Page 1 of 1
					
				Starting the hunt
				Posted: September 5th, 2011, 9:53 pm
				by NightBiker07
				After reading a few threads, it seems like what i want is a 1990+ motor, correct?
it seems like the 89 is very similar, except the clutch is more narrow. Has that been a major issue?
I ask because an 89 popped up locally that i may be able to get for a decent price, BUT if the narrow clutch can be problematic, I will definitely keep looking. 
I am definitely wanting maximum parts interchangeability, which seems to come from the 90-01 motors. I dont want to have an issue in 5 years finding parts for an older, less produced motor. If I go through the trouble to build one of these monsters, I dont want to shoot myself in the foot.
			 
			
					
				
				Posted: September 5th, 2011, 11:20 pm
				by freeride588
				I think that 89 - 01 are the same except for the tranny  89 - 93 are close ratio trans and 94 - 01 are wider ratio.
			 
			
					
				
				Posted: September 5th, 2011, 11:37 pm
				by NightBiker07
				freeride588 wrote:I think that 89 - 01 are the same except for the tranny  89 - 93 are close ratio trans and 94 - 01 are wider ratio.
Not according to these pics, provided by Roosty. The 89 seems to have a one-year only case, and a narrower clutch. I was mainly curious about the narrow clutch being a problem. But now that you mention the tranny, I will probably focus on finding a 94+ bike. I forgot about the trans differences.  
 

 
			
					
				
				Posted: September 5th, 2011, 11:43 pm
				by freeride588
				Huh i thought they were the same but i guess not but i would definitely go 94+ so as bob says you can go faster then 48 miles per hour.
			 
			
					
				
				Posted: September 6th, 2011, 12:00 am
				by coley13
				93 tranny is wide ratio? isnt it ? the early ones are too.
			 
			
					
				
				Posted: September 6th, 2011, 12:12 am
				by freeride588
				coley13 wrote:93 tranny is wide ratio? isnt it ? the early ones are too.
Im pretty sure it 94 and up but im wrong constantly in my daily life so this may be no different
 
			
					
				
				Posted: September 6th, 2011, 6:38 am
				by hoofarted
				93+ is wide(r) ratio
			 
			
					
				
				Posted: September 6th, 2011, 7:48 am
				by freeride588
				hoofarted wrote:93+ is wide(r) ratio
Like i said constantly wrong
 
			
					
				
				Posted: September 6th, 2011, 10:03 am
				by Tharrell
				freeride588 wrote:hoofarted wrote:93+ is wide(r) ratio
Like i said constantly wrong
 
Don't feel too bad.
I'm right there with ya 

 
			
					
				
				Posted: September 6th, 2011, 10:09 am
				by AlisoBob
				 
  
People act like that HRC gearset ( Or the Mad Man Eng. copy) is the "Holy Grail"
Dropping high gear from .79 to .75 aint much.....
 
			
					
				
				Posted: September 6th, 2011, 10:30 am
				by Rhino89523
				I have been running a 1992 Trans for years, it will still make your eyes water when its wide open, never had a problem keeping up with people.
			 
			
					
				
				Posted: September 6th, 2011, 12:16 pm
				by Kuma
				I never had an issue with the clutch being a doisk shy in my '89 running in the sand with a paddle, it awaays was a runner too. if you're still looking at the '89, some of them have the mag side cover so beware of that.
			 
			
					
				
				Posted: September 6th, 2011, 12:31 pm
				by Tharrell
				Desert, dunes, and fire roads are the only place I can see a 500 at WOT for very long. My '92 is a close ratio and I'm seldom in high gear.
Wear goggles, your eyes are gonna water! 
