Horribly faulty analogy, this. You've got the chain of causality backwards. It's tantamount to saying that only people who are ill need prescriptions (something which anyone would recognize as true), not that prescriptions cause illness.

A company only offers an exceptionally long warranty if they need to do so in order to reassure buyers. Companies with strong perceived quality (e.g. Honda, Toyota, etc) don't need to offer long warranties because the majority of customers assume reliability anyway. Companies with weak perceived quality (e.g. Kia, Hyundai, etc) offer long warranties only because they need to do so in order to reassure buyers. I don't think that there's anyone who honestly believes that a Kia is more reliable than a Honda, even though the Kia's warranty is more than 3 times as long as the Honda's (10 years/100,000 miles vs. 3 years/36,000 miles in the US).

Yes, a company has to honor warranty terms. However, those terms are usually stacked in a company's favor, especially with the longer warranties. For example, the "10 year/100,000 mile" warranties on early Hyundais used to be non-transferrable. If you weren't the original owner, you didn't get the warranty. Since most people sell their cars within 3 years, Hyundai came out ahead even though they did end up having to honor a few instances where owners kept their cars longer than average. In Hyundai's case, the number of additional buyers the warranty brought in far outweighed the cost of honoring the warranties despite the fact that the cars in question were significantly less reliable than other options like Fords or Hondas.

Stuff in general rarely breaks. I have an absolute piece of crap Chicago Electric drill (1 year warranty) that's still going strong 10 years later.

No, following my line of reasoning, a lifetime warranty would indicate either that people perceive the quality to be suspect or that the company has reason to believe that most people will never pursue the warranty. Ever notice how so many items with a "lifetime warranty" cost less to replace than it would cost to ship them to their manufacturer for "free" replacement? Or how the "lifetime warranty" always specifies "defects in materials and workmanship" which results in most claims being denied as the result of "wear and tear"? Also note that the fine print of many "lifetime" warranties notes that they expire 5-10 years after the manufacturer discontinues that particular model.

I have a $10 blender with a "lifetime warranty". All I have to do if it breaks is spend ~$20 (including return) to ship it to the manufacturer for repair and absorb the inconvenience of waiting 6-8 weeks for it to come back. I'd have to be an absolute moron to pursue that warranty because it's cheaper to buy a new blender than to send the old one back to get fixed for "free". The vast majority of "lifetime" warranties fall into this category.

There's a reason why so many landscaping companies use Echo power equipment even though they have historically only offered a 1 year commercial warranty. That reason is because people already know that Echo builds solid and reliable products; there's no market demand for longer warranties and as a result, having a longer warranty won't increase sales and doesn't make economic sense. If cheaper products with lower (but still acceptable) reliability start infringing on Echo's market, I'm sure they'll extend their warranty but until then it just doesn't make sense for them to do so.

Manufacturers ranked higher than Kia in overall reliability: Jaguar, GMC, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Ford, Audi... When Jaguar and Audi are ranked above you in reliability ratings, you're not doing very well. Both Honda and Toyota are ranked significantly higher than Kia as well, despite having shorter warranties.

Kia isn't a company I'd point to as a shining example of reliability, and even less so as an example of perceived reliability in the market. The decision to offer longer warranties is not based on a confidence that the product will never break. It's based on a statistical analysis of whether the increased sales from offering the warranty will offset the cost of the repairs that are likely to be sought under those warranties. (It's worth noting that, much like mail-in rebates, the actual number of warranty claims, especially on items with very long warranties, is significantly less than the actual breakage rate.)

 

Hell 90% of the Asians in America werent made in Asia...LOL

 

Only problem with that statement is the old adage "There is no substitute for cubic inches" and it costs a fortune to make an Evo much bigger than stock. I'm not looking for HP, I'm looking for bottom end torque and the easiest way to make a lot is with more cubic inches.

The reason I found this thread is that I just purchased a '93 FLSTC because I got it cheap and I love the looks of this bike from this era. The motor is a Harley re-manufacture from their reman program replaced in 2005. It had 2000 miles on it and now has 4200 after I got it to my freight forwarder in Miami. I knew the bike was underpowered for what I was looking for but because of the price I knew I would have some room to play. So now I have some options:

1. Build the stock motor.
2. RevTech 125" motor. Cost $4,200.
3. S&S 113" motor. Cost $6,000.
4. S&S 124" motor. Cost $8,400.

Option 1 would be by far the most expensive and/or lowest torque output of any of these options if attempting to get anywhere near the HP/torque ratings of the other.

The RevTech motor costs half of the S&S same size motor. Is the S&S motor going to last twice as long? I've heard from rebuilders that when pulling apart S&S motors, the quality is not the same as what it used to be. Now this is just hearsay but is pretty close to the same basis for arguments that the S&S is a better motor than the RevTech, quality wise, that is.

I don't really need a 124" motor, the 113" would suit me just fine. I started here because there's not much difference in price between the RevTech 110" and the 124".

Parts availability for the RevTech is an issue, but then again, I can't get S&S parts here either. Everything would have to ship from the States. On that note, the Harley dealer here doesn't even have a very big inventory of parts. I do like the fact that S&S parts are essentially "high output" versions of Harley parts and performance notwithstanding are mostly interchangeable. Final note is that since I have a barely broken in stock Evo, it would look pretty good sitting on an engine stand in my den and could be relocated to the bike while waiting for parts if I decide on an aftermarket motor when it needs service.

 

While you're at it, consider Options #5 and #6 :

5. Demon Cycle's 114" motor. Cost $4200.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...87421654134631

6. SMW Proof Series 127" Engine. Cost $4295. (also have 113")
http://www.southern-mc.com/smwprseen.html

 

Thanks. More options. I like the fact that they are basically HP Evo motors like the S&S rather than an entire new design like the RevTech.

Anyone have any experience with these?

 

I was wondering are any Harley parts interchangeable with the knock off motors? I seem to remember Harley having legal battle with companies copying the evo motor. Then as it turned out Harley's patent rights had expired, and they could copy away. Maybe that's why there aren't exact copies of twin cams available?.,,

 

I think if I was in the position of needing a new motor I would just buy one from harley. I know they arent race engines, but then again I dont ride a race bike. If I wanted fast I wouldnt have bought an HD.

 

Actually, HD didn't do a good job of protecting the Evo motor which is why others could effectively copy them. They spent a lot more time and effort into protecting the TwinCam which is why there are no exact knock offs although there are still options out there. I personally like the S&S TwinCam case that bolts to an Evo frame and tranny.

As far as aftermarket parts, it's almost impossible to stop others from making exact copy parts, let alone high performance direct fit parts. Take a stroll through an auto parts store; if it were possible, don't you think the big 3 would have forced AC/Delco, Mopar and Motocraft on everyone?

 

It all depends on what you want out of a bike. I don't race either and I very seldom see much over 4000 RPM. That's why I'm looking for big bottom end torque. I want the bike to be able to pull a hill riding two up while cruising along without having to downshift two gears. IMHO, the 80" Evo is severely underpowered from this standpoint. (Likewise with the 88" TC whereas the 96" is just starting to get there.)

You're right about racing though. If I wanted a high horsepower bike, I'd by a rice burner with a short stroke that turns 12,000 RPM.

 

Unless I missed it, I haven't heard one mention of the Jim's motor in this thread. If I have missed it, sorry! If I haven't, what's up with that? I heard the Jim's is near bullet proof, and is available up to 131 ci.


...although some of the Jim's engines are for racing only...