clutch basket swap .

[Ironheadmike]

Can I swap out a 98 clutch basket for an older one ie 92-97 ?

[Ohio HD]

Search function

http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,72771.msg793263.html#msg793263

[cheech]

Well Ohio took care of it mostly. Turboprop has some informative clutch info on here also.
But I do ask why? If you're putting an older assembly on a 98 bike. Seems from reading the 98 up is an upgrade to the older "snap ring" diaphragm spring clutch everyone is doing.

[Deye76]

Turbo turned me on to the 98' later for my 92'. The OE PIA clutch wouldn't hold even with a extra plate. It along with 3.15 primary gearing is one of the better upgrades done. 

[Deye76]

"It along with 3.15 primary gearing is one of the better upgrades done. "
Clarify, the 3.15 primary ratio is in my FXR, much lighter than a bagger.

[JW113]

And another satisfied customer of the 98+ upgrade here too. The only PITA about it was the clutch starter shaft, and finding a late style outer primary to clear the clutch basket. But I agree completely, 3.15:1 is the best all around ratio. Not too tall, not too short, just right.

-JW

[Reddog74usa]

My 98 FXST has the lazy 2:92 gearing so I picked up a 37 tooth clutch basket along with a 24 engine sprocket which will give me 3:13 final without effecting the speedo read out. The later style clutch IS THE WAY TO GO. I like it for many reasons with the option of changing the final drive ratio without having to mess with swapping out the belt. this was a lot cheaper than a belt and rear pully swap.

[Ironheadmike]

I have had nothing but problems with the 98 and newer clutches . I also went with a 37t and 24t comp also a 70t wheel and 30t trans making the bike more usable in the mountains  . The 2.97 and the 3.15 ratios are totally useless and actually use more fuel .There was absolutely no improvements than the older clutches especially if you put power to it . They are actually made cheaper to save HD money .

[cheech]

I have had nothing but problems with the 98 and newer clutches.
There was absolutely no improvements than the older clutches especially if you put power to it.

As in what kind of issues? Mostly curious and I'm bored. 
I'm sorta with ya on the second point once the riveted spring plate is gone in the older version.
The 98 up is easier to take the discs out of though. 

[Deye76]

I had a brand new extra plate clutch (well regarded brand, gives HTT members a discount.), along with a heavier spring, would not hold what my 113" would give it. Talking with turboprop he suggested the 98' later assembly. I had a primary set up and 5 spd. gears from my 04' bagger when I went 3.37 and 6 spd OD. Put the parts in, and it takes all I can give it. Lighter lever pull too. 

[JW113]

I have had nothing but problems with the 98 and newer clutches . I also went with a 37t and 24t comp also a 70t wheel and 30t trans making the bike more usable in the mountains  . The 2.97 and the 3.15 ratios are totally useless and actually use more fuel .There was absolutely no improvements than the older clutches especially if you put power to it . They are actually made cheaper to save HD money .

Yeah, what problems? It has lighter level pull, smoother engagement, and holds power. And comes apart without that goofy spring compressor. Trying to see any downside. Also, what you mean by made cheaper? Care to explain that? Not that I am saying that is not true, but in fact my current job is to find ways to reduce cost but improve quality at the same time. Is that bad?

-JW

[Ironheadmike]

The shells cost HD $25.00 less to have made . Issues: can't find nuetral won't disengage and also slips . The clutch pull is the same , and as far as swapping out they are both easy . I'm actually running 3:59 gearing with a OD6 . I tried Barrnet , Energy one and HD's Screamin Eagle clutch plate kits and they all act the same way . So if anybody has an older style with a 37 tooth I'll be happy to trade .

[kd]

The general consensus is they work well.  Most consider it an upgrade.  Is it possible you missed something?

[Ohio HD]

You know, there's a solution for everything.

Just buy a clutch basket that you won't break. 36 and 37 tooth sprockets, multiple ring gear teeth available.


Evolution-Industries

[Deye76]

"Issues: can't find nuetral won't disengage and also slips"

Something else going on, adjustment maybe. The clutch in my 2004 held 130hp/133Tq, never a problem finding neutral. After I put in a VPC, 2 finger lever pull.
I have all the parts that came out of my 92'.

[crock]

You know, there's a solution for everything.

Just buy a clutch basket that you won't break. 36 and 37 tooth sprockets, multiple ring gear teeth available.


Evolution-Industries

That's a good looking clutch

[CarlosGGodfrog]

You know, there's a solution for everything.

Just buy a clutch basket that you won't break. 36 and 37 tooth sprockets, multiple ring gear teeth available.


Evolution-Industries

I like the Evolution Industries product lines. I would like to use their billet basket, but they do not make one for the 2000 -2002 TC clutches. I upgraded my 2000 Heritage Springer from 3.15 final to the 3.37 by going to the touring compensator and basket. I love it, but I do not cruse at 80 mph, so I'm not screaming the motor.

[cheech]

I like the Evolution Industries product lines. I would like to use their billet basket, but they do not make one for the 2000 -2002 TC clutches.

98 to 06 (except 06 Dyna) are the same.
What have you determined that's unique to the 2000 to 2002?

[turboprop]

I like the Evolution Industries product lines. I would like to use their billet basket, but they do not make one for the 2000 -2002 TC clutches.

98 to 06 (except 06 Dyna) are the same.
What have you determined that's unique to the 2000 to 2002?

Yea, that doesn't make any sense. Especially considering that Evo Industries calls out fitment as '1998-2006 (Except '06 Dyna). Really looking forward to knowing more about this '00-'02 fitment. I suspect learning is about to occur.