Getting those old bikes to start sometimes was an adventure for sure.

 

We would call each other on the phone to see whos bike was running that day.

 

They did, it's called the Revolution. Now, the M8 is halfway to what the Revo is. Seems like a step backwards if you look at it logically, but that's how HD has to handle the "faithful". Spoon feed with kid gloves.

 

You know, I have to agree with you to a point; but the fact is, the Vrod engine had one leg compared to the bike it copied, the 1985 VMax. The sad part is, the Vrod came out in 2001 and didn't get it done then (overall performance wise), let alone when the VMax became the the monster it was after re-design. When compared to bikes like the Vmax, Duc Diavel and the like HD STILL had to fall back on "it's a Harley".

Sadly, it wasn't considered a Harley by most people who bought HDs; so it floundered. But truth be told, HD has to take some of the blame; they never moved that refined power plant (for HD) to a usable chassis; sporting, standard or touring. The whole ride around in a clamshell position with what you can carry in your pockets will only take you so far sales wise. It's especially criminal in my book that HD didn't do this given they've water cooled and counter balanced the big twins. Those engines retrofitted with engineering band aids will never reach the potential in performance or reliability that the Revolution engine had because the "improvements" will always be inhibited by the old design. Case in point, the "new" 4.5" stroke 114" M8 that very nearly displaces 1.9 liters won't break 100 horsepower at the wheel. That's downright shameful.

All of that said, that's just the opinion of a guy who's been rabid about riding motorcycles since 1967. That doesn't make me an expert OR make me right.

 

Has anyone considered that Harley has gone back to the “total loss” oiling system and just didn’t tell anyone???

 

Seems like over the years HD takes one step forward two steps back. Now they are trying two steps forward and one step back. Give them time...

 

Dynamick - My post referenced all issues blamed solely on H-D and questioned if that was a valid position.

Now specifically with the migration issue which is not yet resolved here is my insights into it.

Of the M8's so far only the touring with hydraulic clutches are involved. Some considered the oil seal between the trans and primary was at fault as some were installed backward. I don't think that if that was the cause it is not likely to be that only the touring with hydraulic clutch got them backward on the assembly line.

There is no maintenance issue with the trans other than the interval between changes and periodic checking of the level. So that is out of consideration.

All that is left for the owner is operation. I have posted my extended run in procedure a couple of times in the past few years but you may not have read it.

First I get the bike in the fall and the dealer does not test ride it. Typically it has about 0.6 miles on it from the test on the rollers at the end of the assembly line. I then do 12 to 14 heat cycles per a list from H-Ds recommendations for. It involves increasing intervals and temperatures reached.

Once that is done I ride it 100 miles at no more than 50 mph. From that point on I ride it staying under 3K rpm on local roads until there is 3,000miles on the engine. The last step is to go on a multi day ride of one to three thousand miles. When I did that this year with the 13 Street Bob that I had reached 3K with the 120R it went from averaging a little over 47mpg to a little over 50 mpg.

Now take what is the current belief with the migration being only in the touring models with the hydraulic clutch because they have slipper clutches and the other touring do not. The slipper clutch is rapidly activated when decelerating with the engine from speed. Some posters have already found that the more aggressive they ride the more transfer that there is.

So could it be If the bike was slowly run in as I do and not ridden aggressively would the likelihood of transfer happen?

About two years ago American Iron Magazine ran an article about break in procedures between the hard aggressive break in and the slow method. Their findings supported that the hard break in did as the advocates held that the engine produced more power.

However over time the slow break in method wound up passing the power of the hard procedure and lasted longer.

So if a current M8 is not used aggressively and the shaft going to the trans is not jumping back and forth as much along with a long slow wear in to seat everything better. Would it transfer fluid?

I won't know. I do know that it doesn't on my RGS and it will take time to see what happens on the 114. I will not be in the market for a model with a slipper clutch for a couple of years as I have a 16 RG CVO Ultra and wouldn't get a new one until there is more significant improvements such as a M8 of 120 cu. in or more.

I do know that it is more likely than not that none of the previous issues such as the cam followers on the TC's like the 88 that had the cylinders removed and about 40K to be diamond cut did not show but a minimum grove for the chain side plates and the roller area of the chain was not below grade of the nylon block. The tech even said he could still see the hash marks in the cylinder walls. That is the direct result of operation of the machine in a mild manner.

I will strongly hold to the fact that given mild use or aggressive use will always favor the mild user with fewer long term issues. If you want to argue with that go ahead.

 

There are indications that among some of the bikes with the transfer issue, riding aggressively and/or at higher RPM increases the rate of transfer.

But my contention is that transfer should not be happening at all, at any RPM the engine is designed to operate at. Should you really have to ride your bike like an old Granny to prevent stuff from failing?

No way in hell I'd buy a bike with a factory-installed "fun limiter". So much for the millions of miles of testing.....

 

First of all the V-Max was/is a 4 cylinder and a sports bike, furthermore, it was introduced well after the Harley Nova, which was the initial start of what later became called the VR-1000, then the V-Rod production version. Who copied who 10 years later? The Nova was designed and prototypes built under AMF in the mid 70's along with the Evo design. They simply ran out of money and sold the business back to Willie and the employees.

Yes, the Revo may have fallen short in the examples you listed, however, those are sports bikes with the same drawbacks you mentioned the V-Rod having which is way more a cruiser than the V-Max, Duc or any other sport bike. And for this conversation, I was comparing Harley to Harley. There are many examples of V-Twins that will out perform HD. Keep in mind, Willie G. admitted being handcuffed on the Revo for the same reasons the big twins are still archaic.

In any case HD need not apologize to anyone for the Revo or the V-Rod. It's the best damn vehicle from power to reliability to longevity they ever built. Any shortcomings, like bags, or touring positions can be modified like we do all our other bikes.

Truth is, baggers are like pick-up trucks now. They are bought because it's the thing to have. My guess is 80% of the baggers never see a long "tour" like 80% of the pick-up trucks only see groceries.

 

I'm well aware of the Nova Project. Truth be told, it was Honda that marketed the V4 in production form prior to Yamaha.

The Vmax was never a "sports bike".

I agree that most baggers don't cross state lines.

Last but not least; Harley (and everybody else) builds bikes that people buy and has the highest profit margin. They're 100% happy with a guy (or gal) who pays top dollar for something, barley uses it, then stops back in to be raped on trade in. The same with pick ups. I had to wait for my Chevy work truck with an 8 foot bed, roll up windows and rubber floor because they don't sell well. Everybody wants an SUV with a bed that won't haul drywall, plywood or a motorcycle with the tailgate up. In my opinion, this "have to have it" mentality will eventually kill the Road King.

All in all, I'd say we agree more than disagree.