When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Why is it that 80 cubes worked fine for 15 years? Actually longer than that because the Shovels were 80 cubes too since '78. But anyway - in order to "upgrade" we had to go to 88. Then 96. Then 103. And now it'll probably be 110. For what?
It's all marketing. Bigger is "better" and sells bikes. The automotive industry already went thru these growing pains years ago. And finally common sense set in when they could pass anything but a gas station.
Why do owners make a 80" more efficient because they have the ability, why did Harley make a 103" standard because every bike manufactured out performs Harley's, Gold Wings embarrass them. Ride with alot of 103's and a great engine, has the ability to gain hp with a simple cam change just like the 80"
The dark ages was left behind in the automotive side, today's V6 has more HP and twice the fuel economy than the V8 of the 70's, 300, 400, 500 and even 700 HP is in larger cube V8 daily drivers. I don't call this marketing strategy, it is just a "normal" to evolve.
If someone is content with a stock 80" 64 maybe 58 HP struggling to pull a combine, I will drink a beer with them and not be a topic. If someone has mechanical visions or ability to take a simple engine, upgrade it with efficiency mods that makes it better, my back ground of a 32 year tech doesn't see them as a nutcase, it offends me as a professional tech
Last edited by 1997bagger; Nov 15, 2015 at 09:39 AM.
Why do owners make a 80" more efficient because they have the ability, why did Harley make a 103" standard because every bike manufactured out performs Harley's, Gold Wings embarrass them. Ride with alot of 103's and a great engine, has the ability to gain hp with a simple cam change just like the 80"
The dark ages was left behind in the automotive side, today's V6 has more HP and twice the fuel economy than the V8 of the 70's, 300, 400, 500 and even 700 HP is in daily drivers. I don't call this marketing strategy, it is just a "normal" to evolve.
If someone is content with a stock 80" 64 maybe 58 HP struggling to pull a combine, I will drink a beer with them and not be a topic. If someone has mechanical visions or ability to take a simple engine, upgrade it with efficiency mods that makes it better, my back ground of a 32 year tech doesn't see them as a nutcase, it offends me
What offends you about upgrading an engine to make it better??????
Other than towing, this whole "more is better" mindset is frustrating.
The seeming inefficiency and maintenance of carbs over any well done SPI setup turns me off a bit and more power/torque can be fun, but in the grand schemes of things I believe that "better" (or worse) is completely in the eye of the beholder.
Hardcore carb guys and guys who like tinkering and turning wrenches are always going to hate on anything with "fuel injection".
Guys into style and performance with no clue how to wrench (and so often more money than sense) are going to hate on the slow old bikes.
Each one will likely not be willing to compromise their perspective and that's their right but in reality the Evo's and Twinkies both have pro's and con's and it just depends on what you're personally looking for (and why) when choosing the best one for you.
I stumbled across a stunning 1-owner Evo so cheap I couldn't pass it up, knew it was slow and heavy and carbureted, bought it anyway, and I'm happy. Simple as that.
If my bike was my sole means of transportation and/or I was going to be doing a lot of long road trips on the bike I'd want something that gave me the confidence that it's always going to start and will get me where I want to go reliably with a good support network available for it just in case.
I've already had my local HD dealer actually say "we don't work on anything that old" when I wanted new tires, fluids, and a good once-over to make sure the bike was really in as good a shape as it appeared when I bought it days earlier, although they were really friendly and eager to get me to trade mine in on a brand new bike... I was totally surprised, extremely disappointed, and suddenly a bit nervous about my choice to buy this old Evo that I knew almost nothing about.
In total contrast, my backup plan was the HD dealer down in the city (50 miles away) who was not only more than happy to take it in and check it out for me but they even welcomed me to the Harley family and then came and picked it up and trailered it to their shop for free! AND they also do referrals to an independent local shop for vintage bike stuff if their vintage bikes tech looks things over and decides he isn't comfortable getting into some types of work on an older bike.
Needless to say you can guess which dealer I like better so far, and any doubts I was having about my decision to buy this bike are now totally gone.
My "new to me" stock Evo Softail Custom is slow, I knew that when I bought it.
I already have a Hayabusa for those (becoming more rare) occasions when I decide I want speed, power, and handling, and I have no intentions of trying to mod my Evo much at all. Planning on doing just a bit less chrome to restore some contrast to it and maybe some intake/exhaust/carb changes slowly over time, simple as that.
To me a Harley is a big heavy pack mule, not a race horse. It'll never win the Kentucky Derby, and so what?
My Harley still rides and looks good, especially for her age, turns a lot of heads, happens to be an Evo, and makes me totally happy every time I'm in her saddle...
why did Harley make a 103" standard because every bike manufactured out performs Harley's, Gold Wings embarrass them.
That's funny. The biggest majority of mine and my wife's two-up touring miles have been on Goldwings. We have owned every single model Honda ever built. They are one of the most terrible performing motorcycles for touring I've ever been on. Talk about a pig! Not to mention the fact that the frame broke on our GL1800 in Canada and left us stranded with Honda refusing to do anything about it (until two years after the fact when they finally recalled them for broken frames) - it got 36 mpg if I rode it solo and babied it, closer to 32 in normal touring duty, two-up. For pete's sake, they make cars that weigh 2.5x what that Goldwing weighs that will carry you, your wife, the kids, the dog and 250 lbs of your personal stuff and get better gas mileage than that.
Problems with the brakes catching on fire, cush drive breaking in the gearcase on the back of the engine and wiping out the alternator and cover, suspension problems, more recalls than I can even name.
It's actually the other way around - Honda only sells less than 1,000 Goldwings per year in the North American market anymore because nobody wants 'em. Harley's Electra Glide outsells 'em something like 22:1. The one and only thing the Goldwing has over the Harley is that it goes like a scalded cat - otherwise it is one of the poorest excuses for a touring motorcycle ever devised. And that comes from over 680,000 miles of experience on 'em here, and not some random line of BS.
Admittedly, the early four-cylinder 'Wings were pretty good touring bikes, they served us well back in the day, and we put 219,000 miles on this one before the hyvo chain that drives the transmission primary broke and blew the engine cases completely in two:
But the GL1500 and GL1800 are plastic pigs. And Honda's market for 'em has gone stagnant.
The Goldwing pictured with me sitting on it had a 66 cubic inch engine. I won't even mention the GL1200 because we had a lot of problems with that bike and didn't own it long. But our GL1500 had a 93 cubic inch engine, and while it had more power, it was not near the capable touring bike that the GL1100 was. It got terrible gas mileage, didn't handle as well, replaced both heads due to coolant leaks into the cylinders, and when the rear end went in South Dakota and cost us $2,700 and 10 days down at 109,000 miles we dumped it and bought the GL1800.
The moral to the story is that if you think a big engine and lots of power makes the motorcycle, I got news - it don't. And that's why I ride what I ride today.
Last edited by Harley-Davidson; Nov 15, 2015 at 05:56 PM.
nothing better than a good pair of engineer boots.
LOL! True. That GL1100 was the most like a Harley of any of the other bikes we owned. It didn't have exceptional power - in fact, not as much torque as the '86 FLHT at touring speed. But it was lighter so it still had enough. Got decent gas mileage in the high 40's and could run 200 miles between fillups. It was comfortable. And fairly reliable.
It required new timing belts every 50,000 miles. The alternator stator went in it three times and had to pull the engine from the frame to replace it. The shaft drive was a pain in the *** because had to pull it all apart and repack the splines every rear tire change with Honda Moly60 to prevent them from wearing out - and that included removing the swingarm to get at the front u-joint splines. The carbs were a pain because they had to be re-sync'd every 30,000 miles or it buzzed like a bumble bee. But overall, one of the finer touring machines we owned.
The flat six 'Wings were a huge step backwards in what a touring motorcycle should be, and instead were/are a rolling showcase of "excess". Much like I'm seeing in the new Harley's where you have to press "accept" on a touch screen to start the damn thing.
