rubber mounted engine vs solid
Banned
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,349
Likes: 2
From: Appling GA
RE: rubber mounted engine vs solid
A rider cop-out huh? Thatsoundsabsurd to me. Going by that criteria who *would* buy a Harley at all? If you want smooth, efficient and modern thereare better choicesthan HD. I dont ride a Harley for those reasons, what does it for me is the rumble and badass vibration of the vintage style Vtwin powerplant that even a caveman like me can wrench, the distinctive 50 year old character and yes, the inefficiency of the bike.
Youcan have all those things you chose for half the cost...
Youcan have all those things you chose for half the cost...
ORIGINAL: chornbe
I chose the latest generation; FI & Rubber Mounted. People say the previous ones being lighter were easier to ride and were faster. That sounds like rider cop-out to me. Why *wouldn't* you want to ride a smoother, more modern and efficient bike if you could? Especially buying used, the price differences are negligible.
$.02
I chose the latest generation; FI & Rubber Mounted. People say the previous ones being lighter were easier to ride and were faster. That sounds like rider cop-out to me. Why *wouldn't* you want to ride a smoother, more modern and efficient bike if you could? Especially buying used, the price differences are negligible.
$.02
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,192
Likes: 2
From: Metro Milwaukee, WI
RE: rubber mounted engine vs solid
ORIGINAL: chornbe
Well, I was commenting within the context of Sportster line, not all bikes... since it's a Sportster related thread and all.
Well, I was commenting within the context of Sportster line, not all bikes... since it's a Sportster related thread and all.
All jokes aside, I'd rather have an older bike for many reasons. They have plenty of aftermarket parts available including springer style frontends (which aren't available for the 04+). Any hot rodder (cars) knows when you step upto seriousperformance if you keep the stock rubber motormounts they will break from the engine twisting. They replace them with solid motormounts. The 03 and older came already equipped with the solid (heavy duty) motormounts.
I've ridden both and the ride being smoother on a 04+ is a neglidgable subject. So many seem to be replacing the suspension due to not having a smooth enough ride on the 04+. Maybe that's due to the extra 75 lbs? Mine still has the stock suspension and is fine for 1 up riding all day but is a rough rider for 2-up for any long distance.
We are talking about Sportsters here. They are not made for comfort. They are not refined (by todays standards) and as far as efficiency is concerned. Why would I wanna buy a bike that needs another $200-$800 just to run correctly with a decent air fuel ratio and non restrictive pipes? Why would I wanna buy a bike that I know will not run at all if the battery is low cause the fuel infection (yes I meant fuel infection)won't work? where is the efficiency in that?How about the faulty fuel pumps? By the way the fuel economy in my 12 year old bike easily rivals the '07-08 models.
Calling it a smoother more efficient bike just because it's a couple of years newer IMO is a "rider cop out"
Sorry chornbe but I just don't buy into your way of thinkin.
Tourer
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
From:
RE: rubber mounted engine vs solid
I am on board for the well proportioned/balanced look and the "harley" look, sound and feel of a Sportster with a 4.4 gal tank, chromed out. That is a Harley Motorcycle. I thought the peanut sporties were a bit different and not quite it for me. But, ... I am falling for the Nightsters... For now, I love the Custom and wouldn't trade it for a Dyna or bagger. Indeed, efficiency is not a Harley strong suit, its all about character.
Road Master
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 7
From: Chester County, PA
RE: rubber mounted engine vs solid
ORIGINAL: Biker Trash
Sorry chornbe but I just don't buy into your way of thinkin.
Sorry chornbe but I just don't buy into your way of thinkin.
I don't need to do all kinds of crazy horse-power mods and go breaking motor mounts (which, by the way, is rare) to out-ride plenty of folks. Knowing how to take a turn > horse power!
PS... a newer, fuel-injected engine *IS* more fuel-efficient than an older carb engine, all things being equal.
Road Master
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 22
From: Phoenix, AZ
RE: rubber mounted engine vs solid
I am new to harleys and am drawn to sportsters because they are lighter and cheaper... I think I would be happy with a 883! Anyway for those of you that have ridden both what is the difference between the 2004 up with rubber mounted engine compared to the earlier sportsters with the solid mount? Also it seems like the older ones aren't any cheaper than the three year old ones..so I am thinking look for condition primarily and low milage.
883 can be built up, when you can afford it.
The rubber mounted engine gives a different vibration. As stated above the "older" bikes vibration is not as bad as the reviews make it sound, they often compare it to a goldwing or bmw for how smooth things can be.
Condition is more important than mileage. If the machine is taken care of it can get over 100k miles & still run strong. A new bike gives benefits of being "yours" from the start, warranty et all.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ShadowforNow
Sportster Models
7
Oct 7, 2018 04:45 AM
