You brought up your mileage first. All I have been saying in people have not put enough miles on their bikes to say they are reliable.

I said 25k to get bugs worked out, 5k before I would do a big trip, and 50k gives you an indication of reliability.

You brought up ADV, which I am member of, though haven't been there lately.

 

Gotta say. You are really mind Fng Zerk's point and not making one of your own - clearly - other than to argue like you're some authority figure - which you're not. As usual you're applying your version of arm chair Psychology in which you sarcastically shovel out your opinion on someone else's motivations, who they are, why they feel the way they do, why their opinion doesn't count, etc and etc. It's boring to watch (read) and you're only doing it to muddy the water because you don't have a real counter-point but you feel you were slighted and owe the offending person some lip service.

It's very obvious that long term reliability is based on usage and in this case the measurement would be Miles - the same metric used by everyone in the world pertaining to vehicles.
Vehicle Manufacturers do not measure reliability in terms of years owned or even if the person collecting data owns the vehicle, it's clearly based on usage reporting.

So...Most riders don't put 50K on their bikes before trading them (it's a nice round number 50k), like you've stated, most only average 2500 a year. So how would they know how "long term reliable" something is without using it long term. It's not a consipiracy or personal slight. It's just a fact. If you don't use something long term you can't offer long term metrics.
Sure, it's great your bike has not broken in it's early life - when it's practically new - that's typical and not special at all. It's funny, you state that Zerk's opinion is void but the fact is YOU actually cannot form an educated nor observed opinion on long term reliability because as you've said, you avoid problems by trading. But it's somehow ok for you to attack a guy that keeps his a little longer, uses it more than you, and has an observed opinion.

This post will probably make you mad. Can't wait to hear some of that Psychology.
I never tire of you telling people all about who THEY are when you disagree with them. That's very something. Something not cool - but entertainment.

Enjoy and Yes.... I'm baiting you. Bored at work.

 

LP pretty much said it. I did not intend to discuss how many miles a guy puts on a year is enough. Just that problems arise over time.

My 01 has had alot of leaks Started leaking around 35k, before that no problems. My 07 no leaks, but died after having it for 3 weeks, days before for my summer vacation, with 4500 miles. My intent was to reach 5k to break it in. # of electrical problems.

Personally I believe the 07 was built by hacks, and I have lots of negative things to say about the folks in PA. I also believe the factory tensioner is a bad design. Since replacing, seems to be ok. Some problems appeared today stalling, stopped after fill up. Hopefully bad fuel filter set up. Over due on replacing, so that would be my fault.

My 01 seemed to have some issues around 45k, so that formed my opinion of why you need to evaluate it after 50k. 07 with 52k has been free of the issues, that 01 had, but had some of its own.



I did buy the Ultra with thoughts I would sell it when it got old. But I get attached to stuff. Bought a 3rd bike for work. But like the Ultra. Some point may buy another dresser for touring. Maybe will try a FLTR, also curious of Vics. May just tear engine down, weld cranks and replace clutch, volt reg, sensors, ect. Though I like some of the stuff I read about new bikes, but I also think they are in a cost cutting mode, with respect to quality.

 

Love my '15 Street Glide. Just finished a 9,500 mile trip....she's a keeper......carry on!

 

You are making this more complicated than it is. You, a non Rushmore owner, came to the Rushmore section and by stating that we don't have enough mileage on our bikes to judge reliability, in essence, you are calling into question the reliability of the Rushmore bike - on a thread that was started to espouse the virtues of the Rushmore bikes.

My point - you don't own one and your standard for reliability are miles well beyond what the average HD owner puts on his bike in his tenure of ownership.

My response is that you have chosen a milestone that most bikes will never achieve as your standard for reliability. To me, that not only doesn't make sense, but it smacks of criticism of the bikes represented in this forum. Feel free to back peddle if you like. But it is what it is.

Gotta say - you consistently ride the tailcoat of those who come to this section of the forum to ride down Rushmore bikes. The armchair psychologist in me wonders why?

 

I did not criticize the Rushmore. Just saying they are to new to really know anything.

I don't have to own one, to say a bike needs miles on it, to judge it.

Just because most riders don't ride them, doesn't change how engines and components behave.

There are riders who do put lots of miles on. The bikes you traded in, were bought by someone else, and their miles will increase.

I believe trucks should go 100k without an issue, I claim that of them all. Even though I don't own all brands.


I believe a Harley will go 100k, though not trouble free. Some people have been pretty close to trouble free 100k though. Lot of people with high mileage bikes.

 

What have I wrote bad about Rushmores?

 

Nothing and neither have I. I own one. See... he makes stuff up. Apparently he's knows what I really mean about things.

 

2014 FLHX Standard, I did the recalls, I did ride the Bike stock for almost 2 years, I now have a Stage-1 on it.

I have thousands of carefree miles on the best Harley I have ever owned.

The Milwaukee 8 maybe a better Bike, but I will ride this Rushmore as my last Bike as a 70 year OldPhat guy.
Yeah, I am not complaining.

 

To me it was an inference, which I debated. And that's allowed here still I believe, and contrary to what lp believes while throwing stones from the sidelines, as usual (yes, there is, no doubt, some psychology that might explain this need to make more of something than it is, but as pointed out - I'm not a psychologist) . Maybe I have you all wrong. But it seemed like veiled criticism from someone who doesn't own one, or someone who has been dissatisfied with a bike of an earlier vintage (hence the ADV reference) which seems to apply here. You wouldn't be the 1st.

I understand your version of what makes a bike reliable to you. Perhaps you can understand mine. Within my parameters any vehicle over 50k miles is potentially unreliable. It's a guideline that has served me well for both cars and motorcycles. I always have a car in the driveway with less than 50k miles and under 4 years old. And my touring bikes are the same. I have no room for failure when I use those vehicles. My 2014 SGS is roughly halfway through it's duty cycle with me, and has had no mechanical issues at all. I call that a reliable bike. So because of that, and because so few Harleys out there have the kind of mileage that meets your criteria, I disagree with you. Again - last time I checked that was okay to do still.

That said, I have other vehicles that we can discuss reliability more in your terms. My Honda Insight has 135k miles and it's 7 years old. It's needed nothing but brakes and tires = reliable to me. The Yukon XL I sold had 265k miles and few repairs. Reliable. My 64 Honda Dream (that I wrench on) has 2000 miles on it. It starts 1st kick since I've owned it (12 years). Reliable even with those miles because anything that starts 1st kick for 12 years is doing pretty damn well. The list goes on. But the standard varies doesn't it?

In the end, I go back to my point that a Rushmore is nothing more than the last evolution of the Twin Cam. As such, it's reliability can be judged with them as a whole. And, like the last iteration of any mechanical thing within the series, the bugs have been more or less worked out by this point.

edit - cost cutting mode noted before with regard to cranks etc. I have had a crank spin at 12k miles on the 11 Ultra. I partially blame myself for that one because I did a 107 kit to it, thus operated the bike beyond what it was built to do. So I will say that while I feel my bike is reliable so far, I ride with the confidence that I purchased the extended warranty for the bike knowing that the cranks and comps are ****.