On a more serious note, I traded my '88 for a '96, and I noticed a difference in acceleration right away.

 

It's lame when the same poster posts the same lame topic about not being able to beat a mini-van.

and the idea of a water cooled Harley SUCKS!!!!!!!!

 

You are the one that said that mini vans were smoking you away from stoplights.

Complete, total, unabashed BS

 

I seen a guy once who was on an old honda cb125 who weighed about 350. When he went to take off from a stop he had to Fred Flintstone it to get moving. I'll bet he couldn't beat a mini van either unless it was down a steep grade.

 

well is your bike injected or carb? if carb you need to compensate the jets and shim the needle. also we don't need to go fast. we need to be seen and heard. that's why the blue hairs love us so much. why rush things. speed kills and loud pipes save lives..big turd is out...

 

Admit it guys,

We buy a Harley because we like the image...

Allthough a Harley engine is an antique,
it is fairly easy to improve its specs!

Don't think a watercooled engine would be a good idea.

An engine that leaves the MoCo, with cams, flowed heads and performance exhaust
is what we need. no need for another bigCUI engine


Anyway, my fatty doesnt pull bricks when accellerating....
...sure a lot of metric bikes are WAY faster....

in fact I DON'T GIVE **** bout them

now thats why I ride a Harley..

If you don't understand, I WON'T explane it to you.
[8D]

 

First off do not go to a 96 from an 88 and expect to beat the world.You need to make a big jump say 120" or so.The other thing is Harley baggers were never built to satisfy everyone,only we that do not want them to change what they are doing.Both of my baggers are very hard chargers from stop light to stop light.Neither is far from 88 or 96 and that is the way I like to ride.

 

I'll be serious for a moment and a moment only. When I rode my first HD a million years ago (it seems) I thought whats all the hooplah about. It seemed like a dog. I later spent lots of money to make it fast and it still wasn't THAT fast compared to other bikes. You need to do your homework Harley is not meant to be fast. All through history it lagged. With the exception of the Sporty and I can't give you the models and years right now.

If I have to explain it, you won't get it. There is no LEGACY in a Jap bike. If your not happy please get a Jappy, plastic chromed, fly down the street, import.

Holy S**T where's the Tylenol !!

Jim

 

False. 1/4 mile performance figures per MCNews.com (look under "Technical) if you go to the site.

Here are some of the non "power cruisers" for reference

HD Softail Standard 13.13 @ 98.99
HD Road King Custom 13.44 @ 96.44
Honda VTX1300 13.50 @ 95.64
Kawi Vulcan 1500 13.63 @ 94.82
Vulcan 1600 13.65 @ 94.33
Suzuki Intruder 1500 14.15 @ 92.1
Yamaha VStar 1100 13.68 @ 95.41
VStar 1300 13.62 @ 93.33
Yamaha Royal Star 14.15 @ 93.17

 

One of the most important things in sheer acceleration is torque. Harleys have a lot of torque. It is offset by very heavy weight, and it lacks follow through up the revs, but I seriously doubt anything other than a sportscar can beat it in acceleration. And even some sportsbikes can't leave it behind in the first few meters, where torque matters most. Then, it becomes a matter of power vs. weight, and there's no competition.

Anyway, a Harley has all the acceleration to take you out of a hairy situation. If you have to show at all costs that your's longer with a 1/4 mile time, you just have to buy a different bike. Complaining that a Harley is no good in acceleration is as intelligent as complaining a limousine is no good in Indy racing.