Does anyone at all here like Harleys?
Discussion
BroadsRS6 said:
S and S do a 143 cubic inch motor for late model HDs, with 162 bhp and 151 lb-ft on offer with the right set up.
That capacity, I believe, is 2,340cc of badass V Twin grunt and I am sure it will feel bloody rapid and sound evil.
Lately I have become unreasonably interested in "performance bagger" videos on YouTube.That capacity, I believe, is 2,340cc of badass V Twin grunt and I am sure it will feel bloody rapid and sound evil.
Which leads to wondering if there's any way to squeeze those 150+ torques (© J. Clarkson) into a normal motorcycle.
I suspect that it might be possible with a Quaife gearbox à la Spirit of Semtex, but I'd want something a bit more 1960s in appearance (but not in brakes and suspension) and, if I'm honest, a fair bit less powerful than that S&S 143.This is Spirit of Semtex btw
andburg said:
Yup it doesn’t silence much, the x pipe seems to create a flat spot in power.
Odd that it gets in the way of your rear pegs though, it’s same as mine and nowhere near them, you don’t even have rear pegs in the pic!
I have a set of the v&h quiet baffles but never fitted them as I’ve read countless times they make almost no difference. On the dyno at a rally mine hit 126db.
If your front pipes aren’t corroded to s
t then you’ll get some money for the exhaust when you sell it on
It came with the exhaust fitted and the rear pegs and carriers in a bag being told they don’t fit with those pipes. Might have to try them.Odd that it gets in the way of your rear pegs though, it’s same as mine and nowhere near them, you don’t even have rear pegs in the pic!
I have a set of the v&h quiet baffles but never fitted them as I’ve read countless times they make almost no difference. On the dyno at a rally mine hit 126db.
If your front pipes aren’t corroded to s
t then you’ll get some money for the exhaust when you sell it onNever noticed a flat spot, but to be fair, don’t really thrash it anyway.
BroadsRS6 said:
S and S do a 143 cubic inch motor for late model HDs, with 162 bhp and 151 lb-ft on offer with the right set up.
That capacity, i believe, is 2,340cc of badass V Twin grunt and i am sure it will feel bloody rapid and sound evil.
That sounds pretty pathetic to me! That capacity, i believe, is 2,340cc of badass V Twin grunt and i am sure it will feel bloody rapid and sound evil.
In my biking days I had a KH500 that produced about 60 bhp and an RD 250LC that had about 35 hhp.
Even my 4 wheel BMW 325ti with a 2.5 engine was rated at 192bhp!
Just badass noise for the sake of noise. bolted to a 2 wheeled tractor IMHO.
m5psm said:
It came with the exhaust fitted and the rear pegs and carriers in a bag being told they don’t fit with those pipes. Might have to try them.
Never noticed a flat spot, but to be fair, don’t really thrash it anyway.
Happy to drop you some better pictures of that area of mine if you have trouble.Never noticed a flat spot, but to be fair, don’t really thrash it anyway.
Drop me a PM if you want me to.
Mr Tidy said:
BroadsRS6 said:
S and S do a 143 cubic inch motor for late model HDs, with 162 bhp and 151 lb-ft on offer with the right set up.
That capacity, i believe, is 2,340cc of badass V Twin grunt and i am sure it will feel bloody rapid and sound evil.
That sounds pretty pathetic to me! That capacity, i believe, is 2,340cc of badass V Twin grunt and i am sure it will feel bloody rapid and sound evil.
In my biking days I had a KH500 that produced about 60 bhp and an RD 250LC that had about 35 hhp.
Even my 4 wheel BMW 325ti with a 2.5 engine was rated at 192bhp!
Just badass noise for the sake of noise. bolted to a 2 wheeled tractor IMHO.
Iminquarantine said:
A 2.3 liter engine in a bike is just silly. How much higher will the fuel consumption be than the same power engine with smaller capacity.
its never that simple. Broadly speaking long stroke engines are more efficient than short stroke.You've only got to look at some of the downsized petrol engines in cars, 1.0 turbo engines replacing 1.6l petrol, as soon as you use the power you ruin the fuel economy.
Iminquarantine said:
A 2.3 liter engine in a bike is just silly. How much higher will the fuel consumption be than the same power engine with smaller capacity.
Most things are silly when it comes to motorbikes. Theres nothing sensible about sitting astride an engine and launching yourself at the horizon. Doesn't mean it isn't fun thoughandburg said:
Iminquarantine said:
A 2.3 liter engine in a bike is just silly. How much higher will the fuel consumption be than the same power engine with smaller capacity.
its never that simple. Broadly speaking long stroke engines are more efficient than short stroke.You've only got to look at some of the downsized petrol engines in cars, 1.0 turbo engines replacing 1.6l petrol, as soon as you use the power you ruin the fuel economy.
Whilst low down lazy torque is what Harley is about they are tied to "heritage" too much so can't progress.
Iminquarantine said:
A 2.3 liter engine in a bike is just silly. How much higher will the fuel consumption be than the same power engine with smaller capacity.
Not much. I went to Cornwall and back with a mate on a 2300cc Rocket III. He reckons he gets mid 40s mpg. My Tiger Sport 1050 got about the same.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff