Harley Qs

[YBiker]

Thinking of getting a harley, looking at a sportster. We're thinking of riding 2 up, will a sporty comfortably fit us both on or is the wheelbase a little short? My mate recommends getting a dyna, but looking at the 1200 engine of a sporty its hard to image that it wouldnt have enough power.

Cheers

[AllanB]

Troll?

Anyway - get the 1200 (not the 883) and you'll be a happy chappy if the HD is your 'thing'

[RDJ]

A 1200 has plenty enough power for two-up, with good torque at relatively low rpm. Not that comfortable for long-distance pillion when saddlebags are fitted however...

[YBiker]

So a sportster isnt very big compared to the dyna? (not troll, this will be my first big bike is all)

[Moi]

Have a look at the Motorcycle Ergonomics site [http://cycle-ergo.com/].

You can see how you'd fit on a bike, you can add a pillion... and compare various models...

[RDJ]

So a sportster isnt very big compared to the dyna? (not troll, this will be my first big bike is all)

My 01 Dyna T-sport is 1450cc

My 04 Sportster Roadster is 1200cc

The Dyna is a much better touring platform IMO - not due to engine size, but seating, saddle bags, fuel gauge, screen / fairing and general ergonomics for 300-500 mile days...

[wainui]

Yeah depends on your sizes as to how comfortable you are going to be ,especially if your taking long trips

[Crasherfromwayback]

So a sportster isnt very big compared to the dyna? (not troll, this will be my first big bike is all)

I def don't recommend getting a Sporty for reg two up usage mate.

[popelli]

Troll?

Anyway - get the 1200 (not the 883) and you'll be a happy chappy if the HD is your 'thing'

It used to be buy the 883 and get it bored to 1200

It used to work out cheaper and the 883 heads used to give better power than the 1200

No doubt Harleys "improvements" and "developments" have killed this

Two up on a sportster - no shortage of power but unless you are a midget there is a serious shortage of space especially if you want to pack any gear for an extended trip

Most people who buy a sportster and like it end up with a big twin - possibly makes sense if finances allow to go straight for what you really want

[YBiker]

Just bought the superglide :D cheers for the advice so far
which fuel do you recommend putting in it, 91 or 98?

[Big Dog]

What does your manual suggest?

Sent via tapatalk.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Just bought the superglide :D cheers for the advice so far
which fuel do you recommend putting in it, 91 or 98?

91 here in NZ is shit. Anyone that tells you otherwise likes boys.

[AllanB]

He forgot 95, which is everywhere, whereas 98 is a BP thing.

[rambaldi]

He forgot 95, which is everywhere, whereas 98 is a BP thing.

And gull I think but they throw fucking ethanol in there as well, and not the good kind

[RDJ]

And gull I think but they throw fucking ethanol in there as well, and not the good kind

Yes. I have run both Gull's ahem high end ahem petroleum product in the supercharged V8 ute and the V8 bikes, and the BP-98 product for comparison; even the seat-of-the-pants dyno can tell the difference. Gull - we're not that Gullible...

[Crasherfromwayback]

And gull I think but they throw fucking ethanol in there as well, and not the good kind


Yes. I have run both Gull's ahem high end ahem petroleum product in the supercharged V8 ute and the V8 bikes, and the BP-98 product for comparison; even the seat-of-the-pants dyno can tell the difference. Gull - we're not that Gullible...

Yeah it's junk, and Challenge isn't much better.

[YBiker]

seller completed his form & I completed the MR13B. Just wondering if I receive a letter in the mail saying I am now the registered owner of the bike? how does this process usually go?

[Ender EnZed]

NZTA will send you a certificate of registration naming you as the registered person and a list of previous registration transfer dates.

[Old Steve]

91 here in NZ is shit. Anyone that tells you otherwise likes boys.

You're not exactly right there Crasher.

25 years in the fuel and lubricants industry here and I was on the industry panel that the MOE put together to establish the fuel specifications for the introduction of ULP. I'd say that Marsden UL91 was as good as any UL91 anywhere, Marsden Point being a somewhat MON limited refinery you tend to get RON give away and the fuel out of there is fairly free of olefins. Spec'd for NZ conditions too, vapour pressure changes to accommodate winter starting.

But then, Auckland gets only Marsden Point petrol down the pipeline, you poor folk south of the Bombays might be getting imported fuel - but it'll still have to meet the MOE specs and they're quite rigorous.

Did you have any particular area where UL91 falls short? And is that a shortfall against the actual MOE spec or just a shortfall in your expectations?

You do know of course that US engines have their octane requirement specified in a different way. Here we identify petrol by only its RON, either 91, 95 and 98 for certain brands. In the States they identify gasoline octane by (RON + MON)/2, an average octane. Therefore the States 91 is more like NZ 95 RON (95 + 85)/2.

[Crasherfromwayback]

But then, Auckland gets only Marsden Point petrol down the pipeline, you poor folk south of the Bombays might be getting imported fuel - but it'll still have to meet the MOE specs and they're quite rigorous.

Did you have any particular area where UL91 falls short? And is that a shortfall against the actual MOE spec or just a shortfall in your expectations?

You do know of course that US engines have their octane requirement specified in a different way. Here we identify petrol by only its RON, either 91, 95 and 98 for certain brands. In the States they identify gasoline octane by (RON + MON)/2, an average octane. Therefore the States 91 is more like NZ 95 RON (95 + 85)/2.

I live in Welly, and any testing done on WMCC's old dyno, tended to point to our 91 down here being poos. But yeah, when I was in the States riding a Beull about, their 91 seemed to suit it just fine. Thanks for your reply...good reading! Cheers.

[MIXONE]

I live in Welly, and any testing done on WMCC's old dyno, tended to point to our 91 down here being poos. But yeah, when I was in the States riding a Beull about, their 91 seemed to suit it just fine. Thanks for your reply...good reading! Cheers.

Hey Pete I've been running 91 in my dyna and apart from the occasional miss and fart it seems to go alright.You reckon 95 or 98 will see it running better?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Hey Pete I've been running 91 in my dyna and apart from the occasional miss and fart it seems to go alright.You reckon 95 or 98 will see it running better?

This missing and farting is often if it's cold perhaps? When it's lean? If it's reasonably stock, you'll poss be ok on 91, but we def had better results with 95 or better mate.

[MIXONE]

This missing and farting is often if it's cold perhaps? When it's lean? If it's reasonably stock, you'll poss be ok on 91, but we def had better results with 95 or better mate.

Yep stock apart from screaming eagle pipes.I will give it a test on BP98 though.

[Big Dog]

Also common for the big four to put other extras in their highest octane fuel.
Logic seems to be people will buy 91 because they don't care but performance fuel they want a point of difference to keep them coming back to their brand.

Sent from Tapatalk. DYAC

[Old Steve]

If the Harley manual says use 91 Octane, then use New Zealand 95! Our 95 Octane has a MON of 85 and a RON of 95, therefore is almost a direct equivalent of US 91 Octane.

When unleaded petrol was introduced, the MOE was worried that cars that had run on leaded 96 for years may be tuned wrong for ULP 95. While the MOE were happy to have the spec written around a RON of 95 in line with European standards, they did have this 96 octane tuning concern. So the fuel companies proposed to the MOE that though the spec for ULP 95 would state a RON of 95 octane, they would supply ULP 95 with a minimum RON of 96 for a year or 18 months (this was over 20 years ago, can't remember the length of time).

And going back maybe 27 years, Caltex wanted a BMW approval for their newly introduced additised petrol. This showed that the additised petrol kept the back of the intake valves clean and this stopped lean start up and rich running when the engine warmed up. Caltex NZ sent 800 Litres of unadditised Marsden Pt ULP91 to BMW California to have the test run, BMW would additise the petrol (actually gasoline by the time it reached the USA) with the additive supplied by the additive company and run the test. The pallet of petrol arrived on the San Fransisco wharf on October 16th, 1989, the day before the the California earthquake. The petrol went missing for about 4 weeks, safe and sound on the wharf but its whereabouts unknown to anyone. Finally the petrol got to BMW and the test was run, BMW would dismantle the engines and weigh the inlet valves, run some 320s up and down the Californian freeways for some distance (10,000 miles each I think), then dismantle the engines and weigh the inlet valves again. To pass the test you were allowed some minimal weight increase on the four valves. The NZ test showed weight absolutely no gains. BMW rang the additive company and asked what was this amazing new additive they were testing, but the additive company had to tell them the result was down to the quality of the Marsden Pt petrol, very low olefins content because of the Marsden Point hydrocracker.

So, from losing the petrol in the aftermath of the California earthquake, it all turned out OK in the end. I had a set of four inlet valves in a plastic top box on my desk as a paperweight, the valves were marked "0.00 g, 0.00 g, 0.00 g and -0.01 g". Don't know what the test cost Caltex, but they must have been the most expensive inlet valves in the country.

[MIXONE]

This missing and farting is often if it's cold perhaps? When it's lean? If it's reasonably stock, you'll poss be ok on 91, but we def had better results with 95 or better mate.

I'm trying the bp98 now and "seat of pants" there is quite a difference.Torque seems to be arriving quicker (if you get my drift) and it will pull higher gears earlier.It will be interesting to see the diff in tank range.I'm convinced already anyway.

[old slider]

If the Harley manual says use 91 Octane, then use New Zealand 95! Our 95 Octane has a MON of 85 and a RON of 95, therefore is almost a direct equivalent of US 91 Octane.

When unleaded petrol was introduced, the MOE was worried that cars that had run on leaded 96 for years may be tuned wrong for ULP 95. While the MOE were happy to have the spec written around a RON of 95 in line with European standards, they did have this 96 octane tuning concern. So the fuel companies proposed to the MOE that though the spec for ULP 95 would state a RON of 95 octane, they would supply ULP 95 with a minimum RON of 96 for a year or 18 months (this was over 20 years ago, can't remember the length of time).

And going back maybe 27 years, Caltex wanted a BMW approval for their newly introduced additised petrol. This showed that the additised petrol kept the back of the intake valves clean and this stopped lean start up and rich running when the engine warmed up. Caltex NZ sent 800 Litres of unadditised Marsden Pt ULP91 to BMW California to have the test run, BMW would additise the petrol (actually gasoline by the time it reached the USA) with the additive supplied by the additive company and run the test. The pallet of petrol arrived on the San Fransisco wharf on October 16th, 1989, the day before the the California earthquake. The petrol went missing for about 4 weeks, safe and sound on the wharf but its whereabouts unknown to anyone. Finally the petrol got to BMW and the test was run, BMW would dismantle the engines and weigh the inlet valves, run some 320s up and down the Californian freeways for some distance (10,000 miles each I think), then dismantle the engines and weigh the inlet valves again. To pass the test you were allowed some minimal weight increase on the four valves. The NZ test showed weight absolutely no gains. BMW rang the additive company and asked what was this amazing new additive they were testing, but the additive company had to tell them the result was down to the quality of the Marsden Pt petrol, very low olefins content because of the Marsden Point hydrocracker.

So, from losing the petrol in the aftermath of the California earthquake, it all turned out OK in the end. I had a set of four inlet valves in a plastic top box on my desk as a paperweight, the valves were marked "0.00 g, 0.00 g, 0.00 g and -0.01 g". Don't know what the test cost Caltex, but they must have been the most expensive inlet valves in the country.


That opening sentence is worth gold to me, thanks and also to MIxone for his report. May explain a few things for me, I will let you know if the 95 makes a change.

[Bass]

For fuels with ethanol added, I believe that the octane rating is not harmed by the addition, but the fuel's calorific value drops - you get less kilojoules per litre and so have to use more fuel for a given task. Since this fuel is cheaper, your km's / $ is about the same as conventional fuels.

However, I also believe that the stoichiometric fuel/air ratio for both fuels is about the same (open to correction here). It must be, I think, because otherwise the engine would have to be re-tuned when moving from one to the other.

The consequence of all this then, is that the motor must have less peak power on the alcohol blend.

[Flip]

91 95 and 98 all work fine in my old 88ci motor. I cany tell any diference between any of them.

[Flip]

For fuels with ethanol added, I believe that the octane rating is not harmed by the addition, but the fuel's calorific value drops - you get less kilojoules per litre and so have to use more fuel for a given task. Since this fuel is cheaper, your km's / $ is about the same as conventional fuels.

However, I also believe that the stoichiometric fuel/air ratio for both fuels is about the same (open to correction here). It must be, I think, because otherwise the engine would have to be re-tuned when moving from one to the other.

The consequence of all this then, is that the motor must have less peak power on the alcohol blend.

Depends entirely what the motor is tuned for. The compression ratio defines the volumetric efficency of any motor, hence drag motors run very high CR and produce enormous HP on Methanol fuel. Methanol however has a relatively low calorific value compared to petrol.

[old slider]

91 95 and 98 all work fine in my old 88ci motor. I cany tell any diference between any of them.

Pumped in some 95 today in the 2010 Fat Bob after doing about 25-30kms on the last 1/3 tank left of 91 , about 5 kms from leaving the station I noticed the popping greatly reduced on deceleration and a smoother running engine.

[Bass]

Depends entirely what the motor is tuned for. The compression ratio defines the volumetric efficency of any motor, hence drag motors run very high CR and produce enormous HP on Methanol fuel. Methanol however has a relatively low calorific value compared to petrol.

Sorta true but only part of the story.
The stoichiometric ratio for methanol means that you put nearly twice as much in compared with petrol. This more than overcomes the lower calorific value. The ratio is what controls the amount of fuel going in and so the total energy released.

A discussion on efficiency is a whole different topic and not really appropriate in this thread IMHO.

[AllanB]

I played with 91 and 95 on the Hornet 900 (book said 91 was fine) - there was zero noticeable difference in feel or fuel consumption between the two.

The Ducati states 95 or higher. 95 it is, the closest BP (seller of 98) is not on my usual travels but I may try a tank and see if I notice anything.

[Bass]

I played with 91 and 95 on the Hornet 900 (book said 91 was fine) - there was zero noticeable difference in feel or fuel consumption between the two.

The Ducati states 95 or higher. 95 it is, the closest BP (seller of 98) is not on my usual travels but I may try a tank and see if I notice anything.

That's normal.
The octane rating is a measure of the fuel's anti-knock properties, not it's calorific value.
The 2 fuels have much the same calorific value and so if the motor runs fine on 91, you are unlikely to get any extra benefit from 95.

There is an exception however.
Some modern motors may have knock sensors and moderately high compression ratios. They will run on both fuels but on 91, the ignition timing is retarded behind ideal. When fed 95, the motor is able to advance the ignition timing resulting in better all round performance.
The exception may well become the rule in this case.

[Flip]

Sorta true but only part of the story.
The stoichiometric ratio for methanol means that you put nearly twice as much in compared with petrol. This more than overcomes the lower calorific value. The ratio is what controls the amount of fuel going in and so the total energy released.

A discussion on efficiency is a whole different topic and not really appropriate in this thread IMHO.

F. Go back to engineering school.

[GrayWolf]

You're not exactly right there Crasher.

25 years in the fuel and lubricants industry here and I was on the industry panel that the MOE put together to establish the fuel specifications for the introduction of ULP. I'd say that Marsden UL91 was as good as any UL91 anywhere, Marsden Point being a somewhat MON limited refinery you tend to get RON give away and the fuel out of there is fairly free of olefins. Spec'd for NZ conditions too, vapour pressure changes to accommodate winter starting.

But then, Auckland gets only Marsden Point petrol down the pipeline, you poor folk south of the Bombays might be getting imported fuel - but it'll still have to meet the MOE specs and they're quite rigorous.

Did you have any particular area where UL91 falls short? And is that a shortfall against the actual MOE spec or just a shortfall in your expectations?

You do know of course that US engines have their octane requirement specified in a different way. Here we identify petrol by only its RON, either 91, 95 and 98 for certain brands. In the States they identify gasoline octane by (RON + MON)/2, an average octane. Therefore the States 91 is more like NZ 95 RON (95 + 85)/2.


I live in Welly, and any testing done on WMCC's old dyno, tended to point to our 91 down here being poos. But yeah, when I was in the States riding a Beull about, their 91 seemed to suit it just fine. Thanks for your reply...good reading! Cheers.

I went into this very thing with my MT-01.
NZ fuel is different in it's levels of aromatics and sulphur, compared to many other countries.
Nearly every other country, the bike ran 'rich' as standard, and the Yamaha 'stage 1' tune of Akropovich 'road legal' mufflers, and a free flow air filter was coped with by the factory fitted ECU/O2 loop.
My bike ran lean, I could smell the motor was hot, and the oil temp gauge was higher than normal besides obvious hesitation on throttle opening. It was a point of discussion as it was so 'out of the norm', until we researched the composition of NZ fuel compared to others... It's not just the RON/MON, but seems the level of constituents used to get there also effects 'quality'.
Even with a fueller added I couldnt run the bike properly on 91. Yamaha reccomended NOT using fuel with an ethanol blend, so 98 was out as an everyday fuel
When I stage 2'd the bike, without a fueller, the motor was completely naff. And that was WITH the Yamaha stage 2 ECU fitted which removes the O2 loop, and alters the F/A ratio. That ECU was designed to run with a 'free flow' air filter and larger diameter headers with 'race' mufflers.

[RDJ]

Since we are all individuals, personally I like subjectivity. What works best by my seat-of-the-pants dyno, is what I fill my tanks with. For the V2s, and the V8s.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Since we are all individuals, personally I like subjectivity. What works best by my seat-of-the-pants dyno, is what I fill my tanks with. For the V2s, and the V8s.

The thing with seat of the pants dynos is...you take some low end torque away (bad move) and the thing more often than not *feels* faster when it gets it's self out of that whole and *comes alive*.

It's a seat of the pants *illusion*.

[RDJ]

Not arguing with you... But:

...I do recall being taught many years ago "in the end, all illusions have some therapeutic value"

:banana:

[Crasherfromwayback]

...I do recall being taught many years ago "in the end, all illusions have some therapeutic value"

:banana:

If being beaten in a race of some form due to said *illusions* is therapeutic for you, knock yourself out!

[RDJ]

Nah I'm not racing on the road :oi-grr:

Anyway actual dyno readings are the kiss of death to rated horsepower :yes:

[Crasherfromwayback]

Nah I'm not racing on the road :oi-grr:

Anyway actual dyno readings are the kiss of death to rated horsepower :yes:

Me neither. Never!

[granstar]

So to find out about gas, look up a thread on Harleys :clap:

So a bad tank of gas from Challenge 91 just cost me a non running bike (Hornet 919) over my holiday (trip around S.I cancelled while waiting for a new filter to arrive from U.S. :brick: Filled up bike, rode 2k's home and it wouldn't start from there. Possibly station has a bad tank or been dumped with bad gas from tanker but word it has happened to another motorcylist recently and a group of classic car owners.

Checked over by bike shop to eliminate fault ($300), came down to a new filter, flush out tank, farking good whinge, and away we go. If yer bike stops out of the blue/ runs very rough out of ordinary after a fill, check for bad gas.

[Katman]

So to find out about gas, look up a thread on Harleys :clap:

So a bad tank of gas from Challenge 91 just cost me a non running bike (Hornet 919) over my holiday (trip around S.I cancelled while waiting for a new filter to arrive from U.S. :brick: Filled up bike, rode 2k's home and it wouldn't start from there. Possibly station has a bad tank or been dumped with bad gas from tanker but word it has happened to another motorcylist recently and a group of classic car owners.

Checked over by bike shop to eliminate fault ($300), came down to a new filter, flush out tank, farking good whinge, and away we go. If yer bike stops out of the blue/ runs very rough out of ordinary after a fill, check for bad gas.

A tip for future reference.

If you should ever pull into a gas station while a tanker is there filling up the tanks, ride/drive straight on through.

Any water or sediment sitting in the bottom of the tanks has now been stirred up throughout the tank.

[pritch]

A tip for future reference.

If you should ever pull into a gas station while a tanker is there filling up the tanks, ride/drive straight on through.

Any water or sediment sitting in the bottom of the tanks has now been stirred up throughout the tank.

Thanks. I will file that away.

Right now I can't even remember exactly when I had my BMW, but I distinctly recall that in the event of almost any problem with the way the bike was running, the manual advised replacing the fuel filter as the first step.

[granstar]

So a Sporty 'Low' 1200 cc with the bigger tank (as i'm 5'4) ?

How different is the handling with mid mount foot rest to forward controls?
Is it well balanced, can it corner well, or does it scrape like a lot of cruisers.
What K/PL can one expect ( stock) at 100 kph...120 kph.
What mods worthy of doing (forget about any bling add on here)?
Suspension?
Iv'e read stock seats are awefull, for a round island tour what is a good one?
Obviously bikes designed for long distances but seems a lot spend time chuffing around cities to look cool, do they choke up on all round riding such as everyday commuting, open short road bursts and occasional long hauls with gear (what I do) ?
Convince me , pros/cons ...:facepalm:

[ellipsis]

...a Sportster is just a Sportster...do what you will, but a Sportster is a just a Sportster...sounds like you need a big block XYZ thingy...

[granstar]

...a Sportster is just a Sportster...do what you will, but a Sportster is a just a Sportster...sounds like you need a big block XYZ thingy...

So ............



But where the F**K are you supposed to put your 24 pack?

325281

[turtleman]

So a Sporty 'Low' 1200 cc with the bigger tank (as i'm 5'4) ?

How different is the handling with mid mount foot rest to forward controls?
Is it well balanced, can it corner well, or does it scrape like a lot of cruisers.
What K/PL can one expect ( stock) at 100 kph...120 kph.
What mods worthy of doing (forget about any bling add on here)?
Suspension?
Iv'e read stock seats are awefull, for a round island tour what is a good one?
Obviously bikes designed for long distances but seems a lot spend time chuffing around cities to look cool, do they choke up on all round riding such as everyday commuting, open short road bursts and occasional long hauls with gear (what I do) ?
Convince me , pros/cons ...:facepalm:

Ok.....
I'm also 5'4" and have a sportster (2013 xl1200ca). This has the larger tank (around 18L / 4 Gallon). This gets me between 250 and 300 km, though could probably go a bit further if you ride it gently enough.
Yes, it scrapes a bit - it aint a sports bike ! However, nowhere near as much as a lot of other cruisers. Mine has stock mid controls as opposed to forward controls, and I think they make a difference - preferred mids to forwards on the ones I test rode.

Mods:
Seat - stock seat is ok for the rider, but pillion seat will have a passenger squirming after 20 minutes, if they're not already crying in agony - it'll almost cut them in half !. I have a Mustang solo seat that is very comfy, but for 2-up I have a Haley Sundowner touring seat, which is very comfy for both rider and pillion. Bought 2nd hand off trademe - never buy new, they're fucking expensive (pay for the name!!)

Tuner - I have a Powervision tuner fitted (made by Dynojet, of power commander fame) well worth the money spent - has autotune feature that allows exhaust/air filter mods without a dyno. Lots of other benefits too - worth googling and reading up.

Suspension:
The best mod you could do would be suspension - the stock suspension is pretty rubbish. It does the job, but if you want to push it a bit this is where your greatest gain will be inititially. I guess it comes down to how hard you wanna go, of if you're just happy cruising ;-)

No choking up - mine seems to be happy chuffing around town, and on day rides. More than capable of a tour - I've lapped the South Island (criss-cross wise) twice on mine without a problem, as well as a few Welly to Aucks 'commutes' to visit the kids. Was definitely a much happier camper as an allrounder once the Powervision Tuner was fitted, though.
It's happy carving up the twin-cams on the twisties, and beats most of them in a short drag race - which surprises most, and really ticks them off !

It is what it is. Like all bikes there are horses for courses. Anyone on a Jap sports bike (even a small one) would smash me over the hill (Rimutaka) in a closed road contest ( :bleh: ) - but that aint why I ride, and aint why I own a sporty.



Hope this helps ! :Punk:

[ellipsis]

So ............



But where the F**K are you supposed to put your 24 pack?

325281


...in the back of the ute...

[granstar]

...in the back of the ute...

ROFLOL


Thanks for the info Turtleman, helpful :woohoo:

[awayatc]

Ok.....
I'm also 5'4" and have a sportster (2013 xl1200ca). This has the larger tank (around 18L / 4 Gallon). This gets me between 250 and 300 km, though could probably go a bit further if you ride it gently enough.
Yes, it scrapes a bit - it aint a sports bike ! However, nowhere near as much as a lot of other cruisers. Mine has stock mid controls as opposed to forward controls, and I think they make a difference - preferred mids to forwards on the ones I test rode.

Mods:
Seat - stock seat is ok for the rider, but pillion seat will have a passenger squirming after 20 minutes, if they're not already crying in agony - it'll almost cut them in half !. I have a Mustang solo seat that is very comfy, but for 2-up I have a Haley Sundowner touring seat, which is very comfy for both rider and pillion. Bought 2nd hand off trademe - never buy new, they're fucking expensive (pay for the name!!)

Tuner - I have a Powervision tuner fitted (made by Dynojet, of power commander fame) well worth the money spent - has autotune feature that allows exhaust/air filter mods without a dyno. Lots of other benefits too - worth googling and reading up.

Suspension:
The best mod you could do would be suspension - the stock suspension is pretty rubbish. It does the job, but if you want to push it a bit this is where your greatest gain will be inititially. I guess it comes down to how hard you wanna go, of if you're just happy cruising ;-)

No choking up - mine seems to be happy chuffing around town, and on day rides. More than capable of a tour - I've lapped the South Island (criss-cross wise) twice on mine without a problem, as well as a few Welly to Aucks 'commutes' to visit the kids. Was definitely a much happier camper as an allrounder once the Powervision Tuner was fitted, though.
It's happy carving up the twin-cams on the twisties, and beats most of them in a short drag race - which surprises most, and really ticks them off !

It is what it is. Like all bikes there are horses for courses. Anyone on a Jap sports bike (even a small one) would smash me over the hill (Rimutaka) in a closed road contest ( :bleh: ) - but that aint why I ride, and aint why I own a sporty.



Hope this helps ! :Punk:

Good write up...
One more thing that matters as well in sporty vs big block Harleys is belts....
With a sporty you can change drive belts easily.
With a big block you will have to take the whole bloody bike apart.
I have done it twice myself, and once in a workshop on south island trip belt breakdown( 3 days and $1000.00)

Enough reason for me to sell mine...