New engine, when??
#41
12-29-2010, 11:44 AM
Been riding for over forty years, average around 20k a year, this year alone I was in 27 states and two Canadian province. Guess by your standards I'll never learn to ride but the bottom of my Wing has scratchs on the mufflers, center stand, crash guards and bottom fairing on both sides. Big scratches. Come into my mountains and I'll gladly let you give me lessons.
All I said was that compared to several other bikes stock Harleys don't have any low end torque, certainly not tractor like torque. Any engine that has to kept over 2500 rpm to produce good usable power is not a torque monster. I said my Limited can be down shifted and get the job done, it's just a shame you have to. Luckily it has many other endearing traits.
BTW, in fifth gear my Limited and my Wing are geared almost identically, only big difference is that a Wing is not lugging at 1500 because it does have tractor like torque.
All I said was that compared to several other bikes stock Harleys don't have any low end torque, certainly not tractor like torque. Any engine that has to kept over 2500 rpm to produce good usable power is not a torque monster. I said my Limited can be down shifted and get the job done, it's just a shame you have to. Luckily it has many other endearing traits.
BTW, in fifth gear my Limited and my Wing are geared almost identically, only big difference is that a Wing is not lugging at 1500 because it does have tractor like torque.
#42
12-29-2010, 11:51 AM
#44
12-29-2010, 12:10 PM
I love the simplistic beauty of my Road King's air-cooled motor, but if 5/10/whatever years from now it was only available water-cooled, it's not like I would swear off Harley and run out to buy a Honda.
Air-cooled/water-cooled/peanut butter-cooled/whatever ... it will still be a Harley and as close to an American original as I can get, outsourced parts and other shortcomings regardless.
I think it would be shame for the so-called loyal customer base to abandon ship if the Motor Company is forced by environmental *****/financial reasons/etc to go water-cooled.
Times change. Always have. Always will.
Air-cooled/water-cooled/peanut butter-cooled/whatever ... it will still be a Harley and as close to an American original as I can get, outsourced parts and other shortcomings regardless.
I think it would be shame for the so-called loyal customer base to abandon ship if the Motor Company is forced by environmental *****/financial reasons/etc to go water-cooled.
Times change. Always have. Always will.
#45
12-29-2010, 12:22 PM
That said, 5/10/whatever years from now, just think how cool (really bad pun intended) it will be to still have our air-cooled Harley's when/if everything else is water-cooled.
Besides loving my bike, this is another reason in the back of my head why it should be a keeper.
Ride what you want and ride safe all,
Murph
#46
12-29-2010, 12:50 PM
Fat girl! The Limited or my wife.
Either way, anyone that has a problem looking at either one is no buddy of mine.
Cams will help, I intend to put a set of 255s to get a little more bottom end, but only time will tell if even that will be enough. The problem is that if you ride roads like the BRP when you get into the really mountainous twisty portions you are forces to slow to 40 mph or so on a lot of uphill tight curves. That puts you well under 2000 rpm and the Limited just doesn't have any grunt under 2000. I'm used to the Wing have gobs of torque all the way down to 1500 rpm and not having to shift under those conditions. With the Ultra, it's hit a curve, downshift to third, hit the next straight, upshift to fifth, over and over again. Drove me crazy at first but it also let my know why my friend with his Ultra was constantly dropping back on uphill curves and then catching back up. After 10k I've gotten more used to it but it would be nice to pick the torque up to at least 90 lbs.ft. in the 1800 rpm range. Hopefully the 255s will do that.
Either way, anyone that has a problem looking at either one is no buddy of mine. Cams will help, I intend to put a set of 255s to get a little more bottom end, but only time will tell if even that will be enough. The problem is that if you ride roads like the BRP when you get into the really mountainous twisty portions you are forces to slow to 40 mph or so on a lot of uphill tight curves. That puts you well under 2000 rpm and the Limited just doesn't have any grunt under 2000. I'm used to the Wing have gobs of torque all the way down to 1500 rpm and not having to shift under those conditions. With the Ultra, it's hit a curve, downshift to third, hit the next straight, upshift to fifth, over and over again. Drove me crazy at first but it also let my know why my friend with his Ultra was constantly dropping back on uphill curves and then catching back up. After 10k I've gotten more used to it but it would be nice to pick the torque up to at least 90 lbs.ft. in the 1800 rpm range. Hopefully the 255s will do that.
Your 255's choice will accomplish this just fine, as will Jenny Craig. He he!
(You opened yourself up for that one!)
#47
12-29-2010, 01:29 PM
Faast Ed, no insult taken, I figured you meant the Limited and she is a lovable fat girl. The wife is lovable also and that's as far as I'll go on that.
ronp 42, no BS, it's a statement I'll gladly back up. The Wing motor make around 95 pounds feet of torque at the rear wheel at 1500, verified on many dyno runs. The equates to about 35 mph at 1500 rpm. A lot of uphill curves on southern portion of the BRP are steep enough that you will start dragging hard parts at anything over 40 mph, forcing you to slow down. On my Wing I never have to shift our of fifth, simply slow down for the cuves and roll the throttle open. No fuss, no bucking, no lugging. You really need to ride a GL1800 in hilly country before you make statements about it will or will not do. If you are sitting at a traffic light at idle, you can let the clutch out on a Wing and it will simply pull out, without ever touching the throttle. My Limited won't do that either.
As for whether 1500 hundred is lugging the Wing, if it goes without bucking and making a fuss and it doesn't hurt the engine, you aren't lugging it. My 07 Wing has almost 70k on it now and runs as good as the day it come out of the dealers showroom. I expect at least another 200k before anything major happens with it.
ronp 42, no BS, it's a statement I'll gladly back up. The Wing motor make around 95 pounds feet of torque at the rear wheel at 1500, verified on many dyno runs. The equates to about 35 mph at 1500 rpm. A lot of uphill curves on southern portion of the BRP are steep enough that you will start dragging hard parts at anything over 40 mph, forcing you to slow down. On my Wing I never have to shift our of fifth, simply slow down for the cuves and roll the throttle open. No fuss, no bucking, no lugging. You really need to ride a GL1800 in hilly country before you make statements about it will or will not do. If you are sitting at a traffic light at idle, you can let the clutch out on a Wing and it will simply pull out, without ever touching the throttle. My Limited won't do that either.
As for whether 1500 hundred is lugging the Wing, if it goes without bucking and making a fuss and it doesn't hurt the engine, you aren't lugging it. My 07 Wing has almost 70k on it now and runs as good as the day it come out of the dealers showroom. I expect at least another 200k before anything major happens with it.
#48
12-29-2010, 01:57 PM
Lets clear a few things up here. In strictly numerical terms, the GW has an 1800cc motor, which translates into 110 cubic inches (roughly); so a fair comparison would be with the CVO 110" motor. In a stock configuration, the HD motor compares well with the GW in HP, but lags behind in torque, for what should be obvious reasons. So, this d!ck wagging contest is largely a tie.
The biggest problem is that a CVO HD sells for $10k more than a GW. The question you have to ask yourself is: Is the Harley worth $10k more than the GW? The answer is usually, and by a pretty wide margin, "yes". The reason why is almost always about styling and other intangibles. It seems to me that these kinds of inevitable discussions hinge less on people's abiltiy to read and comprehend statistics and data; and more on people's inability to understand the "X" factors that go into buying a motorcycle; things like style, comfort, utility, etc.. And let's face it. People who can afford to spend $20k+ on a bike are not too worried about the MSRP on the price tag.
I have never ridden a GW and I am sure that it is a fine bike, but I like pretty much everything about my FLHTC. It is comfortable, easy to handle, functional enough to be used as a daily driver, and powerful enough to meet my riding requirements. In other words, right now, I do not need 125hp and 120lbs of torque. Fully loaded, riding 2-up, I rarely have to shift down into 4th on mountain grades. I spend most of my time in 5th and for those rare occasions where I have to negotiate a hairpin curve, I intentionally slow down and shift into 3rd so that I can relax and enjoy the scenery. Shifting does not bother me; it is a mtorcycle after all.
Here is the funny part... my 96" FLHTC costs $2k less than the GW. Go figure. For less than $1k, I can add a stage 1, which will get me pretty close that GW in terms of performance. This way, I can have it all: good performance and the intangibles. I win.
The biggest problem is that a CVO HD sells for $10k more than a GW. The question you have to ask yourself is: Is the Harley worth $10k more than the GW? The answer is usually, and by a pretty wide margin, "yes". The reason why is almost always about styling and other intangibles. It seems to me that these kinds of inevitable discussions hinge less on people's abiltiy to read and comprehend statistics and data; and more on people's inability to understand the "X" factors that go into buying a motorcycle; things like style, comfort, utility, etc.. And let's face it. People who can afford to spend $20k+ on a bike are not too worried about the MSRP on the price tag.
I have never ridden a GW and I am sure that it is a fine bike, but I like pretty much everything about my FLHTC. It is comfortable, easy to handle, functional enough to be used as a daily driver, and powerful enough to meet my riding requirements. In other words, right now, I do not need 125hp and 120lbs of torque. Fully loaded, riding 2-up, I rarely have to shift down into 4th on mountain grades. I spend most of my time in 5th and for those rare occasions where I have to negotiate a hairpin curve, I intentionally slow down and shift into 3rd so that I can relax and enjoy the scenery. Shifting does not bother me; it is a mtorcycle after all.
Here is the funny part... my 96" FLHTC costs $2k less than the GW. Go figure. For less than $1k, I can add a stage 1, which will get me pretty close that GW in terms of performance. This way, I can have it all: good performance and the intangibles. I win.
#50
12-29-2010, 02:54 PM
Lets clear a few things up here. In strictly numerical terms, the GW has an 1800cc motor, which translates into 110 cubic inches (roughly); so a fair comparison would be with the CVO 110" motor. In a stock configuration, the HD motor compares well with the GW in HP, but lags behind in torque, for what should be obvious reasons. So, this d!ck wagging contest is largely a tie.
The biggest problem is that a CVO HD sells for $10k more than a GW. The question you have to ask yourself is: Is the Harley worth $10k more than the GW? The answer is usually, and by a pretty wide margin, "yes". The reason why is almost always about styling and other intangibles. It seems to me that these kinds of inevitable discussions hinge less on people's abiltiy to read and comprehend statistics and data; and more on people's inability to understand the "X" factors that go into buying a motorcycle; things like style, comfort, utility, etc.. And let's face it. People who can afford to spend $20k+ on a bike are not too worried about the MSRP on the price tag.
I have never ridden a GW and I am sure that it is a fine bike, but I like pretty much everything about my FLHTC. It is comfortable, easy to handle, functional enough to be used as a daily driver, and powerful enough to meet my riding requirements. In other words, right now, I do not need 125hp and 120lbs of torque. Fully loaded, riding 2-up, I rarely have to shift down into 4th on mountain grades. I spend most of my time in 5th and for those rare occasions where I have to negotiate a hairpin curve, I intentionally slow down and shift into 3rd so that I can relax and enjoy the scenery. Shifting does not bother me; it is a mtorcycle after all.
Here is the funny part... my 96" FLHTC costs $2k less than the GW. Go figure. For less than $1k, I can add a stage 1, which will get me pretty close that GW in terms of performance. This way, I can have it all: good performance and the intangibles. I win.
The biggest problem is that a CVO HD sells for $10k more than a GW. The question you have to ask yourself is: Is the Harley worth $10k more than the GW? The answer is usually, and by a pretty wide margin, "yes". The reason why is almost always about styling and other intangibles. It seems to me that these kinds of inevitable discussions hinge less on people's abiltiy to read and comprehend statistics and data; and more on people's inability to understand the "X" factors that go into buying a motorcycle; things like style, comfort, utility, etc.. And let's face it. People who can afford to spend $20k+ on a bike are not too worried about the MSRP on the price tag.
I have never ridden a GW and I am sure that it is a fine bike, but I like pretty much everything about my FLHTC. It is comfortable, easy to handle, functional enough to be used as a daily driver, and powerful enough to meet my riding requirements. In other words, right now, I do not need 125hp and 120lbs of torque. Fully loaded, riding 2-up, I rarely have to shift down into 4th on mountain grades. I spend most of my time in 5th and for those rare occasions where I have to negotiate a hairpin curve, I intentionally slow down and shift into 3rd so that I can relax and enjoy the scenery. Shifting does not bother me; it is a mtorcycle after all.
Here is the funny part... my 96" FLHTC costs $2k less than the GW. Go figure. For less than $1k, I can add a stage 1, which will get me pretty close that GW in terms of performance. This way, I can have it all: good performance and the intangibles. I win.