RE: Indian Scout Sixty: PH2 review
Tuesday 16th February 2016
Having been revived by new parent company Polaris Industries in 2011, Indian Motorcycles has gone from fledgling returnee to full-on thorn in the side of Harley-Davidson. Not only does it have an ever-expanding line of large and medium capacity cruisers, Indian is also playing the heritage card very smartly (they just love reminding Harley that Indian was America's first motorcycle company) as well as attracting the young and cool crowd. Which is where the new Scout Sixty fits in. This is a smaller 999cc capacity version of the firm's 1,133cc Scout and is aimed squarely at Harley's Sportster model range, explaining the tempting price tag.
There is one figure that screams out so loudly with the Scout Sixty it has to be mentioned from the off. You can own a Scout Sixty for just £42.33 a month if you sign up for a three-year PCP plan. Pay a deposit of £2,699 and you can ride the Sixty home for less than the price of a Sky subscription, which is amazing. The Indian's price tag of £8,999 sits well, with the smaller Harley Iron 883 costing £7,495 and the larger Harley Forty-Eight being £9,675. But the Indian is a slightly different prospect to the air-cooled Harleys. Not only is its water-cooled engine faster, the Indian's chassis is also sportier.
Faster than it looks
While the Scout's liquid-cooled engine certainly lacks a bit of the character you get with air-cooling, there is little to complain about when it comes to its performance. The five-speed box (one less ratio than the larger Scout) may be more than a little clunky, but it is positive enough while the engine is surprisingly brisk. This isn't a lazy thumper, it is actually a reasonably rapid cruiser that would happily see off most air-cooled rivals while still retaining a degree of refinement. Compared to the dreadful Harley Street 750, the Scout proves that water-cooling really can be made to work on a cruiser and still retain a unique bit of character. Fair to say, the bike I rode did have a free-flowing Remus exhaust fitted, which helped.
Indian Scout Sixty: PH2 review
Why Indian's rebirth deserves to have Harley-Davidson looking worried
Cruising for a bruising
There are so many routes a manufacturer can take with cruisers nowadays. You have the heritage path with air-cooling, urban appeal with lightweight liquid-cooled bikes or performance cruising with a low and sleek look. Despite its smaller capacity, the Scout Sixty tends to sit more towards the performance end of the cruiser spectrum. And its motor makes more power than the larger capacity Harley models thanks to its water jacket and more advanced four-valve head.
And it also feels very different. Where the air-cooled Harleys have a more sit-up riding position, with a high front end and low seat, the Sixty puts you in a far flatter stance. At first this feeling of almost being perched on top of the bike is odd, but after a while it becomes more natural and is actually very comfortable. And unlike the Harley Forty-Eight with its pathetic 7.9-litre tank (the Iron has a more sensible 12.5-litre one), the Indian with its 12.5-litre tank means you might be sat there for a while.
While the Scout's liquid-cooled engine certainly lacks a bit of the character you get with air-cooling, there is little to complain about when it comes to its performance. The five-speed box (one less ratio than the larger Scout) may be more than a little clunky, but it is positive enough while the engine is surprisingly brisk. This isn't a lazy thumper, it is actually a reasonably rapid cruiser that would happily see off most air-cooled rivals while still retaining a degree of refinement. Compared to the dreadful Harley Street 750, the Scout proves that water-cooling really can be made to work on a cruiser and still retain a unique bit of character. Fair to say, the bike I rode did have a free-flowing Remus exhaust fitted, which helped.
Like most cruisers, when you introduce a set of bends the Scout's ground clearance is the major limiting factor, but I was impressed just how assured the Sixty was when leaned over and how easily it could be cornered. Getting a good degree of agility into a bike with a long wheelbase is an impressive feat.
Worth a look
Most people looking for a cruiser head straight to the Harley dealership, which is fair enough as bikes like the Forty-Eight give the heritage heart strings a firm tug. Personally I quite like the fact the Indian is a bit different and has a chassis and engine more aimed at performance. Due to the newness of the brand in the UK you will probably have to travel further to find an Indian dealer than a Harley one but it could be a worthwhile trip as the Scout Sixty is a surprisingly capable bike that might well convert a few non-believers. Especially with its £43 a month finance deal...
INDIAN SCOUT SIXTY
Engine: 999cc, 60-degree V-twin
Power (hp): 78@7,300rpm
Torque (lb ft): 66@5,600rpm
Top speed: 110mph (est)
Weight: 246kg (dry)
MPG: 45mpg (est)
Price: £8,999
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Discussion
Chicken and egg maybe but doesn't it reflect more on the conservative american punter? Buell tried something different and it didn't work.
Harley and Indian are just giving the american public what they want.
I'm no cruiser fan but the Scout is a lot more interesting to me than anything Harley offer and the name has a lot of history. In a multi-bike garage I could imagine having one of these.
Harley and Indian are just giving the american public what they want.
I'm no cruiser fan but the Scout is a lot more interesting to me than anything Harley offer and the name has a lot of history. In a multi-bike garage I could imagine having one of these.
Motus are at least trying to be different with a V4, although market penetration is not good enough yet to call it a success.
http://motusmotorcycles.com/
http://motusmotorcycles.com/
trickywoo said:
Chicken and egg maybe but doesn't it reflect more on the conservative american punter? Buell tried something different and it didn't work.
Erik Buell had the right idea,a lot like the other bespoke chassis builders like Bimota or Harris. Except where they used proven performance engines he couldn't get past the boat anchor of the HD lump.If he'd of taken his chassis nous and combined it with a decent motor, even a twin from Italy or the Japanese, he'd have been on to a winner i reckon.
But once HD bought him, because of the pretend link between HD and performance, he was doomed.
And then came the attempts by the HD mothership to ramp up production and throw quality out of the window in one fell swoop.
Problem was, if you wanted a sportsbike in America, the Japs and Europeans have got every base covered from here to Sunday. The Buell had none of the attributes a sportbike rider is looking for so no sale there, despite their xenophobic flag waving tendencies.
If you want slow, heavy and ponderous with preposterous dynamics and zero performance however, the Yanks have got you covered like white on rice.
Bit like their cars though, they only really seem to do straight lines...
Edited by Steve Bass on Tuesday 16th February 15:58
(As a non-rider)
Seeing the beginning of the thread made me think "Eh? What about Buell?"
I remember a Lightning being the most comfy thing I climbed aboard during a long day at the NEC bike show many moons ago.
Never cared for the belt drives, nor the under-slung exhaust, but they were different.
For something American, VERY different.
News that Harley basically closed them without even trying to sell the brand on means I would never now even consider purchasing a Harley.
This sort of business practice is best rewarded with absolutely none of my money. Ever.
Hope Indian give HD the thumping they deserve.
Seeing the beginning of the thread made me think "Eh? What about Buell?"
I remember a Lightning being the most comfy thing I climbed aboard during a long day at the NEC bike show many moons ago.
Never cared for the belt drives, nor the under-slung exhaust, but they were different.
For something American, VERY different.
News that Harley basically closed them without even trying to sell the brand on means I would never now even consider purchasing a Harley.
This sort of business practice is best rewarded with absolutely none of my money. Ever.
Hope Indian give HD the thumping they deserve.
Mad Jock said:
Motus are at least trying to be different with a V4, although market penetration is not good enough yet to call it a success.
http://motusmotorcycles.com/
Never seen them before, look like they could be an ok bike, 8600rpm V4..sounds lovley!http://motusmotorcycles.com/
Looks like a nice bike, doubt it will make a dent in HD sales though, that will take many years to change the mindset of the US buyer
HD have over 60% market share of the US market for "big" bikes
Polaris/Victory/Indian/ in its entire existence over 12 years has sold about a months worth of HD sales figures
They really do dominate, and for many US buyers are the default choice, its just how it is
Trying prying an iPhone out of apple lovers hands, the brand pull is similar to that of HD in their home market
HD have over 60% market share of the US market for "big" bikes
Polaris/Victory/Indian/ in its entire existence over 12 years has sold about a months worth of HD sales figures
They really do dominate, and for many US buyers are the default choice, its just how it is
Trying prying an iPhone out of apple lovers hands, the brand pull is similar to that of HD in their home market
It's a shame, Indian was one of the most innovative makers of early motorcycles (who knew they've won a TT?) but the cruiser style just seems a little 'lazy' somehow.
That's to take nothing away from this bike, it looks nice enough but I'm just not sure that it does the Indian name justice.
That's to take nothing away from this bike, it looks nice enough but I'm just not sure that it does the Indian name justice.
srob said:
How can they make such a big engine so low powered yet still so uneconomical?!
Quite an achievement.
Ive always wondered that, no doubt an engineer could explain to us ...we have bikes with 1000cc inline 4 that does 200bhp and "just" 30mpg I can understand, but not a 1700 v-twin with 90bhp that just about manages 40mpg (like most Harleys) I dont get itQuite an achievement.
One would think a 1700 engine pulling 400Kg around should do 60-70mpg ? why dont they ?
bogie said:
srob said:
How can they make such a big engine so low powered yet still so uneconomical?!
Quite an achievement.
Ive always wondered that, no doubt an engineer could explain to us ...we have bikes with 1000cc inline 4 that does 200bhp and "just" 30mpg I can understand, but not a 1700 v-twin with 90bhp that just about manages 40mpg (like most Harleys) I dont get itQuite an achievement.
One would think a 1700 engine pulling 400Kg around should do 60-70mpg ? why dont they ?
andburg said:
Air cooled engines aren't as powerful or efficient as they have to made looser to allow for the heat fluctuations.
Once HD etc are forced to water cooling to meet emissions regulations things will no doubt improve.
HD have a watercooled 122bhp 1250 V-twin for many years in the V-Rod (14 years old), and the latest big Harley twins are indeed water cooled ...not much change so far, although I think they might be 90bhp now Once HD etc are forced to water cooling to meet emissions regulations things will no doubt improve.
this Indian Scout is liquid cooled too...
I guess most are tuned for torque and US owners who dont ride above 5k revs
bogie said:
srob said:
How can they make such a big engine so low powered yet still so uneconomical?!
Quite an achievement.
Ive always wondered that, no doubt an engineer could explain to us ...we have bikes with 1000cc inline 4 that does 200bhp and "just" 30mpg I can understand, but not a 1700 v-twin with 90bhp that just about manages 40mpg (like most Harleys) I dont get itQuite an achievement.
One would think a 1700 engine pulling 400Kg around should do 60-70mpg ? why dont they ?
And the reason they're not very 'powerful', is simply that they're low revving. To get power, you need revs (and lots of them), large capacity, forced induction or all of the above. Maybe it's a bit over simplistic, but it's a broad rule of thumb. Harley's redline like a diesel. I don't think the one I had would manage 6,000 rpm.
bogie said:
Ive always wondered that, no doubt an engineer could explain to us ...we have bikes with 1000cc inline 4 that does 200bhp and "just" 30mpg I can understand, but not a 1700 v-twin with 90bhp that just about manages 40mpg (like most Harleys) I dont get it
One would think a 1700 engine pulling 400Kg around should do 60-70mpg ? why dont they ?
I've no idea why it's so bad, that's why I mentioned it One would think a 1700 engine pulling 400Kg around should do 60-70mpg ? why dont they ?
Generally these are 'lazy' engines so produce low-down torque and don't rev but that should mean that the mpg figure is better, which is why I was surprised how low the quoted figures are. Low compression ratios and (you'd hope) efficient manufacturing and assembly processes should result in a very good mpg figure, but this seems shockinly low.
Granted it's a fair chunk of a thing and of course a complete lack of aero parts means that the engine's working harder to push it (and the flailing tassles attached to it) through the air but still, that's a shockingly poor efficiency I'd have thought.
It's long been one of my bugbears about modern bikes, the backwards step in fuel efficiency. I understand how/why it's happened (bikes are toys) but had even 10% of the effort of squeezing every last 0.1% of a bhp out of an engine to
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff