95 vs 96?

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Jun 24, 2011 | 12:32 PM

#11

speakerfritz

Road Warrior

Joined: Jun 2009

Posts: 1,943

Likes: 3

From: NYC

From my experience, those of friends, and some reading on the forum....keep things simple...touring vs softy...makes sense to switch to a touring if your driving habits have changed....but why should the toruing bike preform like the softy? Also, the more changes you make to the EFI bikes, the crazier things get, for a marginal gain in HP.

Jun 24, 2011 | 12:57 PM

#12

coolerman69

Road Warrior

Joined: Aug 2010

Posts: 1,788

Likes: 5

From: Tennessee

If your lookin for more bang for the buck 95 is the way to go. I have an 05EG classic with a 95 kit that has 100+ hp and tq. No engine noise typical of built bikes, smooth running, reliable, and cost 1/2 of a new ultra and 1/3 of a SEultra. It runs circles around a 110 and not nearly as hot! 42 mpg avg.

Jun 24, 2011 | 01:01 PM

#13

equandt

Road Warrior

Joined: Aug 2006

Posts: 1,575

Likes: 7

From: Wisconsin

I have a 95"/5 spd in my RKC and the 96"/6spd in my Ultra. The 95" is the performance winner hands down as it has a bigger bore, it's cammed and has stage 2 heads. If I did this to the 96" (made it a 103/107 with cam and heads) I'm sure it would be a rocket too.

I don't think you can go wrong with either. The 6 spd transmission is nice out on the road.

Jun 24, 2011 | 01:20 PM

#14

MrHog

Road Captain

Joined: Jun 2009

Posts: 659

Likes: 2

From: Central Ohio

I kicked around trading in my '05 RK for an '08 before I started my build on my 88". I wanted to start a build on a 96" with a bike that had 6 speed tranny, bigger fuel tank and the hydraulic tensioner upgrade. I decided to stick with '05 88" for budget reasons, the run out was good and I had my RK setup the way I like it. Plus, I decided to go gear driven instead of chain tensioners. I don't need anything that will set any land speeds. Mainly looking for more pulling power on a heavy bagger and the sound of a "Harley" that you can't always get with just stage 1 upgrade.

If you don't want to build your motor and go stock, 96" would be nice with the hydraulic tensioners. If you want a built up motor from stock, go with a 95 if you don't want to mess with a build, but want to have it.

Jun 24, 2011 | 01:29 PM

#15

soft 02

Seasoned HDF Member

Joined: Mar 2007

Posts: 66,948

Likes: 4,573

From: TOAK western branch

My buddy has a 95" and I have a 96". He woops on me and has no problem crusing with me down the freeway. BUT I have the option of going to 107" down the road.

Jun 24, 2011 | 02:19 PM

#16

Mike

Ultimate HDF Member

Joined: Jun 2009

Posts: 6,786

Likes: 40

From: Centralia, Wa

The 95 to 96 comparison is hard to make, mostly because there's very few 95 inch twin cam motors that haven't also had other mods done. An 06 95 with stock cams and heads would be fairly close to a stage I 96, as far as cams and head design. Then you could fairly compare the difference between the 5 sp vs the 6 sp trans.

A stroker motor isn't necesssarily a bad thing. The much vaunted 120R is basically a stroked 113. (4 5/8 stroke and 4.060 bore). Stroker motors are generally considered to be good at building torque early. Like every other hd motor, you need the right combination of parts to make it all work well.

Jun 24, 2011 | 03:00 PM

#17

soft 02

Seasoned HDF Member

Joined: Mar 2007

Posts: 66,948

Likes: 4,573

From: TOAK western branch

Yes Boogaloodude my friends cam makes all the difference. I'll be installing the tripple nickle next weekend then we will see who has the get up and go!