What did they change?
Thread Starter
|
Tourer
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 403
Likes: 14
From: Tennessee
What did they change?
When comparing '07 and '08 FLHTC specifications I noted something curious. The EPA figures for the '07 are 32.5 city and 45 highway. The EPA figures for the '08 FLHTC are 35 city and 54 highway. A difference of 9 MPG highway is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the '07 only has a 5 gal. tank. Both bikes have the same engine, compression, primary gearing and final drive gearing. So the question is, why are the '08 EPA figures so much better than the '07's? What did Harley change? I know they changed the final drive ratio in the '09 and later models and they all have similar EPA figures. Also it's worth noting that the '06 FLHTC with a 5 speed tranny had better EPA numbers (39 city / 46 highway) than the '07.
I would have blamed the poorer fuel economy of the '07 on the "tall" gearing. As I understand it, '07 & '08 have the same tall gearing so Harley must have changed something else in '08. Anyone know?
I would have blamed the poorer fuel economy of the '07 on the "tall" gearing. As I understand it, '07 & '08 have the same tall gearing so Harley must have changed something else in '08. Anyone know?
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,492
Likes: 10
6 gal. tank throttle by wire, relocated engine stabilizer on the front cylinder. Seat mounting is different. About it, the 08's are pretty much orphans. The frame changes came in 09 I believe. The new compensator and lower gearing in 2011 along with the 103 standard in the touring line.
Mark
Mark
Tourer
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 303
Likes: 16
From: Stockton, CA
The testing method changed I believe. When I was looking to buy a car around that time I also noticed the discrepancy and that's what I was told at the dealer as the vehicle had not changed one bit just the EPA ratings
Thread Starter
|
Tourer
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 403
Likes: 14
From: Tennessee
The changes listed by onedownand5up would have no effect on fuel consumption, and don't account for a 9 MPG improvement in the '08 highway performance. I believe the EPA testing changes mentioned by rbeamj that took effect resulted in "less optimistic" EPA ratings, so the EPA rating of later models should have decreased not improved.
In the real world I ride with people who have '08, '10, & '12 Ultra classics and when we fuel up, I'll get 44-45 MPG with my '07 and they'll get 48-51 with their later models riding the same roads, on the same day, at the same speeds. None of the machines are heavily modified. '09 and later had the shorter gearing (68 tooth final drive sprocket vs 66) that may account for their improvement in fuel economy due to less lugging. Considering the technical specifications for the '08 which are virtually identical to the '07, I see no reason for that machine to have any better fuel economy than the '07. That's what I'm asking.
In the real world I ride with people who have '08, '10, & '12 Ultra classics and when we fuel up, I'll get 44-45 MPG with my '07 and they'll get 48-51 with their later models riding the same roads, on the same day, at the same speeds. None of the machines are heavily modified. '09 and later had the shorter gearing (68 tooth final drive sprocket vs 66) that may account for their improvement in fuel economy due to less lugging. Considering the technical specifications for the '08 which are virtually identical to the '07, I see no reason for that machine to have any better fuel economy than the '07. That's what I'm asking.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
