Any Problems with the 103 or 110 engines?
Extreme HDF Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 13,402
Likes: 941
From: Illinois
Some seem to be missing the fact that the 16 LRS is the 110 engine with 115 ft. lbs. of torque. In the Dyna frame it is the lightest platform that the 110 has went in. Also it has a dramatically improved suspension over past Dyna's.
Cycle World in it's top 10 list for 2016 gave it the best bike in the cruiser category for 2016. Not bad for a mag that favors metrics.
Cycle World in it's top 10 list for 2016 gave it the best bike in the cruiser category for 2016. Not bad for a mag that favors metrics.
Some seem to be missing the fact that the 16 LRS is the 110 engine with 115 ft. lbs. of torque. In the Dyna frame it is the lightest platform that the 110 has went in. Also it has a dramatically improved suspension over past Dyna's.
Cycle World in it's top 10 list for 2016 gave it the best bike in the cruiser category for 2016. Not bad for a mag that favors metrics.
Cycle World in it's top 10 list for 2016 gave it the best bike in the cruiser category for 2016. Not bad for a mag that favors metrics.
Tourer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 436
Likes: 71
I realize that's not how most people ride them, but it's nice to have it when you're passing a car out on a two lane road.
Tourer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 436
Likes: 71
You see, torque without rpm is meaningless.
Power produced by the engine burning fuel is proportional to torque * rpm. So without the scaling HP scaling factor, you're looking at the difference between 325000 units and 393750 units. That's 21% more power where they make their peak torque values. The scaling factor is immaterial as it's multiplied to both.
And that's just a silly peak value. There's also the additional power made at all the other rpms along the way.
Oh but it is. What you're missing is not only the power number at those peak torques, but the total power getting there.
You see, torque without rpm is meaningless.
Power produced by the engine burning fuel is proportional to torque * rpm. So without the scaling HP scaling factor, you're looking at the difference between 325000 units and 393750 units. That's 21% more power where they make their peak torque values. The scaling factor is immaterial as it's multiplied to both.
And that's just a silly peak value. There's also the additional power made at all the other rpms along the way.
You see, torque without rpm is meaningless.
Power produced by the engine burning fuel is proportional to torque * rpm. So without the scaling HP scaling factor, you're looking at the difference between 325000 units and 393750 units. That's 21% more power where they make their peak torque values. The scaling factor is immaterial as it's multiplied to both.
And that's just a silly peak value. There's also the additional power made at all the other rpms along the way.
hell, i'm still baffled by the difference between my 2013 wide glide and my 2012... same engine... yet the 2012 out performs the 2013 (i had).... night and day difference. i just don't understand. we pondered break-in.... who knows. end of the day...
It has top end...for a Harley. Most of them I've ridden don't pull much over 4k rpm. I thought the 103HO continued to pull nicely to ~5.5k rpm or so.
I realize that's not how most people ride them, but it's nice to have it when you're passing a car out on a two lane road.
I realize that's not how most people ride them, but it's nice to have it when you're passing a car out on a two lane road.
Last edited by cvaria; Sep 29, 2016 at 10:45 PM.
Tourer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 436
Likes: 71
Fast forward to this fall. Had a beautiful red one with a deal a signature away. Went out for a test ride and the damn thing couldn't be shifted in neutral without turning the bike off. Suspension also felt like some older ones I've ridden that were squeaky. I did have my wife along for this ride though.
I have a bad leg from a deer wreck and for whatever reason, really noticed the pain in having to lean it to the right to get the stand up that day.
It's all relative. If one is used to riding older Harleys, then it may seem like a lot. I'm used to riding a variety of bikes. When I owned a Vic, one of the comments Harley folks often had was that they felt under powered. It's because they're used to short shifting Harleys at 3k rpm. Harleys make considerably more power in that range. Vic engines wake up at 3k rpm. 3-5k rpm is where they like to run and they make a lot more power up there.
When Polaris went after Harley with Indian, they recognized that too. The 111 is much more Harley like than Vic like in its power delivery. Very punchy off the line, but pretty breathless up top.
Anyway, the 103HO doesn't feel near as breathless up top to me as other 103s I've ridden. That said, my Harley experience has been limited to stock bikes.
Stellar HDF Member
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 214
From: Delawere
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Verdad Gallardo
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Harley-Davidson Needs to Fix in 2026
Verdad Gallardo
Thread Starter
|
Novice
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: New Albany, IN
Pretty Much. I think I've decided on the Fat Bob unless a metric bike catches my eye.