Why The Sportster Engine?...according to Erik Buell

[Rogue]

I just read an article from one of the UK Bike mags, wherein they interviewed Erik.  One of the most interesting parts was about the engine on the current XB.  These are not direct quotes from Erik but here is what he had to say.

The liquid cooled V-Rod motor was originally a Buell design.  H-D told Erik that Buell would have primary user of this motor, with H-D secondary.  Somewhere along the way, H-D changed their mind and wanted to be the primary user.  H-D took the design in-house, then sub-contracted the rest to Porsche.  That's when the motor became big, heavy, and complicated.  

Erik decided NOT to use this motor on the XB due to its size and weight.  The design goal for the XB engine was around 140 lbs.  The liquid cooled V-Rod motor weighs in at a porky 220 lbs.  Erik said no thanks.

Buell designed the 1203 cc motor for the XB.  H-D did NOT have a hand in it.  However, H-D liked the design so much, they asked to be secondary users of it.  Thus, H-D uses the block and heads and some other parts on the Sportster 1200.  The rest are all different.  Erik really likes this motor.  He believes it still has a lot of potential.  It currently meets present and emissions standards WITHOU a catalyst.  Therefore, it can easily meet future emissions standards with no problem.  It is lightweight, simple, and has plenty of power for its given applications.  Erik does not believe in the need for very high horsepower motors with high RPM thresholds.  He believes it is rarely used in the street so the benefit of added power is overcome by its heavier weight, complexity, and cost.

[CBRXXBLACKBIRD]

I wish their were more of these bikes around I would love to hear one of the 1203 with after market exhaust.

[Asphalt_Carver]

Rogue,

It is my sincere hope that everyone who unilaterally bashes the Buell motor reads your post and somehow manages to find a clue.  Buells are designed for a specific purpose, exceptional handling, and the motor chosen is the one that fits the given design parameters.

Basically, I think that everyone who bashes Buells should really understand that if Erik had wanted a different motor, he would have gotten one.  Instead, he chose a design that did what he wanted and the hell with the detractors!  

[Thor]

I don't buy it.  Eric started his design, while working at Harley, with a square four motor from England.  If the Harley motor is so great, why didn't he use one?  It would have been a lot easier, don't you think?
http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcbuell/buellinterview6_95.html

He uses Harley engines because Harley owns Buell.  Harley is a motor company.  The motor is their thing.

I like mechanical watches.  They are anywhere from 2 to 8 seconds off a day and require expensive service every 5 years or so.  They are also very expensive to purchase.  Just because I like them doesn't mean I'm going to try to convince anyone that they are technological marvels.  They're not.  I just like them.

The Harley engine is like my mechanical watches.

[Asphalt_Carver]

As a Rolex owner, I would not compare my Buell to a mechanical watch.  Erik got what he wanted and to those who understand his philosophy, Buells are a joy to ride.  To those who don't understand the allure and appeal of a Buell, that's ok too.  Part of the joy of motorcycling is that there is enough choice out there to satisfy just about everyone.

For me, that means a Buell Lightning!

[jschmidt]

Sounds like the manager saying he controls the owners. "Harley asked to use it..." C'mon.

[Rogue]

 

I don't understand some of you people who just don't like H-D.  I really don't.  You always find something to bash.  

Anyway, nobody is saying that Erik could have done ANYTHING he wanted and could have gotten whatever he wanted.  You people work for a company right?  Well, even if you are the top man of your division, you still can't do and get whatever you want.  You need to work within certain constraints.  Hello people.....this is reality not reality TV.    So of course Erik had to work with what was available to him.  He set a target and designed something that met that target within the parameters he had at the time.  The parameters being, he had to share the motor with H-D.  It allows Buell to take advantage of shared costs, which in turn allows them to sell their bikes at comptetitive price points.  It all makes business sense.  

Some of you will NEVER understand the allure of the big cube, aircooled V-twin.  Your loss.

[PlayWithGravity]

I wish their were more of these bikes around I would love to hear one of the 1203 with after market exhaust.

Too bad we don't live closer!  

Weigh in:  I dig my Buell, partially because it's not 'mainstream'.  Every time you look up you see a jap racer (no offense intended), which makes the Buell different, and to me - enjoyable even more.  The motor does the trick for me, too.  thump-thump-thump  WHOOO-PAAAA

[steve.ski]

I like mechanical watches.  They are anywhere from 2 to 8 seconds off a day and require expensive service every 5 years or so.  They are also very expensive to purchase.  Just because I like them doesn't mean I'm going to try to convince anyone that they are technological marvels.  They're not.  I just like them.

The Harley engine is like my mechanical watches.

Thor, if your watches are 2-8 seconds off per day, it's time to have them regulated.

Rogue is right. Erik's engine project was redirected and gained weight. So goes the corporate path...

Furthermore, his bikes have always been about bucking trends, and the aircooled engine he uses in his bikes fits the bill. Of course the bike may be faster in the 1/4 with a different engine design, but it's not about that. The XB is a marvel of simplicity, and I think hanging a radiator on it would detract from the overall design.

Buell has come a LONG way in looks, design, and reliability. I really like their bikes, and since I have ridden with Rogue and Asphalt Carver, I can tell you they haul ass

[CBRXXBLACKBIRD]

Too bad we don't live closer!  

Weigh in:  I dig my Buell, partially because it's not 'mainstream'.  Every time you look up you see a jap racer (no offense intended), which makes the Buell different, and to me - enjoyable even more.  The motor does the trick for me, too.  thump-thump-thump  WHOOO-PAAAA

Check out this link how far is this for you?

http://www.sport-touring.net/forums/index.php/topic,2737.0.html

[PlayWithGravity]

The moonshine?  I've never been, but I've put in on my calendar for this year.  It's about 450 miles of slab from my home in Ohio, and 750 miles from where I'll likely be living by then (Raleigh, NC).  We'll see, though... you never know....  

[GS1100GK]

I agree that from an engineering perspective, Eric Buell has done a masterful job with the 1203 Engine.  Even though it is not the latest design it fits the bill.  That engine is narrow and short which allows for the short wheelbase that Eric wanted to make the bikes nimble.  Eric solved the vib issue with the rubber mounting system that HD couldn't or wouldn't do in over 40+ years up until the 2004 Sportster hit the street.  Erick was also the first to fuel inject the 1203 to help it's performance even more.  Other than the pushrod design Eric has made the 1203 motor a very modern engine.  

I also agree that the HD engines have gotten a bad rap for being old school pushrod engines.  Alot of that bad rap has to do with the poor quality that HD had in the past and the meager HP that their engines produced.  Consider this, the BMW Boxer motor is also a pushrod design that is over 80 years old, yet I do not hear anyone complaining about the design of that motor.  Kawasaki uses pushrods in their Vulcan 2000 motor, Yamaha has pushrods in their  biggest Star Line bikes and again no one complains about that.

Eric Buell should be commended for reinventing the 1203 Motor!  

[Flat-Out]

The Harley engine is like my mechanical watches.

Good comparison  

[PlayWithGravity]

It's a good thing my watch doesn't clatter and shake as much as my bike

[hobbes]

designed the 1203 cc motor for the XB.  H-D did NOT have a hand in it.  However, H-D liked the design so much, they asked to be secondary users of it.  Thus, H-D uses the block and heads and some other parts on the Sportster 1200.  The rest are all different.  Erik really likes this motor.  He believes it still has a lot of potential.  It currently meets present and emissions standards WITHOU a catalyst.  Therefore, it can easily meet future emissions standards with no problem.  It is lightweight, simple, and has plenty of power for its given applications.  Erik does not believe in the need for very high horsepower motors with high RPM thresholds.  He believes it is rarely used in the street so the benefit of added power is overcome by its heavier weight, complexity, and cost.

That's a bunch of crap. Not the info, but the way you put it. Erik Buell didn't design the 1203 engine, he MODIFIED an existing design. Most of the internal parts are different, but the original design came from Hardley.

I have faith in Buell's design ideas, but he has yet to really build a successfull engine from the ground up. Where's his square 4 now?

[bizarro]

Some of you will NEVER understand the allure of the big cube, aircooled V-twin.  

Absolutely correct.

Your loss, IMHO.

Fixed that for you. I've ridden a number of twins. Parallel, opposed, V, L. They're just not my cup o' tea. In line triples are, however. But I'm glad you dig your bike, it would suck if you spent a pile of money on something and decided it wasn't for you (ala my experience with BMWs).  

[PlayWithGravity]

They're just not my cup o' tea. In line triples are, however. But I'm glad you dig your bike, it would suck if you spent a pile of money on something and decided it wasn't for you (ala my experience with BMWs).

What a pleasant way to disagree.  Thanks for not bashing.  Appreciated.  

[bizarro]

I make an attempt towards civility when I leave the dungeon.

[Mookie]

Basically, I think that everyone who bashes Buells should really understand that if Erik had wanted a different motor, he would have gotten one.  Instead, he chose a design that did what he wanted and the hell with the detractors!  

I call BS on that.  Erik DID want a different motor and it wasn't given to him.  He modified an existing, somewhat crappy motor to get around it's inherent disadvantages.  

I happen to really like the XB series of bikes, including the motors to some degree.  I love big chunky VTwins, even aircooled ones.  I like the idea of torquing around at 4 RPM and getting 50 MPG  But the engine is without a doubt it's biggest limiting factor (and the transmission).  

[CBRXXBLACKBIRD]

Buells take some getting used to but they are fun to ride.

[Rogue]

I've ridden a number of twins. Parallel, opposed, V, L. They're just not my cup o' tea. In line triples are, however. But I'm glad you dig your bike, it would suck if you spent a pile of money on something and decided it wasn't for you (ala my experience with BMWs).  

I fell in love with the XBR back when it first came out.  But it took me another 5 years before I actually bought one.  I read all the test reports and quite frankly, I was disappointed and worried I would hate the motor.  It wasn't until I got a chance to swap bikes with an XB9R owner and rode his bike through a set of my favorite roads when I finally realized, it's not anywhere as bad as what some of the testers said.  In fact, I sort of liked the grunt and the soothing beat of the V-Twin.  It is so totally different from what I'm used to.  Even I was surprised I liked it.  And I wasn't looking for a new bike at the time.

I guess it's sort of like going out with a person who is of totally different racial mix.  You have all these preconceptions based on what people have told you, what you read, etc.  But then you try it and all of a sudden...hey!  I like this!  

[Rogue]

I happen to really like the XB series of bikes, including the motors to some degree.  I love big chunky VTwins, even aircooled ones.  I like the idea of torquing around at 4 RPM and getting 50 MPG  But the engine is without a doubt it's biggest limiting factor (and the transmission).  

I respect that.

But why do you think it's the biggest limiting factor?

Seriously, if Buell put something like the SV1000 motor in the XB, I'm not sure I would want it. That's because although I know there will be more top end power, smoothness, and the hi-tech details, it would also come with a bunch of baggage like weight, complexity, and most of all, higher maintenance.  Having owned Japanese bikes all my life, I am sick of the high maintenance these things require.  Especially when the automotive side has moved on to much, much longer service intervals.  Why we put up and accept high maintenance on our motors is beyond me.  

As for the gearbox, the only thing I would like to see is 6th gear.  Not that it needs it.  It has so much torque across the board, it hardly does.  It is very relaxed in top gear.  However, I do find myself wanting something between 1st & 2nd gear sometimes.  The '06 and newer gearboxes are much improved.  They have smooth and easy shifting that is nearly as good as my VFR800, along with a light, progressive clutch.  In fact, my Busa tranny is notchier.  Can't ask for anything better than that.

The Buell motors is what defines Buell motorcycles.  It's not what detracts from it.

Honestly, you can get just about the same great, fun, and easy handling on a 600 class supersport.  But you won't get the torquey, and soulful motor.  Nor the low maintenance.  Or the ultra-smooth power delivery all across the powerband.  That combo just rocks.  It's the type of motorcycle that calls out to you at work or when you're sleeping....ride me, ride me, and you long for the pull of that low end power coming out of corners and that soothing beat on the highway.  Tough to put in words really.  

[Mookie]

I just think that if he could have, he still would have chosen something like the KTM 990 motor.  Still light weight but more power and more top end while still retaining nice low end drive.

I would love a Buell XB12 (L?  long?) as my daily commuter.  


/I'll settle for a 675 for now

[CBRXXBLACKBIRD]

Rogue It's the type of motorcycle that calls out to you at work or when you're sleeping....ride me, ride me, and you long for the pull of that low end power coming out of corners and that soothing beat on the highway.

I must have a different motor in mine. theres nothing smooth or alot of pull on my X1 it only has 2900miles on it.

[Asphalt_Carver]

CBRXXBLACKBIRD, you just have to break open the savings account and purchase either a 2006 or later Firebolt like Rogue or Lightning like mine.  The difference is amazing, especially regarding the transmission!

[bizarro]

The Buell motors is what defines Buell motorcycles.  It's not what detracts from it.

This is your opinion, which I respect, but it's an opinion.  (italics mine) I would agree that the motor is what defines the Buell, along with their aesthetics, which, for the most part, I like.

[bizarro]

Oh, you weren't talking to me.

[CBRXXBLACKBIRD]

CBRXXBLACKBIRD, you just have to break open the savings account and purchase either a 2006 or later Firebolt like Rogue or Lightning like mine.  The difference is amazing, especially regarding the transmission!

So I bought a pooch? Whats the hp and torque difference?

[PlayWithGravity]

It's the type of motorcycle that calls out to you at work or when you're sleeping....ride me, ride me, and you long for the pull of that low end power coming out of corners and that soothing beat on the highway.  Tough to put in words really.  

Mine was singing to me from the parking lot today at work, so HAD to go out and burn up 50 miles at lunchtime  

[Asphalt_Carver]

No disrespect to CBRXXBLACKBIRD intended!

I just think that 2006 was a watershed year for Buell in terms of overall improvement and firm commitment to quality control from the get go.  In the past, I would never have considered a Buell, but Rogue liked his Firebolt so much that I thought I should take a closer look.  Once I did, it was off to San Diego Buell to buy the Lightning Long.  

Haven't regretted that decision one bit which is amazing since I was dead-on set to buy a Ducati Monster and am a dedicated Ducati MotoGP supporter!

[CBRXXBLACKBIRD]

I will have to demo a XB12 I do like the dual headlight, even though the X1 doesnt have the power I would like for my first day of riding it was not bad.

[Rogue]

This is your opinion, which I respect, but it's an opinion.  (italics mine) I would agree that the motor is what defines the Buell, along with their aesthetics, which, for the most part, I like.

But in many bikes of differing makes, more often than not their motors define their personality.  Let's face it, what are motorcycles? Simply conveyences.  But put a great motor in there with a ton of character and it BECOMES the bike.  

Examples:  Hayabusa/ZZR1400
               Triumph Daytona 675
               Triumph Bonneville
               Motto Guzzi - all of them
               BMW R1200S/R1200R
               Ducati 900SS/1000DS
               VFR
               SV650
               V-Rod
               Vincent HRD Black Shadow
               ZX11

Just to name a few....

[Rogue]

Haven't regretted that decision one bit which is amazing since I was dead-on set to buy a Ducati Monster and am a dedicated Ducati MotoGP supporter!

Don't forget, of Italian descent as well.  

[bizarro]

But in many bikes of differing makes, more often than not their motors define their personality.  Let's face it, what are motorcycles? Simply conveyences.  But put a great motor in there with a ton of character and it BECOMES the bike.  

Well, that's what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant was that I agree that the motor in Buells define them. Certainly. What I disagreed with was your contention that the motor in Buells is not what detracts from them. From my standpoint the motor is exactly why I wouldn't buy a Buell. No biggy.  

[Rogue]

So I bought a pooch? Whats the hp and torque difference?

I have never ridden an X1 so I don't know what the difference is.

I do however, remember Cycle World's long term X1.  They loved and hated that bike.  Their overall verdict was that the X1 was a ton of fun hampered by a motor that was choked from the factory.  They ended up fitting their X1 with a Screaming Eagle performance kit.  I believe it included a camshaft, electronics, new air filter, exhaust, etc.  It's a kit but not as simple as a bolt on slip-on.  Anyway, I remember very well their results of that kit really woke up the bike, and CW recommended it to every X1 owner.  They described it as transforming their X1 to what it should have been like from the factory.

XB12R/XB12S power:

86-92 rwhp @6,800 RPM (depending on dyno)
78-85 ft. lbs. torque at rear wheels

[CBRXXBLACKBIRD]

Don't get me wrong I really like this bike just wish for more power. I grin from ear to ear while riding it.  

[naustin]

I must have a different motor in mine. theres nothing smooth or alot of pull on my X1 it only has 2900miles on it.

As per the other thread - I think you're lean with leaky intake seals or some other issue.  Also, if you don't have the Race ECM and the pro series exhaust (the map and pipe really intended for the bike) then you're riding the EPA neutered version and there is a big difference.  

THe X1 (and my S3) is rated for 101hp and 90ft lbs of torque - (peak numbers at the crank).  The xb12 is rated for 103 or something.  There shouldn't be much seat of the pants difference in raw power between an x1 and an xb12.  THe refinements between the models were in geometry and obviously the frame - the transmission and the suspension and the overall polish of the fuel injection system, and many general improvements - for example the breather setup and rocker box covers were changed.   Actual power numbers have not changed much.

[cyeager]

Thor, if your watches are 2-8 seconds off per day, it's time to have them regulated.

A couple of seconds a day is within swiss watch standards for mechanicals. You can send it back to be regulated, but it wont get fixed since it isnt broken. IIRC 4-seconds is considered to be about as good as it gets, anything less than that is a matter of luck.

Lots of first time watch buyers get all pissed off when they find out that their expensive new self-winding mechanical is less accurate that a 2 dollar digital watch bought at the grocery checkout. I use a $5 timex quartz to regulate my $100 Seiko automatic. People do not (or should not) buy mechanical watches for their accuracy, they buy them because they are cool.

Which kinda brings us back to the whole Buell thing. Being perfectly accurate and technically superior are not the only measures of the quality of a motorcycle or a watch. One must consider the intangibles. In this way the Buel is a lot like a mechanical swiss watch. It is well designed for what it does, it strikes a sort of industrial-techno vibe, and it does so by utilizing technology that was well and truly surpassed (in terms of performance) quite some time ago.

[AngelDeville]

The Buell is on my short list of bikes to buy, if all I wanted was speed I'd be looking at a GSX-CBR-Haya-whatever.

If the engine was more refined, I probably wouldn't be looking at it.
Refinement is what knocked the Triumph S3 off my list, after a test ride, I found it was too perfect. My bikes gotta be a little on the nasty side, kinda like my women.

[PlayWithGravity]

A couple of seconds a day is within swiss watch standards for mechanicals. You can send it back to be regulated, but it wont get fixed since it isnt broken. IIRC 4-seconds is considered to be about as good as it gets, anything less than that is a matter of luck.

Lots of first time watch buyers get all pissed off when they find out that their expensive new self-winding mechanical is less accurate that a 2 dollar digital watch bought at the grocery checkout. I use a $5 timex quartz to regulate my $100 Seiko automatic. People do not (or should not) buy mechanical watches for their accuracy, they buy them because they are cool.

Which kinda brings us back to the whole Buell thing. Being perfectly accurate and technically superior are not the only measures of the quality of a motorcycle or a watch. One must consider the intangibles. In this way the Buel is a lot like a mechanical swiss watch. It is well designed for what it does, it strikes a sort of industrial-techno vibe, and it does so by utilizing technology that was well and truly surpassed (in terms of performance) quite some time ago.

LOL - I love this guy!

[steve.ski]

A couple of seconds a day is within swiss watch standards for mechanicals. You can send it back to be regulated, but it wont get fixed since it isnt broken. IIRC 4-seconds is considered to be about as good as it gets, anything less than that is a matter of luck.

Lots of first time watch buyers get all pissed off when they find out that their expensive new self-winding mechanical is less accurate that a 2 dollar digital watch bought at the grocery checkout. I use a $5 timex quartz to regulate my $100 Seiko automatic. People do not (or should not) buy mechanical watches for their accuracy, they buy them because they are cool.

Which kinda brings us back to the whole Buell thing. Being perfectly accurate and technically superior are not the only measures of the quality of a motorcycle or a watch. One must consider the intangibles. In this way the Buel is a lot like a mechanical swiss watch. It is well designed for what it does, it strikes a sort of industrial-techno vibe, and it does so by utilizing technology that was well and truly surpassed (in terms of performance) quite some time ago.

COSC is -4 to +6, so yes, his 2-8 is within tolerance. My Panerai & Bretiling are nearly dead nuts though. My old Seamaster was nearly perfect.

The analogy to a mechanical watch is pretty accurate, but really all motorcycles are exceedingly mechanical. Technology rears it's ugly head at times, and can remove any shade of character a machine used to exude. That's what makes the Buells so cool. Character and thumbing a collective nose at "better" technology...

[Kootenanny]

I don't buy it.  Eric started his design, while working at Harley, with a square four motor from England...

He uses Harley engines because Harley owns Buell.  Harley is a motor company.  The motor is their thing.

Hmmm...AFAIK, the Barton engine was used because it was a race engine, and nothing H-D made in the early 80s was gonna be competetive.  I don't know if more than one RW750 was ever made.  Erik started using H-D engines after the AMA yanked the rug out by cancelling the 750 race class, and he decided to build street bikes.  He had a relationship with H-D because he was a former employee, but at the time H-D did NOT own the company--as it says in the article you linked to, H-D bought 49% of Buell's company in 1993 (and another 49% around 98 or 99, and I believe they own 100% now).  

Nowadays, yeah there would probably be no way Buell could switch engines (I'm curious about the Rotax singles they're supposedly sourcing for their dirt bikes), but the original decision to use H-D engines was made before H-D bought the company.  

I have faith in Buell's design ideas, but he has yet to really build a successfull engine from the ground up. Where's his square 4 now?

Producing a new engine "from the ground up" is a long and difficult process, which has put a number of small motorcycle producers into financial distress if not outright bankruptcy over the past few years.  From a business perspective, using an off-the-shelf engine makes good sense--even then, it's a hard run (think Fischer and Roehr).

Other than the pushrod design Eric has made the 1203 motor a very modern engine.

Actually, there's nothing outdated about pushrods--depending on the requirements of the engine, pushrods may make perfect sense.  For example, I can't think of an industrial diesel engine that has OHC, yet modern diesels are about at modern as engines get.  The main reason for using an overhead cam is to reduce reciprocating mass, which allows for higher RPM.  The Buell twin is already limited in RPM by the basic engine architecture and stroke length, there would be no reason to change the valvetrain unless you're gonna redesign the whole engine.  As it is, each valve has a dedicated, gear-driven camshaft--you could describe it as DUHC (Dual UnderHead Cam)...

Anyway, AFAIK the decision to use H-D derived engines in Buell motorcycles was made for a number of reasons, both engineering and business, and it has worked well--Buell not only builds bikes that are fun to ride, but it  produces them at an affordable price and does so as a viable business.  Not too many "recent" motorcycle companies that can say that...

[Rogue]

Regarding pushrod engines and aircooling, the statement about designing an engine to fit the application is very true.

In the general aviation world, there is only one type of engine that is generally used:  the aircooled horizontally opposed pushrod design.  Why?  Well, some years ago the general aviation community sent representatives around the world as well as consulted with NASA to come up with ideas about the next generation of GA powerplant.  The result of the study:  the BEST GA engine design is the aircooled, horizontally opposed pushrod design!

Now don't go thinking these engines are archaic designs from the 1940's and has never evolved.  Todays GA piston engines are thoroughly modern designs with computer controlled FI systems, ignitions, lightweight materials, etc.  As a matter of fact, the most modern of these use FADEC, which stands for Full Authority Digital Engine Control, which in general, is a cousing of automotive computer controlled engines of today.  These engines also come in a variety of versions from normally aspirated to twin turbocharged and intercooled powerhouses that are very efficient and very reliable, capable of lasting 2,000 TBO (time between overhauls) if used properly.  

My point is, just because it is pushrod and aircooled doesn't mean it is low tech--which is the general opinion of people who don't know many of the facts about them.  

[GS1100GK]

Kootenanny wrote:

Actually, there's nothing outdated about pushrods--depending on the requirements of the engine, pushrods may make perfect sense.  For example, I can't think of an industrial diesel engine that has OHC, yet modern diesels are about at modern as engines get.  The main reason for using an overhead cam is to reduce reciprocating mass, which allows for higher RPM.  The Buell twin is already limited in RPM by the basic engine architecture and stroke length, there would be no reason to change the valvetrain unless you're gonna redesign the whole engine.  As it is, each valve has a dedicated, gear-driven camshaft--you could describe it as DUHC (Dual UnderHead Cam)...

Anyway, AFAIK the decision to use H-D derived engines in Buell motorcycles was made for a number of reasons, both engineering and business, and it has worked well--Buell not only builds bikes that are fun to ride, but it  produces them at an affordable price and does so as a viable business.  Not too many "recent" motorcycle companies that can say that...

I agree with everything you said.   I should have prefaced my remark that some people consider pushrod outdated technology.

Pushrods definitely have their applications.  Don't quote me on this but I believe that Kawasaki specifically said they designed the Vulcan 2000 motor with pushrods to keep engine hight to a minimum and that it made sense.    

[1moreroad]

That's because although I know there will be more top end power, smoothness, and the hi-tech details, it would also come with a bunch of baggage like weight, complexity, and most of all, higher maintenance.

Explain to me how, in the 21st century, a radiator and a couple of hoses will add a bunch of weight, complexity, and higher maintenance?  Yes, there will be a little of each, but quantify it.  There will be lots of folks willing to trade 10 pounds of radiator and hoses + 26,000 mile valve checks for a broader powerband.  This ain't new technology -- heck, Honda has offered liquid cooled car engines with higher redlines than Buells for over 10 years now.

Air-cooled twins have low rpm power bands, not broad power bands.  BMW boxers are gutless under 4000 rpms and redline around 8000 rpms IIRC.  In spite of giving up 2000 ccs of displacement (and admittedly 100 pounds of weight), an old CBR929 pulls a lot harder at 3000 rpms than a BMW RT pulls at 4000.  

What if a Buell made the same torque at 4000 rpms -- which is mostly a function of displacement -- but made that torque out to 10,000 or 11,000 rpms?  Yeah, horsepower would be up, too, but that's not my point for this discussion.  The engine would have all the advantages you guys like so much, just more of them.

Comparing the Sportster to the V-Rod engine strikes me as apples-to-oranges in spite of their displacement.  In the age of 430 pound Gixxer-1000s I have a hard time believing that liquid cooling automatically adds 100 pounds.  I doubt weight has ever been a priority for HDs, so it was not tightly controlled like it has to be on a race bike, including Buells XBRR.

It seems like, especially when Harley itself, offers a liquid cooled bike, Buell is being different just to be different, not because of any real engineering advantage in not offering a liquid cooled variant.  It would be nice to see what he could come up with with a liquid cooled engine.

[Rogue]

Explain to me how, in the 21st century, a radiator and a couple of hoses will add a bunch of weight, complexity, and higher maintenance?  Yes, there will be a little of each, but quantify it.  There will be lots of folks willing to trade 10 pounds of radiator and hoses + 26,000 mile valve checks for a broader powerband.  This ain't new technology -- heck, Honda has offered liquid cooled car engines with higher redlines than Buells for over 10 years now.

Air-cooled twins have low rpm power bands, not broad power bands.  BMW boxers are gutless under 4000 rpms and redline around 8000 rpms IIRC.  In spite of giving up 2000 ccs of displacement (and admittedly 100 pounds of weight), an old CBR929 pulls a lot harder at 3000 rpms than a BMW RT pulls at 4000.  

Liquid cooling, DOHC, Throttle Body Synchronization, all this requires yearly (normal 15k miles/year) adjustments in most modern bike engines.  With the exception of Yamaha, which has their valve inspections recommended every 26,000miles.  Most others require valve inspections, and FI syncronization every 15k miles.  Some of them require coolant to be flushed to remove their radiators to get to the DOHC.  Most of them require camshafts to be removed.  

Have you ever done a valve inspection?  It is a very involved job that requires serious take down of everything on top of your engine.  Not hard mind you, just involved.  This is why most people justify skipping it or get someone else to do it.  Supposedly, this is the price we all pay for all that power and high RPM redlines.  Well you know what?  You can all have it.  Go ahead and pay for all that work or spend all that time doing all that work.  I'm sick of it and refuse to do it anymore.  I used to believe this was necessary to have tons of fun on my bike.  

No it isn't!  I have a lot of fun on my Buell.  Lots more than I had on my Hayabusa or my VFR.  So no!  I don't need high RPM, ultra-high horsepower.  Nor am I willing to pay the price for it.  I put a lot of miles on my bike.  I ride year round.  It's not unusual for me to put 15k a year on any one of my bikes.  So maintenance matters a great deal to me.

This is what I mean about "baggage".

As far as weight, did you not read my initial post?  140 lbs for the 1203 versus 220 lbs for the V-Rod motor.  

And your comment about BMW Boxers being gutless under 4k RPM....any boxer owners care to comment?  

What if Buell made a motor that produced 85 ft. lbs. of torque at 10k RPM?  What if it produced it at 7K RPM, which is closer to where most DOHC, liquid cooled motors do?  Is this better?  Have you ridden a bike with torque at 3k RPM?  How about one with lots of torque right off idle?  Ridden one of those?  It's a difference sensation.  It's just as much fun as riding a bike that puts out the same torque at 10k RPM except you have to be at 10k RPM to feel it!  Revving the piss out of a motor in the twisties is a lot of work.  Especially in tight twisties.  Even more so, at high RPM's the throttle becomes pretty sensitive.  If you're used to this, you don't notice.  Up until you ride a bike with tons of torque down low where you don't need to be revving the piss out of it to get a strong drive out of the corners.  It is a relaxed type of sensation although you're still moving pretty fast.  I like to describe it as a muscle-car type feel.

Aaahh....I'm tired of typing and trying to explain all this to you.

Want to know what it's like?  Snag a ride from a Buell owner then maybe you will understand.  If that doesn't interest you and prefer to rev your motor abov 8 grand, that's fine! Have at it.  That's why we all have these choices.  Us happy Buell owners made our own choices too.  

[photomd]

The liquid cooled V-Rod motor was originally a Buell design.  H-D told Erik that Buell would have primary user of this motor, with H-D secondary.  Somewhere along the way, H-D changed their mind and wanted to be the primary user.  H-D took the design in-house, then sub-contracted the rest to Porsche.  That's when the motor became big, heavy, and complicated.  

This sounds a little bit like marketing to me. According to this article the VR1000 was the inspiration to the V-rod motor. It's a 60 degree twin with 4 valve cylinders and liquid cooling. Then according to this article the project started in 1988. Seems to me the basic architecture was in place well before Buell was in place at HD. Maybe he played with bore and stroke, ignition and FI, but I doubt it was more than that.

[1moreroad]

Liquid cooling, DOHC, Throttle Body Synchronization, all this requires yearly (normal 15k miles/year) adjustments in most modern bike engines.

Good point.  I shouldn't have said 26,000 miles.  Average mileage on a motorcycle is somewhere around 5k - 10k per year (NADA guides has a very rough formula IIRC that annual mileage = displacement x 10 for depreciation purposes).  So liquid cooling takes 1 day every 1.5 - 3 years.  Not a significant time or cost for most riders.  Particularly when a new Buell sells at a price premium compared to Big 4 bikes.

Kootenanny has a good point.  You can't do a pushrod motor with high rpms.  And the Corvette proves pushrods are not antiquated tech.  So it would be a radically different motor.

As far as weight, did you not read my initial post?  140 lbs for the 1203 versus 220 lbs for the V-Rod motor.

You didn't read mine.  In the age of 440 lb wet weight Gixxer 1ks, I have a LOT of trouble believing that liquid cooling adds 80 lbs **if** weight is a priority, which I doubt it ever has been for Harley street bikes.

Even more so, at high RPM's the throttle becomes pretty sensitive.

No.  Take Reg Pridmore's class.  This was almost certainly true in a 1970s 4 stroke that doubled its hp in 1000 rpms but IMO it's not true of any modern multi-cylinder 4 stroke bike (twins to 4s).  Certainly none that I have ridden.  If anything Honda and some other brands FI have made low rpm throttle very sensitive.

And your comment about BMW Boxers being gutless under 4k RPM....any boxer owners care to comment?

Go to your local BMW dealer -- Long Beach or San Diego or wherever -- and try to roll on the throttle of a 1200 cc boxer motor at 3k or 3500 rpms and tell me what happens (answer: the engine lugs).

Want to know what it's like?  Snag a ride from a Buell owner then maybe you will understand.

I've tried.  You won't let me.  

Look, Buell has some good ideas.  I've never argued with that.  But the point of this thread was to push some justification for the Sportster engine.  It's a rationalization.  Buell made an arbitrary decision that carries "baggage" with it.  It's a trade-off, no different than trying to decide whether you want a Ulysses or a KTM 950 for whatever definition of "dual sport" you have.  The Sportster engine NOT superior by any definition unless you create so many conditions to make it so.

It is good that he offers an alternative, but I get tired of folks on this board having to defend their purchase as somehow superior to justify their purchase.

[Kootenanny]

Look, Buell has some good ideas....But the point of this thread was to push some justification for the Sportster engine.  It's a rationalization.  Buell made an arbitrary decision that carries "baggage" with it.  It's a trade-off, no different than trying to decide whether you want a Ulysses or a KTM 950 for whatever definition of "dual sport" you have.  The Sportster engine NOT superior by any definition unless you create so many conditions to make it so.


It is good that he offers an alternative, but I get tired of folks on this board having to defend their purchase as somehow superior to justify their purchase.

Y'know, I agree completely here.  I love my Buell, and I'm willing to defend it against "bashers," but I also get a bit tired of the guys (lots over on the Badweb) who think the Buell engine is so very, very superior.

I'd rather say hey, it's a good engine, it does what it's supposed to, and it has a certain feel to it that's part of the whole Buell riding experience so many of us love (and hey, many don't--but I'll respect their opinions a lot more if they've actually ridden a Buell, not just read the spec sheet!).  If I wanted horsepower, I could easily have purchased a ZX-10R or similar bike, but I actually prefer riding my Buell, and partly because I like the way the engine feels.  If I was constantly being left behind by my riding partners I might be frustrated, but the fact is that this very seldom happens (once that I recall, the guy was a former roadracer riding a 999R--he was FAST!)

One comment about water cooling and weight--in the early days, water cooling might have added significant weight, but these days water cooling doesn't necessarily add any weight at all (in some cases, a water cooled engine will weigh less than it's air cooled equivalent).  This is because, while water cooled engines require, of course, water and a radiator, an air cooled engine requires thicker castings and fins.  Now, from a durability standpoint, thicker parts and cooling fins are definitely more robust and less complicated than a block swiss-cheesed with coolant chambers, a delicate radiator exposed to the elements, a water pump, and all the associated gaskets, but the reliability of water-cooled engines hasn't been questioned for decades.  To me, the difference is negligable; I'll buy whatever bike moves me, regardless of whether it's cooled by water, air, or freon.

[GS1100GK]

Y'know, I agree completely here.  I love my Buell, and I'm willing to defend it against "bashers," but I also get a bit tired of the guys (lots over on the Badweb) who think the Buell engine is so very, very superior.

I'd rather say hey, it's a good engine, it does what it's supposed to, and it has a certain feel to it that's part of the whole Buell riding experience so many of us love (and hey, many don't--but I'll respect their opinions a lot more if they've actually ridden a Buell, not just read the spec sheet!).  If I wanted horsepower, I could easily have purchased a ZX-10R or similar bike, but I actually prefer riding my Buell, and partly because I like the way the engine feels.  If I was constantly being left behind by my riding partners I might be frustrated, but the fact is that this very seldom happens (once that I recall, the guy was a former roadracer riding a 999R--he was FAST!)

One comment about water cooling and weight--in the early days, water cooling might have added significant weight, but these days water cooling doesn't necessarily add any weight at all (in some cases, a water cooled engine will weigh less than it's air cooled equivalent).  This is because, while water cooled engines require, of course, water and a radiator, an air cooled engine requires thicker castings and fins.  Now, from a durability standpoint, thicker parts and cooling fins are definitely more robust and less complicated than a block swiss-cheesed with coolant chambers, a delicate radiator exposed to the elements, a water pump, and all the associated gaskets, but the reliability of water-cooled engines hasn't been questioned for decades.  To me, the difference is negligable; I'll buy whatever bike moves me, regardless of whether it's cooled by water, air, or freon.

 

Personally, it is the ride not the motor that matters to me now.  Although, I have to admit the test ride on the ZZR1200 and it's big power was a BIG selling point.  That being said, I test rode an XB12X Ulysses last year down a windy road and loved the power and feel.  I then took my ZZR1200 down the same road and all of the sudden the power the ZZR1200 made didn't seem that special.  In fact, I was faster down the road on the Buell than I was on my ZZR1200 and I hadn't even ridden the Buell before that ride.  Just tells me the Buell is just a better balanced bike.

[naustin]

If this thread was over at BWB, somebody would have been stabbed by now.  Its nice to see people conduct themselves thoughtfully and courteously.  

[Rogue]

I've tried.  You won't let me.  

Look, Buell has some good ideas.  I've never argued with that.  But the point of this thread was to push some justification for the Sportster engine.  It's a rationalization.  Buell made an arbitrary decision that carries "baggage" with it.  It's a trade-off, no different than trying to decide whether you want a Ulysses or a KTM 950 for whatever definition of "dual sport" you have.  The Sportster engine NOT superior by any definition unless you create so many conditions to make it so.

Huh?  Do I know you?  

Listen, all I did was post what I read about Erik's interview.  I never said the Buell motor was "superior" to current engine design nor push some justification for the Buell motor in any way.  Some of you are jumping the gun and maybe think that's what I'm saying.  I said, I prefer it for all the reasons I've already said.  And if others prefer the high-revving motors, that's fine with me.  I just don't anymore because of its high maintenance requirements.  You broke down the maintenance as being once per 3 years.  Yeah.  If you don't ride that much.  Like I said, I easily put 15k miles/year on my bike.  To me, spending $400 a pop on major maintenance per year is a lot of unnecessary costs.  In addition, it means I have to take the bike to someone I can't trust who will either not do the actual work or screw something up.  I've had Japanese bikes all my life.  I know the drill.  

Most owners including yourself seem to always justify the high maintenance of DOHC/liquid cooled engines because it's a given.  Oh it's not as expensive as people say.  Oh it's not as often as you think.  Oh you can do most of that work yourself.  Oh it's very easy to do with simple tools.  Where have I heard all those arguments before?    The bottom line is, if you were to take a 5 year ownership period and multiply that by your 10k miles/per average, that's 50k miles.  That means you will have to do at least 3 major service maintenance work on your bike.  If each one is $400, well you just spend $1200 more!  That's not counting probably 2 new chains/sprocket sets.  Now you just spent $1,700 more over 5 years.  Some will argue that's not a whole lot spread over 5 years.  True for most of us.  But the point is, why the need in the first place?  Well, with a your DOHC/liquid cooling, you either accept it or move on to something else.  Well, I don't want to accept it and I don't have to anymore.  Thank you Buell.

As for BMW boxer's being gutless below 4k RPM, that's probably because of their tall gearing.  I'll bet that on a different model, like say the R or S, this is not the case.  I actually did test ride an S before and I don't remember it to be gutless below 4k RPM.  But that was a while ago.  

[GS1100GK]

Huh?  Do I know you?  

Listen, all I did was post what I read about Erik's interview.  I never said the Buell motor was "superior" to current engine design nor push some justification for the Buell motor in any way.  Some of you are jumping the gun and maybe think that's what I'm saying.  I said, I prefer it for all the reasons I've already said.  And if others prefer the high-revving motors, that's fine with me.  I just don't anymore because of its high maintenance requirements.  You broke down the maintenance as being once per 3 years.  Yeah.  If you don't ride that much.  Like I said, I easily put 15k miles/year on my bike.  To me, spending $400 a pop on major maintenance per year is a lot of unnecessary costs.  In addition, it means I have to take the bike to someone I can't trust who will either not do the actual work or screw something up.  I've had Japanese bikes all my life.  I know the drill.  

Most owners including yourself seem to always justify the high maintenance of DOHC/liquid cooled engines because it's a given.  Oh it's not as expensive as people say.  Oh it's not as often as you think.  Oh you can do most of that work yourself.  Oh it's very easy to do with simple tools.  Where have I heard all those arguments before?    The bottom line is, if you were to take a 5 year ownership period and multiply that by your 10k miles/per average, that's 50k miles.  That means you will have to do at least 3 major service maintenance work on your bike.  If each one is $400, well you just spend $1200 more!  That's not counting probably 2 new chains/sprocket sets.  Now you just spent $1,700 more over 5 years.  Some will argue that's not a whole lot spread over 5 years.  True for most of us.  But the point is, why the need in the first place?  Well, with a your DOHC/liquid cooling, you either accept it or move on to something else.  Well, I don't want to accept it and I don't have to anymore.  Thank you Buell.

As for BMW boxer's being gutless below 4k RPM, that's probably because of their tall gearing.  I'll bet that on a different model, like say the R or S, this is not the case.  I actually did test ride an S before and I don't remember it to be gutless below 4k RPM.  But that was a while ago.  

  +1

[Kootenanny]

If this thread was over at BWB, somebody would have been stabbed by now.

Possibly me...  

[CBRXXBLACKBIRD]

If this thread was over at BWB, somebody would have been stabbed by now.  Its nice to see people conduct themselves thoughtfully and courteously.  

Yes they are dead serious about their Buells.  

[rauchman]

Interesting thread.  I took a test ride on a XB12R and XB12Ss a few weeks ago.  I was thoroughly impressed with both bikes but really took a shine to the Firebolt.  The Lightening Long had effortless handling through windy roads, but the naked thing gets old to me after a while.  The Firebolt was a smidge tougher to push through the turns, but I think this could be fixed w/ suspension adjustments.  It was still a very easy bike to ride though.  I purposely took a couple of corners w/o downshifting and yes, the torque easily pulled the bike through.  The first time I did it was a little unnerving since it "sounded" like the engine was ready to bog with the revs so low.  My wife has a Z1000 and while it's a great handling wickedly fast bike, it is without a doubt void of something in it's character that the Buell has a shitload of.  Ultimately, I believe this character is based off the engine.  That Sportster based engine doesn't have the top end of the I-4 engines, but for the street, I'm learning I don't need that top end as much as I'd rather have a meaty low and mid range.  As cool as the Buell is, they as of yet don't offer a platform that I'd be willing to plunk down money for.  If/when they come out with a true ST (the Ulysses is not an ST to me), then I'd seriously consider one.

[Rogue]

I have found that yes, it is possible to bring the engine revs down to 2k and it will pull very cleanly, without hesitation nor harshness, thanks to all that torque, the well sorted FI, and the snatch-free belt drive.

On a few occassions when I got caught in a corner that was tighter than I anticipated and I needed 1st gear instead of 2nd, I have had to do the above without any adverse effects.  It surprised me the first few times that happened.  Try doing that on my VFR!  Even the Busa doesn't like to be THAT low in the RPM range.  It's throttle responses multiplied with the driveline lash makes it real jerky at low speed thus, making it harder to ride.

Now that I'm used to it, I know which gear to use most of the time.  I have found that keeping it above 3k RPM gives the best drive out of corners, while having just the right amount of engine braking to set me up for the next corner.

Ridden this way, and with the suspension set up properly, the bike just flies through the corner like greased lightning!  

[Rogue]

I too wish Buell would make a "true" sport-tourer in a manner like the VFR.

But alas, I don't believe that Buell thinks this type of bike will sell well.  So the only recourse for those who prefer a VFR-like Buell is to turn the Firebolt into one.  Of course, you can only do that up to a point.  Raise the bars.  Bigger windshield.  Lower pegs.  And if you're so inclined, an aftermarket full fairing.  

This is unfortunate because the 1203 cc V-twin makes a great sport-touring engine in my opinion.  It is very relaxed at cruising speeds even up to over 100.  

[PlayWithGravity]

What does the Uly NOT have that would make it a better ST?  For me I prefer to tour on my Firebolt  

Rogue, you mention an aftermarket full fairing for the 'Bolt.... do you happen to have a link??

[naustin]

How bout a full fairing on a Uly?  

[PlayWithGravity]

Nice work, naustin !

[Rogue]

What does the Uly NOT have that would make it a better ST?  For me I prefer to tour on my Firebolt  

Rogue, you mention an aftermarket full fairing for the 'Bolt.... do you happen to have a link??

I don't have a link at this moment.  I have seen in it BWB.  There's even a guy there that is selling his Firebolt with one.  I'm guessing it's from an aftermarket race fairing manufacturer like Sharskins?  The top portion looks just like the OEM 1/4 fairing molded smoothly into a bottom fairing the fully encloses the bike.  Buell's original design of the Firebolt had this fairing but they went with the skeletonized one to showcase the motor.  

The Ully is a tall bike with a raised suspension.  Not my cup of tea.  It looks like a dirtbike on steriods.  It looks cool in a functional sort of way.  And if I planned to take dirt trails, this would make sense.  But I spend 100% of my time on paved roads and have no plans to go offroad, even on trails.  So the Ully doesn't fit my riding style.

[1moreroad]

There was a fully faired XB in the company garage a few weeks ago for a few weeks with AZ plates.  Metallic copper paint.  It emphasized just how small the XBs are sitting next to the Japanese sportbikes.  Looked decent.

[naustin]

But I spend 100% of my time on paved roads and have no plans to go offroad, even on trails.  So the Ully doesn't fit my riding style.

Don't be so sure.  The Uly's extra suspension travel is absolutely beautiful at soaking up freeway expansion joints and rough pavement.  Set the suspension soft and float down the superslab - then, when you get to your destination, remove the luggage, crank down the fully adjustable suspension and carve up the corners as well as just about anything.  The Uly is certainly a tall bike, but it isn't tippy or top heavy at all.  The wide high leverage handlebar makes it feel very flickable.  Even Buell will tell you that the Uly is first and foremost and "on-road" motorcycle.  It just has the advantage that it won't complain if you decide to wander up a bumpy dirt road for a picture at the old covered bridge now and then.  

[Rogue]

Oh yeah.  The Ully rocks.  Buell did a great job on it, and they definitely hit the market on the spot.  Excellent marketing on their part.  Motorcyclist Magazine compared the BMW R1200GS/KTM950 Adventure/Ully recently and they chose the Ully for on-road travel over the others.  

However, it's just not for me right now.  I'm still in the Sportbike phase of my addiction.  

[photomd]

I wish they'd make an updated, reliable version of the S3T. That bike like naustin has in his avatar is one of the prettiest bikes ever made, IMHO. It was the stories of broken fairings, engine problems, etc that have kept me away...but then again I ride BMW's  (which actually do have power all the way to 2000rpm if tuned properly )...what do I know?  

[naustin]

Hey photomd, thanks man.  

A 2001 or 2002 S3T would be worth an interview.  The bodywork was made from a different material after 2000.   My bags did start to show hairline cracks, but I just had a guy lay down a layer of fiberglass on the inside as many other owners have down, and presto - problem solved.  I had some drive-ability issues until I replaced the dry rotted intake seals.  And I had to replace the front motor mount (also deteriorated rubber), but hey, I bought the bike used after it had been sitting untouched for over 2 years, and both the bags look to have been touched down on some aggressive cornering once upon a time, so I have not been disappointed so far.

There are a LOT of Buell owners who'd love to see a reincarnation of the S3t.  I sent Erik a copy of that picture of the fully faired ULy I did.  I got a nice thank you back with his signature on it.  Maybe someday, eh?

[rauchman]

What does the Uly NOT have that would make it a better ST?  For me I prefer to tour on my Firebolt  

Rogue, you mention an aftermarket full fairing for the 'Bolt.... do you happen to have a link??

Granted the Uly is a cool bike on it's own, but not something I would want.  When I took my test ride on the Buells I sat on the Uly and even with the 2007 seat, it was still really high up and I'm 5'11" with a 34" inseam.  My buddy who was with me on the test ride is 2" or so taller than me and he found it too high as well.  Again, a cool bike, but not something I'm interested in.  I'm interested in a Firebolt with a slightly larger and higher up fairing.  Guage cluster mounted a little higher.  That rear flip seat thing on the Uly is a very cool idea.  I want a bike that does at least a solid 200 miles per tank.  A larger gas tank, preferably something 5 gallons or more, but I'd settle on the Uly/Lightening Long frame/tank.  Some kind of rack to mount side luggage.  2 12 volt plugs.

On the Firebolt fairing..... does the fairing present heat management problems.  I understand on the 06 or 07 the air intake on the left side was redirected to flow air over the rear cylinder to reduce heat.  I wonder with the fairing covering up everything, would that make the bike run hot.

[PlayWithGravity]

I want a bike that does at least a solid 200 miles per tank.  A larger gas tank, preferably something 5 gallons or more, but I'd settle on the Uly/Lightening Long frame/tank.  Some kind of rack to mount side luggage.  2 12 volt plugs.

I know it's not 200, but while 'touring' I easily get 145 miles per tank even with the race kit.

Cortech soft side luggage works quite nicely on my Firebolt, check my avatar  Along with the Lightning footpegs that I put on it does pretty well as an ST.

[Rogue]

On the Firebolt fairing..... does the fairing present heat management problems.  I understand on the 06 or 07 the air intake on the left side was redirected to flow air over the rear cylinder to reduce heat.  I wonder with the fairing covering up everything, would that make the bike run hot.

On the early XB's, the left side airscoop directed fresh air into the airbox AND the rear cylinder.

I think in 2006 the airbox got its own source of fresh air, so the airscoop now directs 100% of its air to the rear cylinder.  When the fan kicks in, I can feel hot air flowing towards the rear of the bike, right above the rear tire.  So, I don't really feel any hot air flowing up towards me when I'm riding.

[rauchman]

On the early XB's, the left side airscoop directed fresh air into the airbox AND the rear cylinder.

I think in 2006 the airbox got its own source of fresh air, so the airscoop now directs 100% of its air to the rear cylinder.  When the fan kicks in, I can feel hot air flowing towards the rear of the bike, right above the rear tire.  So, I don't really feel any hot air flowing up towards me when I'm riding.

Sorry, should have clarified this more.  Someone mentioned the Firebolt w/ an aftermarket lower fairing.  I've seen somebody with one on the BWB site.  Was wondering with the aftermarket lower fairing, would that trap a lot of heat on the bike?

[Rogue]

Was wondering with the aftermarket lower fairing, would that trap a lot of heat on the bike?

I have no scientific evidence to prove this.  But I'm pretty sure it would in traffic.  Most of the XB's I have seen with it are race bikes.

Pic courtesy of American Sportbikes webpage of Customer Rides.

[naustin]

Shouldnt the top edge of the fairing follow the bottom edge of the frame?  Every time I see that body kit, it just pisses me off that it looks crooked.

[roadrailer]

Granted the Uly is a cool bike on it's own, but not something I would want.  When I took my test ride on the Buells I sat on the Uly and even with the 2007 seat, it was still really high up and I'm 5'11" with a 34" inseam.  My buddy who was with me on the test ride is 2" or so taller than me and he found it too high as well.  Again, a cool bike, but not something I'm interested in.  

Too high for what? With an inseam that long you should have both feet virtually flat on the ground.

Oh yeah.  The Ully rocks.  Buell did a great job on it, and they definitely hit the market on the spot.  Excellent marketing on their part.  Motorcyclist Magazine compared the BMW R1200GS/KTM950 Adventure/Ully recently and they chose the Ully for on-road travel over the others.  
 

I think Buell has totally screwed the pooch with the Uly marketing. Even while Erik Buell himself touts the Uly's on-road prowess, the marketing department has been cramming the dirt image down everyone's throat. Hell, they don't even show of picture of the bike two up in the website's gallery anymore, and that's where the bike really shines! Lots of dirt pictures, though.   As a result, almost every review I've seen has centered around the Uly's (lack of) dirt ability.  Just once I'd like to see SOMETHING that focused on the Uly's ability on the pavement. As it is a lot of folks dismiss it as it fails to live up to genre the Buell marketing department is trying to fit it in.

I saw the Motorcyclist article, and while they had several good things to say about the Uly I feel like they were overshadowed by the Uly's lack of dirt ability in comparison to bikes that are better designed to do it all. The Uly should be compared up against the likes of the Multi and the new Tiger; the KTM Adventure is a totally different breed of motorcycle.

[roadrailer]

I know it's not 200, but while 'touring' I easily get 145 miles per tank even with the race kit.

I can usually get around 160 miles to a tank in local riding. I've made it slightly past 200 on a couple of occasions, but I don't think it would have made it much further.

[kevin_stevens]

I agree that from an engineering perspective, Eric Buell has done a masterful job with the 1203 Engine.  Even though it is not the latest design it fits the bill.  That engine is narrow and short which allows for the short wheelbase that Eric wanted to make the bikes nimble.  Eric solved the vib issue with the rubber mounting system that HD couldn't or wouldn't do in over 40+ years up until the 2004 Sportster hit the street.  Erick was also the first to fuel inject the 1203 to help it's performance even more.  Other than the pushrod design Eric has made the 1203 motor a very modern engine.  

I also agree that the HD engines have gotten a bad rap for being old school pushrod engines.  Alot of that bad rap has to do with the poor quality that HD had in the past and the meager HP that their engines produced.  Consider this, the BMW Boxer motor is also a pushrod design that is over 80 years old, yet I do not hear anyone complaining about the design of that motor.  Kawasaki uses pushrods in their Vulcan 2000 motor, Yamaha has pushrods in their  biggest Star Line bikes and again no one complains about that.

Eric Buell should be commended for reinventing the 1203 Motor!  

What's this "vibration" thing you speak of?

KeS

Moto Guzzi V11 (1063cc air-cooled V-twin, running at 90 degrees like they're supposed to.  With a 8750 rev limiter)

[kevin_stevens]

Kootenanny wrote:



I agree with everything you said.   I should have prefaced my remark that some people consider pushrod outdated technology.

Pushrods definitely have their applications.  Don't quote me on this but I believe that Kawasaki specifically said they designed the Vulcan 2000 motor with pushrods to keep engine hight to a minimum and that it made sense.    

That's one reason GM uses it in the LS small blocks as well.  I think there's a big difference between deprecating pushrod technology in general, and criticizing an implementation like the HD engine.  Even in Evo form, it's nothing like as sophisticated a design as a Corvette LS6 engine.    Somebody needs to give HD a blank sheet of paper.

KeS

[Lawn Dart]

BTW, I'm a little late chiming in here.  As to the comment about BMW R-bikes (specifically the 1100 & 1150 motors) being gutless under 4k...

Yep.  It's true.  

My RS (even with a Race pipe and race chip) dogs below 4k.  It will pull smoothly from 2k with a light throttle, but it doesn't like full throttle inputs.  I call it character.  

My RS doesn't really begin to build power until at least 4500 rpms, and preferably at 5k.  In the twisties I cane my bike mercilessly.  Bike redlines around 8k...and I spend all my time at 6k or higher in the tight stuff, very often at 7k+.  I'm pretty sure that I'm personally the culprit of any oil burning that happens.

In Both Jason and Reggie Pridmore's CLASS & STAR schools, engine RPM is emphasized for proper cornering.  You know what?  They're right.  Higher RPM's (for any given motor) generates gyroscopic effect that stabilizes the bike in corners.  I've tested this extensively:  my RS corners better at 6k than at 4k.  It's more stable and I have better drive out the corners.  My ZX preferred to be at 8500 (out of 11).  My buddie's 6R loved to be over 10k...and liked it even higher.  The Trip's I ridden (St & S3) also prefer to run near redline for maximum handling.

The XB is a phenomenal machine.  It's handling is superb and it corners as well as the best of the J4 600's.  Truly awe inspiring.  I can also tell you from my personal ride on Brian's (N2Q) XB9r, his bike also preferred to take turns higher in the rpm range.

Noone is saying that a bike that turns 14k rpms will turn better than a bike that turns 6k rpms at redline.  What IS being said is that a bike corners better when RPM's are in the upper 25% (my number based on experience) of range.  So if your CBYZXRR pulls 16k at redline, then the bike will be at it's most predictable, tractable and controllable turning ability at 12k+ rpms.  By the same token, a Buell that redlines at 7k (?) would be at it's best turning capacity from 5,250 rpms +.

That's not to say that a bike can't make excellent forward progress low in the RPM range - they can.  The point is that a bike's handling is at it's BEST higher in IT'S SPECIFIC RPM range.

PS:  I still love the Buell's - Eric, above all else, got the LOOK right.  

[Rogue]

BMW-K, so have you made up your mind what's in your future garage?

[Lawn Dart]

I have no fookin idea!

I've toyed with the following:

XB12r
ZX6r
R1200ST
K1200r
VTR1000

This is, quite literally, a complete and utter "no way to lose" situation.  IT SUCKS I TELL YA!  SUCKS!

[Asphalt_Carver]

BMW-K,

You have some good choices but my two cents would be to cancel the VTR1000 off the list.  Nice motor, but the suspension is way out of date and it gets really poor gas mileage even for a big twin.  Since you already are a BMW owner, I would think that the R1200ST is too close to what you already own and that the K1200R maybe exactly what you really want.  The ZX-6 is a little high strung, but not unpleasantly so and since the XB12R is my Lightning's kin, you certainly can't go wrong there!

Summer is coming so just pull the trigger on one or preferably more than one!  

[Thunderbox]

IMHO the Buell, including their engine is what the other manufacturers can't or won't build.  So it's just too easy.  I won't buy their machines.  What would we do if Buell built an in line 4.  We would probably buy the other guys in line 4 is what we would do. If you don't like Buells fine, ride whatever your money will buy.  We on the other hand will ride what we buy.  From the moment I first tried the 02 M2 I knew I was going to buy one.  Instant smile.  You don't get that with just any bike.

I have been riding bikes since 1969 and have owned over 15 new motorcycles of all makes and 20 used bikes.  For myself the Uly is beyond a shadow of a doubt the best motorcycle I have ever owned. #2 would be the 74 Mach III I bought new.  But it doesn't hold a candle to the Uly.  Buells are not for everyone and I am happy knowing that.  They are the other option in a real world motorcycle and they will continue to increase sales.  If you haven't had the good fortune and ridden one, I'm afraid that is your loss.

[Rogue]

From the moment I first tried the 02 M2 I knew I was going to buy one.  Instant smile.  You don't get that with just any bike.

I had the same experience when I first rode the Firebolt XB9R.  I knew that I was going to get one.

[Kootenanny]

I had the same experience when I first rode the Firebolt XB9R.  I knew that I was going to get one.

Hmmm...me, too!

[Flat-Out]

That's one reason GM uses it in the LS small blocks as well.  I think there's a big difference between deprecating pushrod technology in general, and criticizing an implementation like the HD engine.  Even in Evo form, it's nothing like as sophisticated a design as a Corvette LS6 engine.    Somebody needs to give HD a blank sheet of paper.

KeS

it's about 20 yrs too late though