I don't know man, maybe you had a bad example, but my '15 will pull like a rocket to 100 no problem, even with my 280lb *** on it. Handling wise, I never felt a wobble. Granted, I have set my suspension up for my weight.

And I've owned some good bikes. My last non-Harley's were BMW's. A S1000r which didn't last long - got rid of that crunched riding position after 6 months and a R1200r which I had for many years and is closest to a cruiser.. And while the BMW's were more technologically advanced, I LOVE both my Harley's more then any of them. Nothing better.

And you must be pretty tall, as my 6'3 fits pleasantly - but I did change bars and seat.

 

Hear you there.

my last ride was a R1100RT, a nice bike, but I can sit on the LR a much longer distance. at 5'7",the seating position is perfect for me,not that knee bent back riding position. did go to a sundowner seat as stock one was useless for my wife on back.

 

Keep it stock....thats funny right there

 

Norty - your '94 has a stage one and hotter cam...makes it a stage 2 correct? These twin cams are heavily restricted due to current EPA regs. They really need a minimum stage 1 and tune to really wake up so I'm not surprised if that stock 103' did not blow your doors off compared to your opened up '94...

Even my '92 FXLR with stage 1 and Bartel's cam pulls harder than my '09 Fatbob with stage 1, at least to about 60....then the tc96 pulls away. Lots more room up top too when the evo stars feeling stretched. My '09 has taller gearing throughout too so while the evo grunt is there, the TC makes power longer in each gear.

The 96 and the 103 might have the same ratios but still might hit their power curves differently, meaning you could still get a different engine response in the same gear rolling on at the same speed...a 5th gear at 3000rpm comparison might give you a different result. That said, the 103 is pretty close to my 96' with stage 1 by the butt dyno. I've always seen it as an EPA/marketing motor...I'm not enough of an engineer to know what the 103 truly offers over a 96.....and it's been beat to death that the 96 is arguably not really "better" than an 80 unless you plan to really build it up...in other words, the evo has not been left in the dust for quality or design within modest build parameters. I still prefer my evo over my tc96 when comes to the way it feels and makes power...maybe you should look at a newer evo or plenty of good 96's around...or plan on putting a stage 1 on a 103...

The most eye popping fun I've had on a Harley in the last few years has been on my 1200 sporty. These are different bikes nowadays...rubber mounted, fast, fun as hell, and still some evo character...might feel cramped though...but as with all Harley's including the Low Rider, it's alway just a seat/bars/pegs combo to get it right for you...

I will say I took a demo ride on a new Road King 103 and I felt a decent difference from the 96 I rode the year before. Definitely more pep, and both were stock...103 just seemed to "get there" a little quicker with less fuss.

 

The HO103 has a 2mm larger throttle body, a slight uptick in compression and the cam grind is stronger in the low to mid range. The 16 Low Rider also has the Ventilator air breather.

There is a problem with your comparison. A tight new bike will not perform any near the level that it will when loosened up with about three to 5 thousand miles. In addition 60 lbs of weight between the bikes uses up close to 1 hp.

I have two 103 bikes and two HO103 bikes. All are well worn in and the HO103's solidly out run the regular 103's and they all have the same level of tuning.

I am 6'3" and my 15 Low Rider fits me like a glove.

I must be a slow learner. It take me 2 to 3 thousand miles and over various conditions to get to "know" a bike.

 

What you're telling me is that the intake velocity is slowed during low rpm, and more tuned for higher rpm use? Interesting.
You'll find in post #8, that I did mention the 2016 engine was still tight. How much of an effect on this, I don't know. (but likely some.)
I'm 6' even, and my knees were up more than my Dyna with the "rearward" pegs. Maybe I'm just getting o l d!

Glad I revisited this thread.

 

Try the tallboy seat. Ugly as hell but very comfortable and the extra couple inches back and up may fix ya.

 

You'd have better luck telling a dog not to lick it's *****

 

I don't get into sixth until 70mph. 50mph in 6th is just not riding your bike property.

-Chris

 

Update~

I demo'd a 2016 RoadKing last week at the local dealership. I noticed it has the "HO" "High Output" 103 also. Now the RK weighs another 100 pounds more than the FXDL, so it should be slower. NOT SO! The RK hauls the mail.
I thought I would take a look and compare the 103 HO engines for the Dyna and the RoadKing. Guess what? They are NOT the same engine! Different compression ratios too.
My "butt dyno" tells me the Dyna makes "about 85 ft. lbs. at the peak of the torque curve. I'm feeling at least 95+ ft. lbs out of the stock RK.

Btw, BOTH bikes I rode had 5 miles on them each. And no, I didn't need to flog either of them to make my determination. That RK sure was "peppy."
If someone would have told me it had a 110 or 117", I would have said I believe it! Sorry to dredge up an old thread, but I wanted to make my new findings known.