I'm no writer, and my opinion is just that - MY opinion. It may or may not align with the opinions of others, but it's still my opinion.

I own and ride a 2016 RGS bought in March of this year. Since that time, I've put a tick over 5,000 miles on her. I added Rush 4" Jackpot slip-ons with 2.5" baffles, a SE intake kit, and had the dealer flash the ECU to run for a full stage one. All done by the dealer, at the dealer, and within 30 days of delivery. So this is what I used for comparison purposes to a 2017 RGS (completely stock, obviously) on roads that I ride regularly.

First impressions - the looks. Obviously, the only visual difference is the engine itself. Personally, it's a little bit of a mixed bag for me. I like the overall look compared to the TC motor. Not more, not less, just like it also and overall. The horn cover is VERY cool - I might find a way to add that to my 2016.

Idling was, as reported here, very smooth and notably quiet in the mechanical noises from the engine itself. Upon throttle blipping, you can indeed hear the whine of the straight-cut gears on the counter-balancer. It's not overpowering, or necessarily objectionable, just different from the TC. Exhaust note was, in my opinion, a nice deep rumble. Better that the stock 2016 - deeper, a little louder.

Controls, ergonomics, etc. were unchanged from 2016. Everything was familiar, in the right place, and felt identical to my 2016 with one minor exception - I felt a tad further forward in the stock saddle. Maybe my seat is more worn in, but I couldn't escape the feel that I was about an inch closer to the fairing. (When I got back on my 2016, it still felt like I was further back than the 2017 - curious).

On the road is where the differences are, and should be. Suspension, front and rear, is better. The rear shock may look the same as the 2016, but it handled a smidge better. It took the bumps a little better without sacrificing the firm planted feel of the 2016. Admittedly, I didn't check the preload, so there could be some difference in the setting that I was noticing.

The front forks, while not night and day different, were noticeably so. Better at absorbing hard bumps, less dive under panic stop. All in all, while a mild improvement, it was an improvement nevertheless.

The engine - Yes, you definitely notice more torque below 3,500 RPM. Not as much as the numbers would suggest, but the seat of the pants says more pull. Above 3,500, I'd personally call it a draw. Maybe it's the upgrades I've done, maybe it's just not that noticeable, but... there it is.

The heat - granted it was a perfect 80-degree day, so heat maybe wasn't as noticeable. However, I did notice a little on my right thigh while standing still; about the same amount as my 2016. Probably just me though, as I don't feel that much on my 2016, and the heat is easily addressable on either bike with a new header.

Things I'd change:

The airbox is beyond awful. By contrast, when the 2014's came out, I fitted a 2014 air cover to my 2010 Ultra because I thought it just looked "that cool". The new coffin box would end up in the trash bin 10 seconds after a new one was available. That one's an easy and inexpensive fix.

If I were on the design team, I'd have found a way to use helical gears on the counter-balancer. It's nitpick, I know, and the noise is neither great nor objectionable, it just doesn't belong there.

All in all, I think the 2017 is an evolutionary step. Were I in the market for an upgrade from my 2010, it'd be no contest - I'd get the 2017. Even with discounts on the 2016. My guess is that when Jamie and the other third party vendors get enough time with one of these, we'll begin to see that this platform is capable of more. Perhaps a lot more.

But as to trading from my 2016? Not going to happen. My 2016 is an evolution all it's own. I've never owned a motorcycle more comfortable, stable, reliable, and downright awesome. Besides, with 5,000 miles, I've barely gotten to know her. Even so, it's good to know that when I'm ready for the next step, Harley will be there with something even better ready for me.

 

Thanks for the review. Sounds like the moco made some welcome improvements to the '17's, especially to the suspension. But, I can't see trading my '16 RGU for one. I tend to keep my bikes a long time anyway, besides, I would want to wait until they have been out a couple years to see if any first year issues pop up.

 

Good review and nice to hear a true apples to apples comparison.

Like you, I like the new bike and recognize the areas of improvement. But also like you, I have no plans on trading my 14 in for the same reasons you state. The new bike is better. But there's always going to be a better bike. I'll sit this one out and take a look at whatever the next evolution is and decide then. But like you said, if I still had my 11 Ultra, I would be all over this new bike.

 

You are comparing a stage 1 2016 with a bone stock low milage 2017 and the 2017 still won out.

I would imagine an apples to apples comparison would yield more of a difference.

 

Thus the reason I included that.

 

thanks for the review helpful coming from a 2016 owner. Im on the fence right now between a 16 and 17. My current bike is an Electra that is built so Im use to over 100hp and a lot of TQ. I rode both and by seat of pants I feel more power for sure in the 17 and both are an improvement for me handling.. While I can get a deal on a 16 and of course that allows upgrades Im leaning towards the 17 after reading your review.

 

Thanks for the write up. I had put down a deposit on a '17 back in July before I had even heard the rumors. It was time for me to move up to a touring bike. I love hearing what people think of the improvements especially when they are truly objectionable and a good comparison.

 

Excellent write up and review, I really enjoyed reading it. I have my 16 RGS I just picked up a few weeks ago. (already 2k miles) I'm to busy trying to figure out what pipes to put on it let alone even think about the 107

 

nice review I also road both the SGS and CVO FLH. I now ride a 2015 Limited. As for power that 107 is a big improvement over my 103 and yes I do have all the same work on my 103. I ran the 107 up to about 100 mph only in 4th gear, It was quite as far as engine noise Exhaust was screaming eagle sounded like ****, handling was good dont know if it was any better maybe. After about 5 miles I switched bikes with the salesman, got on the 114 didn't see a big difference in power, maybe because its a full dresser. My take power big improvement, noise big improvement, sound sucks with screaming eagle mufflers maybe better aftermarket mufflers and headers. Ride I know its better but at some point not a big one for me. as said seat somewhat forward. Over all nice bikes both of them, I would just wait a year or so before I would consider one. After it took HD three twin cam engines to get them right. My experience is been ridding for over 50 years, have owned from the Flathead knickel, pan, shovel, evo, all of them, and still own a few old ones. I ride about 15000 to 20000 a year and work on HDS at my shop at my house all the time.

 

I rode a 17 SGS and agree with your findings as well. My comparison ride was to a 14 though, so the suspension was quite a bit better on the new one, but as the for the rest, I would totally agree. To be honest, I have been shocked reading about the guys trading 16's and going gah gah over the engine difference. Like you, I didn't feel it had so much more power, it just had better throttle response. And I have yet to hear one that sounds good with an aftermarket exhaust.