration is the diameter of the rollers, the Evo's being larger, and this too affect the lift curve, which I am not knowledgeable enough to science out, but is why builders also use Evo lifters & blocks when doing said conversion.
The oil path to the hydraulic lifters, pushrods, and rockers also offers several alternatives. But the whole question is why try to make a Shovelhead into an Evo. Build one or the other. Remember, there is no placement for displacement, so once you leave the arena of stock 82 cubic inches, one is then playing in two entirely different sand boxes....
....RooDog....
Mongrel505558
Senior Member
Posts: 1418
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:46 pm
Bikes: Rigid Panhead bobber, 68 Shovelhead, 2000 Road King Police bike, 2000 Dyna Wide Glide
Location: Rhode Island
Has thanked: 991 times
Been thanked: 701 times

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#6

Post by Mongrel505558 »

RooDog wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 3:56 pm But the whole question is why try to make a Shovelhead into an Evo. Build one or the other.
Yep. That's it in pretty simple terms.
RooDog
Senior Member
Posts: 5327
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:00 pm
Bikes: 1950 Panhead, Resto-Mod
1968 90", 5 Speed Shovelhead,
1984 Home Built Custom Evo 100" Bagger
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Has thanked: 2801 times
Been thanked: 2158 times

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#7

Post by RooDog »

After seeing one in the flesh I came to realize the very first Evos were built on Shovelhead bottom ends & cases. Perhaps a prototype, I can't document it, but I do believe my lying eyes....
....RooDog....
Mongrel505558
Senior Member
Posts: 1418
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:46 pm
Bikes: Rigid Panhead bobber, 68 Shovelhead, 2000 Road King Police bike, 2000 Dyna Wide Glide
Location: Rhode Island
Has thanked: 991 times
Been thanked: 701 times

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#8

Post by Mongrel505558 »

RooDog wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2021 1:31 am After seeing one in the flesh I came to realize the very first Evos were built on Shovelhead bottom ends & cases. Perhaps a prototype, I can't document it, but I do believe my lying eyes....
....RooDog....
Do you mean literal Shovel bottom ends, with separate wheels and shafts, and Shovel cams/lifters? Hey, why not? The first Shovels were basically built on Pan bottom ends. To me the main difference with the Evo is the aluminum jugs sandwiched between the heads and the cases and the departure from hemi combustion chambers. To me the Twin Cam is the first real major redesign since the Knucklehead.
RooDog
Senior Member
Posts: 5327
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:00 pm
Bikes: 1950 Panhead, Resto-Mod
1968 90", 5 Speed Shovelhead,
1984 Home Built Custom Evo 100" Bagger
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Has thanked: 2801 times
Been thanked: 2158 times

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#9

Post by RooDog »

Mongrel505558 wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2021 11:50 am
RooDog wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2021 1:31 am After seeing one in the flesh I came to realize the very first Evos were built on Shovelhead bottom ends & cases. Perhaps a prototype, I can't document it, but I do believe my lying eyes....
....RooDog....
Do you mean literal Shovel bottom ends, with separate wheels and shafts, and Shovel cams/lifters? Hey, why not? The first Shovels were basically built on Pan bottom ends. To me the main difference with the Evo is the aluminum jugs sandwiched between the heads and the cases and the departure from hemi combustion chambers. To me the Twin Cam is the first real major redesign since the Knucklehead.
Jim....
It was like , maybe 20 years ago, and in an old storage building one of the MC Patch Holders had stashed a truck load of bike parts including a complete Evolution motorcycle. Looking at the engine I thought it looked strange, but upon closer inspection it seemed the cases had characteristics of Shovelhead design. Now I wasn't about to go asking too many questions of these guys, but so I only remember that it didn't look like currently available Evo cases, like the oil feed hole , back and to the left, of the rear lifter block for SH head oiling. I don't know what was inside the cases, both SH & Evo cranks wan be interchanged, same bearings & stroke, no? And if the deck is virgin, I see no reason why an unmachined SH deck couldn't be bored and drilled at the factory for Evo jugs and studs. Remember Evos had some birthing pains, and the early cylinder studs were among them. Lifter blocks and cams are physically interchangeable, too. But I don't remember what was on that engine.

Yes, I did make a statement I can't back up, but perhaps some old folks here can cosign me.

Remember that some of the first Evos came with 4 speed trannies & kickers in both the FXS swingarm, and Softail frames....

Harley has quite often swapped parts around during cross over years, witness the '47 Knucks & '48 Pans, or the '65 Pans & '66 Shovels.....
And the list goes on....
....RooDog....
kitabel
Senior Member
Posts: 1500
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:10 pm
Bikes: 1937 U big flathead, 88" stroker, dual port, big cams, pop-up pistons
Location: Lynbrook, New York
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 387 times
Contact:

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#10

Post by kitabel »

Against my better judgment?
The EVO cam lobes, tappet block bores, pushrod angles, and rocker arm levers are in completely different places than shovel.
What if I use all of those parts?
Then all you need is Evo heads...
Excalibur
Senior Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:01 pm
Bikes: '61 Pan
'83 FXWG
'74 T150
'41 Indian, '29Norton
'25 HD
'13 JAP
'12 BSA,
'11&'12 NH
'08 Triumph
Location: NZ
Has thanked: 505 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#11

Post by Excalibur »

Thanks for the responses. Good food for thought.

Cam. I'm keen to have cam a stock/mild one. So if the shovel cam is lumpy, I'll look for something standard. These days I value well behaved running, easy starting and good fuel consumption over the extra power a hot cam can give. What are we looking at with that there shovel cam? Stock or not? Is it FLH?

Visited a local Harley shop today. He has the lapping tool for the RH main. He commented shovel work has all but dried up. I bought a few gaskets/seals/bearings/studs etc. I had much better luck finding Shovel bits over Pan stuff in the parts shelves.

Dave said the flywheels would work and the rods as well. The crankpin had gone rusty so a new one looks more likely. S&S have nice looking crankpins. Even a +.001". Is standard 1.25"? Mine is .002" under that.

Hoping Dave can find a replacement front jug. What's likely is it will already be a bigger oversize.

Noticed there's a bent valve. Hardly surprising I suppose.
RooDog
Senior Member
Posts: 5327
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:00 pm
Bikes: 1950 Panhead, Resto-Mod
1968 90", 5 Speed Shovelhead,
1984 Home Built Custom Evo 100" Bagger
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Has thanked: 2801 times
Been thanked: 2158 times

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#12

Post by RooDog »

I have had excellent results with Andrews numbered series of cams, # 1,2 & 3. Because of the rocker ration in a Panny, I chose to use the #1 to replace the worn out Victory cam then in place, and without needing to space the valve springs. A stockish FLH Shovel worked out well with the #2, and my hot rod 90 inch '68 runs well with the #3. All three of these cams are designed for low, stock like ,compression, as opposed to some bigger cams that like the lumpy sounds associated with 10:1 comps.
The three of them have excellent low speed torque, and run out well into the less than stellar RPMs H-Ds live at.
And that's my 2 cents worth on the subject....
....RooDog....
Mongrel505558
Senior Member
Posts: 1418
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:46 pm
Bikes: Rigid Panhead bobber, 68 Shovelhead, 2000 Road King Police bike, 2000 Dyna Wide Glide
Location: Rhode Island
Has thanked: 991 times
Been thanked: 701 times

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#13

Post by Mongrel505558 »

RooDog wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2021 2:46 pm I have had excellent results with Andrews numbered series of cams, # 1,2 & 3. Because of the rocker ration in a Panny, I chose to use the #1 to replace the worn out Victory cam then in place, and without needing to space the valve springs. A stockish FLH Shovel worked out well with the #2, and my hot rod 90 inch '68 runs well with the #3. All three of these cams are designed for low, stock like ,compression, as opposed to some bigger cams that like the lumpy sounds associated with 10:1 comps.
The three of them have excellent low speed torque, and run out well into the less than stellar RPMs H-Ds live at.
And that's my 2 cents worth on the subject....
....RooDog....
The Andrews J-grind works well in pans and shovels as a bolt-in just-above-stock cam. Intake valve closes slightly earlier than stock, so static compression is a bit higher and it makes a bit more torque. For a pan the difference in lift is 0.425" for the "J" vs. 0.415" (I believe - don't have figures in front of me) for stock cam. Can't quote the lift for a shovel, but it should be the same if Andrews takes the difference in rocker arm ratios into account. The numbered cams (1, 2, and 3) are offered for low compression (7.5:1) motors. What was stock then? 8.5:1? In that territory any of the above should work well. I'm also a believer in rideability and durability rather than speed and horsepower. Torque is the reason I love these older Harleys.

As for the early top end stud problems - when the Evo's were a couple of years into their run an excellent Harley mechanic in my neck of the woods pointed out that almost every Evo that came into his shop leaked at the base gaskets because the studs would pull up the aluminum right around them in the decks. He just removed the studs and chamfered the holes to correct the problem. He said he couldn't understand why the factory didn't do this. My guess it it was an extra step Harley could skip to save money and pass the cost on to the dealers when the bikes came back leaking.

Time to go outside and change the headlight bulb on my Road King cop bike. Noticed last night it had quit. Replaced the socket already with a ceramic one since the factory plastic ones melted from the current-generated heat.
RooDog
Senior Member
Posts: 5327
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:00 pm
Bikes: 1950 Panhead, Resto-Mod
1968 90", 5 Speed Shovelhead,
1984 Home Built Custom Evo 100" Bagger
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Has thanked: 2801 times
Been thanked: 2158 times

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#14

Post by RooDog »

Cams are like ice cream, they all come in different flavors.
The #1 worked well in my 74" Project Panny with AM FLH pistons, solid lifters, auto advance, and a Bendix carbby made for easy starting....
If I had the choice between a stock motor and a well built stroker, my choice would always be the stroker, but only if I were the builder.....
....RooDog....
Mongrel505558
Senior Member
Posts: 1418
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:46 pm
Bikes: Rigid Panhead bobber, 68 Shovelhead, 2000 Road King Police bike, 2000 Dyna Wide Glide
Location: Rhode Island
Has thanked: 991 times
Been thanked: 701 times

Re: Rebuild engine from boxes

#15

Post by Mongrel505558 »

RooDog wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2021 4:57 pm Cams are like ice cream, they all come in different flavors.
The #1 worked well in my 74" Project Panny with AM FLH pistons, solid lifters, auto advance, and a Bendix carbby made for easy starting....
If I had the choice between a stock motor and a well built stroker, my choice would always be the stroker, but only if I were the builder.....
....RooDog....
My pan and shovel are both strokers (4-1/2" wheels), but still respond nicely to stock-like components. Only thing I had to do besides lower the oil return holes in the jugs is go up one size for my intermediate jet. Strokers are sure a lot of fun, but it's getting tougher to find stroker pistons for pans and shovels.
Post Reply

Return to “Shovelhead”