1968 shovel

[roadkg05]

  do you guys know engine # an, frame

[Hillside Motorcycle]

Those carried the numbers on the engine only.
Scott

[roadkg05]

thanks hillsidcyclecom

[Speeding Big Twin]

H-D used frame numbers from around 1916 to at least 1927 and then again later on beginning with 1970 models. Although there was no frame number for a 68 Shovel, Harley stamped additional original component identifying numbers, aka anti-theft numbers, on the left side of the frame steering head of some Harleys beginning with 1962 models. For 68 Shovels the additional ID began with one capital letter which could be H, J, K or L. The letter was followed by either three or four numbers but all the characters are small so you’d need to look close and if a frame has been powdercoated they may be impossible to make out.

The early-68 frame originally had no gusset welded forward of the left rear downtube and the frame is almost identical to the one used for 66â€"67 Shovels and 65 Pans. Mid/late-68 frames had said gusset welded on at the factory as original fitment, as did later frames of that style. Something to be aware of is that the gusset was available as repair part #47261-68 so it was sometimes attached at a later date to frames back through 1958. Some very late-68 frames had a padlock boss but originally it was undrilled because a key-operated steering head lock was still in use. For 1969 frames the padlock boss was drilled at the
factory; the steering head lock boss was still present but it was unmachined. Some very late-69 frames had a VIN boss but originally it was unstamped. 

On the frame top engine mount you may find a date code consisting of a large capital letter and a number. Respectively, the letter and number indicate the month and year the frame was made although they won’t necessarily be proof of the exact model year of the frame.

Engine serial number: 1968 Shovels were available as either an FL or an FLH and the sequence portion of the serial number had to comply with the 1960â€"69 even-odd code. Two examples of the serial number format used by H-D for 68 with the even-odd code applied: 68FL2345; and 68FLH10123. But even if you see an engine stamped like one of those two examples that won’t necessarily mean the serial number was applied at the factory.

Swingarm: H-D used a round-tube swingarm for 1958â€"72 Big Twins. Bruce Palmer says there were at least four different types but I haven’t been able to confirm all of those yet. I have, however, identified four that are not mentioned in his book so there could be at least eight types of round swingarm used over the 58â€"72 period. For 1963-72 there were two reinforcement ribs outside the left axle plate and although there were at least two minor variations after that I can’t yet say for sure which, if either, of those minor alterations applied for 68.

Are you considering buying any engine/bike in particular? If so, you could post a clear photo of the serial number but with the last couple of sequence characters covered and we could give you an opinion on whether or not the SN was stamped by H-D. A similar thing applies if you’re checking a frame: post clear photos of both sides and we can give you an idea of what it is.

Need more info? Please feel free to ask questions anytime.
Eric
 

[Hillside Motorcycle]

1968 was the first year w/o the mouse trap(hand booster) clutch, but had an aluminum oil pump, and if not mistaken, the front brake drum went to the right side.
Scott

[Speeding Big Twin]

For 1968 models, the FL/FLH drum front brake was on the left side. It didn’t go to the right-hand side until 1969 and it then remained on the right-hand side through 1971. (FL/FLH disc front brake first year was 1972, on the left side.)
Eric

[Hillside Motorcycle]

I am drawn to the generator Shovels.
Have had a '67 now, for over 30 years.
Finally caved in, and installed a Cycle Electric gen/reg unit a few years ago, and had dumped the Tillitson carb over 25 years ago.
Both were good moves.
Scott

[fourthgear]

I think the first year for disc brake on an FL/FLH was 1973 ? Or was that the rear disc ?

[Speeding Big Twin]

I think the first year for disc brake on an FL/FLH was 1973 ? Or was that the rear disc ?

Here’s part of what I posted earlier: ‘FL/FLH disc front brake first year was 1972, on the left side.’

And I won’t be changing my mind.

But apparently you think 1973 although you offer no evidence to support your thinking.

Below is an ad for H-D for 1972. The Electra Glide in the ad has a disc front brake, on its left side. Notice there is a close-up of a disc front brake at the bottom left corner of the ad. Part of the ad reads as follows: ‘On Electra Glide, a hydraulic disc brake up front.’



For the FL/FLH, the rear brake changed from hydraulic drum to disc for 1973.

Also please notice in the ad that the 1972 Super Glide has drum brakes front and rear: mechanical front drum; hydraulic rear drum. The Super Glide changed to disc brakes front and rear for 1973.
Eric 

[fourthgear]

I think the first year for disc brake on an FL/FLH was 1973 ? Or was that the rear disc ?

Here’s part of what I posted earlier: ‘FL/FLH disc front brake first year was 1972, on the left side.’

And I won’t be changing my mind.

But apparently you think 1973 although you offer no evidence to support your thinking.

Below is an ad for H-D for 1972. The Electra Glide in the ad has a disc front brake, on its left side. Notice there is a close-up of a disc front brake at the bottom left corner of the ad. Part of the ad reads as follows: ‘On Electra Glide, a hydraulic disc brake up front.’



For the FL/FLH, the rear brake changed from hydraulic drum to disc for 1973.

Also please notice in the ad that the 1972 Super Glide has drum brakes front and rear: mechanical front drum; hydraulic rear drum. The Super Glide changed to disc brakes front and rear for 1973.
Eric

You did notice the question mark (?)there didn't you ?

No one was asking you to change your mind .

I didn't know we were in court & needed evidence( you showed none untill this post ) for thinking out loud or asking a question .

[HotRodShovel]

Your Honor, I would like to approach the bench ..........there is no debate here, just some Shovel"heads" comparing notes and asking questions.  I love the look of the FLH's always have. To me they are the quintessential motorcycle. If you look up the word "motorcycle" in the dictionary, there should just be a picture of an FLH and no words. Just my humble opinion.

[Hillside Motorcycle]

Shovel dressers, to be more specific, the generator models from 1966-69 are what my minds eye, calls a motorcycle as well.
Scott

[billbuilds]

     fourthgear,
     The 66-72 FL's all used the same wheel hub. The 72 FL's had the boss for the banana caliper on the left side fork leg for the first time and a couple of one-year-only parts in the front axle and the adapter for the front rotor. My 41-84 FL parts catalog shows it in the schematic but does list a p/n for that adapter. Was available thru Tedd V-Twin a while ago, not sure if it still is. The 72 FL's retained the drum in the rear as Eric pointed out. My 73 FX frame (coded 2C) has the bracket for the rear brake line flex to firm junction even though it came stock with the nanner back there. Mite's well use them up I guess.
     Scott,
     There was a 68 FLH for sale on Craigslist in the mid to northern part of the Pine Tree state this past Spring. Looked to be very original with moderate miles. IIRC he was looking for 15k. Those slab sides sure are sweet. Bill

[HotRodShovel]

roger that Scott, gotta be a Shovel although there is a soft spot in my heart for pans. I'll take a 65 Electra Glide any day. Any one out there looking to give one away? I'll pay the freight.   

[Speeding Big Twin]

You did notice the question mark (?)there didn't you ?

No one was asking you to change your mind. I didn't know we were in court & needed evidence( you showed none untill this post ) for thinking out loud or asking a question .

Yes, I did notice the question mark. But to whom was the question directed? It didn’t make sense that it would be directed at you; why would you question yourself? Therefore it seemed the question was directed at me. And that suggested that you were indeed asking me to change my mind. If you didn’t expect me to consider changing my mind then why ask the question?

But if we first go back a bit we find that Scott said 1968 was the first year, if he was not mistaken, that the front brake drum went to the right side. Even though I knew the correct year for the change was 69, would anything have been proved by me just saying so? No, it wouldn’t have, because why should anyone just believe me? Would anything have been proved by me directing a question to Scott? No, it wouldn’t have. I was going to be the person disagreeing with what had been posted so it was up to me to supply evidence. And that is why I submitted proper pictures demonstrating the position of the front brake for 68 and 69.

I also indicated what happened with the front drum brake for 1970â€"71 as well as mentioning that 72 was the first year for the front disc. Why did I do that? I did it in case anyone was interested in further info.

Then you posted, complete with a question mark which appeared directed at me. I found that intriguing because I had figured that given my pictures for 68 and 69, along with my mention of what happened with both types of front brake for 1970â€"72, that people may have at least entertained the possibility that I had some idea of what I was talking about.

You were going to be the person questioning what had been posted by me about 1972 but you had no evidence re 1973. (And remember, I provided evidence earlier on when I was the person in a similar position regarding 1968-69.) What you could have done was a search and you would have quickly found that I was correct regarding 1972 and none of this would have occurred. But apparently you decided against that option and now you seem to be wondering what’s happened. And didn’t it occur to you that if I had proper pictures for 68 and 69 then there was a fair chance that I would have a proper picture for 1972 to back up my mention of the front disc first appearing that year?

We aren’t in court. But evidence is often required to resolve an issue. On several Harley forums over the years I have seen many members posting back and forth, each convinced they are correct. Sometimes an escalation would not have resulted if early proof had been posted. Often a problem could have been completely avoided if the questioning party had checked something, and obviously if that had been done, there would have been no need for the question to be asked.

Lack of evidence can be a funny thing sometimesâ€"for example, some people claim to own a 1947 model Panhead. I do not believe that such a machine was made. But I have offered assistance to those people in one way or another and on more than one occasion. As I would expect, the bike usually turns out to be something else. But sometimes there is no further reply from people. And no evidence ever appears.
Eric

[Hillside Motorcycle]

The only search I do here is from memory, and hands-on, from damn near 30 years of working on these bikes.
Scott

[Lew]

why would you question yourself?

I've been asking myself that question for as long as I can remember..
                   

[fourthgear]

You did notice the question mark (?)there didn't you ?

No one was asking you to change your mind. I didn't know we were in court & needed evidence( you showed none until this post ) for thinking out loud or asking a question .

Yes, I did notice the question mark. But to whom was the question directed? It didn’t make sense that it would be directed at you; why would you question yourself? Therefore it seemed the question was directed at me. And that suggested that you were indeed asking me to change my mind. If you didn’t expect me to consider changing my mind then why ask the question?

But if we first go back a bit we find that Scott said 1968 was the first year, if he was not mistaken, that the front brake drum went to the right side. Even though I knew the correct year for the change was 69, would anything have been proved by me just saying so? No, it wouldn’t have, because why should anyone just believe me? Would anything have been proved by me directing a question to Scott? No, it wouldn’t have. I was going to be the person disagreeing with what had been posted so it was up to me to supply evidence. And that is why I submitted proper pictures demonstrating the position of the front brake for 68 and 69.

I also indicated what happened with the front drum brake for 1970â€"71 as well as mentioning that 72 was the first year for the front disc. Why did I do that? I did it in case anyone was interested in further info.

Then you posted, complete with a question mark which appeared directed at me. I found that intriguing because I had figured that given my pictures for 68 and 69, along with my mention of what happened with both types of front brake for 1970â€"72, that people may have at least entertained the possibility that I had some idea of what I was talking about.

You were going to be the person questioning what had been posted by me about 1972 but you had no evidence re 1973. (And remember, I provided evidence earlier on when I was the person in a similar position regarding 1968-69.) What you could have done was a search and you would have quickly found that I was correct regarding 1972 and none of this would have occurred. But apparently you decided against that option and now you seem to be wondering what’s happened. And didn’t it occur to you that if I had proper pictures for 68 and 69 then there was a fair chance that I would have a proper picture for 1972 to back up my mention of the front disc first appearing that year?

We aren’t in court. But evidence is often required to resolve an issue. On several Harley forums over the years I have seen many members posting back and forth, each convinced they are correct. Sometimes an escalation would not have resulted if early proof had been posted. Often a problem could have been completely avoided if the questioning party had checked something, and obviously if that had been done, there would have been no need for the question to be asked.

Lack of evidence can be a funny thing sometimesâ€"for example, some people claim to own a 1947 model Panhead. I do not believe that such a machine was made. But I have offered assistance to those people in one way or another and on more than one occasion. As I would expect, the bike usually turns out to be something else. But sometimes there is no further reply from people. And no evidence ever appears.
Eric

Now that was directed to me for sure . I do own a titled 47 Panhead , that's fact ,Do you want me to post a photo of the title ?
I never said to any one that it was made that way & don't care , as said to you before , as you know . It has matching numbers on the belly of 47 & numbers boss start with FL 47 .

I have found that some people ( on these forums )want to see things ,just to tear into them & prove to them selves , they are not authentic ,but as I have said over & over again , if you were not there & made it , you are only guessing , no matter who's book you have on your shelf.

I'm going to say this one more time for any one listening, I don't care if its numbers had been changed 40-50 years ago or you or any one else says it doesn't exist . I has gotten a clear title in three states , so to me the numbers are good .

Prof , we don't need no stinking Prof .

First , that was an Innocent question , you are the one that went on the offensive , Do you answer all questions with a defensive answer ? Notice the question mark  ?

If I was stating fact , as I thought I knew it , why would I use a question mark . It was because I wasn't sure , that's why & all you had to do was post that nice add & point out as you did the front brake system & be done with it .It would have satisfied the question .  enough said !

[76shuvlinoff]

I would guess the OP has his answer and at this point the thread is rotating like a turd in the toilet.