Originally Posted by sargek

I laughed out loud on this one! Riding is in my blood, has been for 35 years, but I would have to go your route too...no offense to GW owners, but it's Harley, air cooled, or nothing.

Here's a thought, simple perhaps, but are the displacement increases causing the cooling problems? Why go bigger and bigger? Seems like that is driving the need for more and more cooling. Guessing that's what people are asking for. My tc88 had enough for me, but obviously some folks want more.

Originally Posted by nhbiker1961

I agree, the push for bigger motors is pushing them to being liquid cooled. Not sure the need for it, I found my 80ci was plenty of power, and my 96 is over kill.

Originally Posted by DR. V-TWIN

Have any of you guys seen the UltraCool with the built in fan? We all run them on our bikes at the shop. I find that it does a really good job of cooling and the fan is automatic. It turns on at 210* and stays on until teh oil ahs been coooled down so no matter if you are sitting still or not. Mine has been on for about 5000 miles without issue so far. Just put it on in April or so.

They make two different versions for touring bikes. The older version does not hook to the oil temp gauge, but the newer version does.

Drew

Drew

Originally Posted by iceman5218

I restate a previous question: Does a 25* decrease in engine temp reach the 20-30% decrease in emissions required by the 2013 EPA requirements?

Originally Posted by iceman5218

I restate a previous question: Does a 25* decrease in engine temp reach the 20-30% decrease in emissions required by the 2013 EPA requirements?

Originally Posted by iceman5218

I restate a previous question: Does a 25* decrease in engine temp reach the 20-30% decrease in emissions required by the 2013 EPA requirements?

Originally Posted by frenchbiker

I'll take a 96" with good cams any day over a camless 103". Bigger displacement doesn't mean squat to me. Maybe the guys buying the 2,300cc Triumph Rocket III believe they'll get laid more often?