Harley demand/price curve?
- Thread starter ZGRider
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: kballowe
Here's Momma's Indian.
.
.
That's a beautiful motorcycle! Did the last rendition of Indian build their own engines?
Here's Momma's Indian.
.
.
That's a beautiful motorcycle! Did the last rendition of Indian build their own engines?
That's that Indian Power-Plus (PP) 100 cu. in. motor. Most of the 1999-2003 Indians had S&S motors but there were some of these PP-100 motors available.
Originally Posted By: kballowe
Yeah - that's the wife. She's the reason that we currently have five motorcycles. She's got the affliction worse than I do.
Now about that Kaw - didn't it have a certain growl - along with the ring-ding-ring? When you opened them up - sounded like a four-barreled carb kicking in....
Yes it did have the 4 bbl howl, and the chambers turned the ding ding ding into pop pop pop. It sounded like firecrackers. It sounded mean as [censored]!
Yeah - that's the wife. She's the reason that we currently have five motorcycles. She's got the affliction worse than I do.
Now about that Kaw - didn't it have a certain growl - along with the ring-ding-ring? When you opened them up - sounded like a four-barreled carb kicking in....
Yes it did have the 4 bbl howl, and the chambers turned the ding ding ding into pop pop pop. It sounded like firecrackers. It sounded mean as [censored]!
boraticus
I don't remember what brand of chambers I had on that 500 (I remember they were flat black), but I do know they made a big difference in power. A buddy of mine had the 750 triple with chambers and it sounded even more wicked. Both of these bikes were incredibly fast for their size.
I don't remember what brand of chambers I had on that 500 (I remember they were flat black), but I do know they made a big difference in power. A buddy of mine had the 750 triple with chambers and it sounded even more wicked. Both of these bikes were incredibly fast for their size.
Yeah, my Mach III dumped me high-side at about 60mph -- arrgghh!!
Kaw triples had horrible handling and they burned up cylinders and cranks frequently.
I got real good a rebuilding those cranks and made good money for a while doing it.
Buddy of mine has a 5 cylinder Kaw 2-stroke -- ever see one of those?
Kaw triples had horrible handling and they burned up cylinders and cranks frequently.
I got real good a rebuilding those cranks and made good money for a while doing it.
Buddy of mine has a 5 cylinder Kaw 2-stroke -- ever see one of those?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZGRider
Yeah, my Mach III dumped me high-side at about 60mph -- arrgghh!!
Kaw triples had horrible handling and they burned up cylinders and cranks frequently.
I got real good a rebuilding those cranks and made good money for a while doing it.
Buddy of mine has a 5 cylinder Kaw 2-stroke -- ever see one of those?
Never even heard of them. FWIW, I never had any trouble with my 500 triple. I guess I was one of the lucky ones, but I do remember it not handling very well.
Yeah, my Mach III dumped me high-side at about 60mph -- arrgghh!!
Kaw triples had horrible handling and they burned up cylinders and cranks frequently.
I got real good a rebuilding those cranks and made good money for a while doing it.
Buddy of mine has a 5 cylinder Kaw 2-stroke -- ever see one of those?
Never even heard of them. FWIW, I never had any trouble with my 500 triple. I guess I was one of the lucky ones, but I do remember it not handling very well.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: grampi
...I never had any trouble with my 500 triple. I guess I was one of the lucky ones...
Kinda like an AMF-era Harley, eh?
...I never had any trouble with my 500 triple. I guess I was one of the lucky ones...
Kinda like an AMF-era Harley, eh?
The best handling two stroke bikes of the '70s were the RDs. Their frame geometry were close to a direct copy of their race machines of the day. Anyone who knows anything about motorcycle racing will know that Yamaha reigned supreme for decades with their TZ series racers. Even by today's standards, the RD with good rubber and refurbished suspension is a very capable bike. Those wicked H1s and H2s couldn't be beat in a straight line. Throw some twists and turns into the ride and with equal riders aboard, the RDs would be soon out of sight.
I remember once back in the late '70s driving my wife's small car on the street at 40 mph with the window down. Some nut on an H1 scared the living [censored] out of me when he passed me doing a wheelie. He was moving so fast, I didn't see nor hear him coming. All of a sudden I heard the wildest, loudest screaming exhaust I had ever heard. It truly startled me. When I looked to my left, I caught a glimpse of the bike seat and rider's leg as he went by.
Riding like that, you got to wonder how long that guy lived. Crazy bikes indeed.
I remember once back in the late '70s driving my wife's small car on the street at 40 mph with the window down. Some nut on an H1 scared the living [censored] out of me when he passed me doing a wheelie. He was moving so fast, I didn't see nor hear him coming. All of a sudden I heard the wildest, loudest screaming exhaust I had ever heard. It truly startled me. When I looked to my left, I caught a glimpse of the bike seat and rider's leg as he went by.
Riding like that, you got to wonder how long that guy lived. Crazy bikes indeed.
Originally Posted By: SWSportsman
Originally Posted By: grampi
...I never had any trouble with my 500 triple. I guess I was one of the lucky ones...
Kinda like an AMF-era Harley, eh?
Except twice as fast, weighed half as much and cost much less with a much larger dealer network.
Other than that? I guess "kinda" the same.
Originally Posted By: grampi
...I never had any trouble with my 500 triple. I guess I was one of the lucky ones...
Kinda like an AMF-era Harley, eh?
Except twice as fast, weighed half as much and cost much less with a much larger dealer network.
Other than that? I guess "kinda" the same.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: boraticus
The best handling two stroke bikes of the '70s were the RDs. Their frame geometry were close to a direct copy of their race machines of the day. Anyone who knows anything about motorcycle racing will know that Yamaha reigned supreme for decades with their TZ series racers.
In the hands of guys like KR they were giant killers. Nothing was more impressive than watching KR ride one of the TZ-750s on a flat-track at least until they were outlawed by the AMA. Too fast for the competition.
Loved the RDs Best bargain "pocket-rocket" ever made. You have to love a 350/400cc bike that could easily whip bikes twice their size.
The best handling two stroke bikes of the '70s were the RDs. Their frame geometry were close to a direct copy of their race machines of the day. Anyone who knows anything about motorcycle racing will know that Yamaha reigned supreme for decades with their TZ series racers.
In the hands of guys like KR they were giant killers. Nothing was more impressive than watching KR ride one of the TZ-750s on a flat-track at least until they were outlawed by the AMA. Too fast for the competition.
Loved the RDs Best bargain "pocket-rocket" ever made. You have to love a 350/400cc bike that could easily whip bikes twice their size.
Originally Posted By: ZGRider
You have to love a 350/400cc bike that could easily whip bikes twice their size.
Only if you feel the need to "whip" someone or something.
You have to love a 350/400cc bike that could easily whip bikes twice their size.
Only if you feel the need to "whip" someone or something.
It would be cool to see some clean burning two stroke engines make it back to the street...Something like with the evinrude type technology...Rotax has what they call an "e-tec" 800cc parallel two stroke for snowmobiles and produces over 150 hp and is supposed to be clean..
http://www.ski-doo.com/brphtml/skidooenginetech/en/Index.htm
http://www.ski-doo.com/brphtml/skidooenginetech/en/Index.htm
Originally Posted By: SWSportsman
Originally Posted By: ZGRider
You have to love a 350/400cc bike that could easily whip bikes twice their size.
Only if you feel the need to "whip" someone or something.
Speaking from experience....?
Originally Posted By: ZGRider
You have to love a 350/400cc bike that could easily whip bikes twice their size.
Only if you feel the need to "whip" someone or something.
Speaking from experience....?
I got a weed eater that's a four-stroke. Funny thing though - ya gotta mix oil with the gas.
Shindawa.
Shindawa.
Originally Posted By: kballowe
I got a weed eater that's a four-stroke. Funny thing though - ya gotta mix oil with the gas.
Shindawa.
I got a lawnmower that's a 4-stroke, and it doesn't mix gas and oil.
What's your point?
I got a weed eater that's a four-stroke. Funny thing though - ya gotta mix oil with the gas.
Shindawa.
I got a lawnmower that's a 4-stroke, and it doesn't mix gas and oil.
What's your point?
Two points:
Firstly: Why is a bike that is designed like a race bike somehow considered the benchmark for bikes ridden on the streets?
It's not a race coarse out there.
Well, it's not supose to be. For me atleast I'd much prefer a bike that'll haul a decent amount of cargo, and be comfortable for an extended time in the saddle. I'm betting I'm not alone.
Secondly: I like two strokes and their high power to displacement, but they aren't considered clean enough in their usual configuration. Comparing "clean" outboard or snowmobile technology to what cars and motorcycles have to meet is apples to oranges.
Truly clean burning 2 cycles can be built, but it requires forcing the air into the cylinders via a way that doesn't require using the crankcase to do it.If the crankcase is used oil must be added (and burnt), and that means excess emissions.
If a 2cycle were designed something like a 2cycle Detroit, using a wet sump and a blower to force the intake in, then a 2 cycle might be able to be made clean enough to meet standards.
Maybe they're out already there but that's not what I saw in that Ski-doo link. That one still burnt nearly 4quarts of oil in 930 miles. I have a hard time believing that'de pass the more stringent standards car or motorcycles have to meet.
Atleast that's my understanding of the 2 cycle problem.
Firstly: Why is a bike that is designed like a race bike somehow considered the benchmark for bikes ridden on the streets?
It's not a race coarse out there.
Well, it's not supose to be. For me atleast I'd much prefer a bike that'll haul a decent amount of cargo, and be comfortable for an extended time in the saddle. I'm betting I'm not alone.
Secondly: I like two strokes and their high power to displacement, but they aren't considered clean enough in their usual configuration. Comparing "clean" outboard or snowmobile technology to what cars and motorcycles have to meet is apples to oranges.
Truly clean burning 2 cycles can be built, but it requires forcing the air into the cylinders via a way that doesn't require using the crankcase to do it.If the crankcase is used oil must be added (and burnt), and that means excess emissions.
If a 2cycle were designed something like a 2cycle Detroit, using a wet sump and a blower to force the intake in, then a 2 cycle might be able to be made clean enough to meet standards.
Maybe they're out already there but that's not what I saw in that Ski-doo link. That one still burnt nearly 4quarts of oil in 930 miles. I have a hard time believing that'de pass the more stringent standards car or motorcycles have to meet.
Atleast that's my understanding of the 2 cycle problem.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZGRider
Originally Posted By: kballowe
I got a weed eater that's a four-stroke. Funny thing though - ya gotta mix oil with the gas.
Shindawa.
I got a lawnmower that's a 4-stroke, and it doesn't mix gas and oil.
What's your point?
Just had never seen a four stroke that required mixing oil in the same ratio that one would typically find in a two-stroke. e.g. it's a four-stroke without a crankcase oil sump. Bought this thing a couple years ago. Got it home and read the literature. Hmmmmmmm
- 34cc displacement, 1.4 hp (1.0kW)
- C4 Technology® high torque 4-stroke engine features all position operation. No dip stick! Uses 50:1 mixed fuel
- Incredible torque. Quick throttle response
Originally Posted By: kballowe
I got a weed eater that's a four-stroke. Funny thing though - ya gotta mix oil with the gas.
Shindawa.
I got a lawnmower that's a 4-stroke, and it doesn't mix gas and oil.
What's your point?
Just had never seen a four stroke that required mixing oil in the same ratio that one would typically find in a two-stroke. e.g. it's a four-stroke without a crankcase oil sump. Bought this thing a couple years ago. Got it home and read the literature. Hmmmmmmm
- 34cc displacement, 1.4 hp (1.0kW)
- C4 Technology® high torque 4-stroke engine features all position operation. No dip stick! Uses 50:1 mixed fuel
- Incredible torque. Quick throttle response
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: kballowe
Originally Posted By: ZGRider
Originally Posted By: kballowe
I got a weed eater that's a four-stroke. Funny thing though - ya gotta mix oil with the gas.
Shindawa.
I got a lawnmower that's a 4-stroke, and it doesn't mix gas and oil.
What's your point?
Just had never seen a four stroke that required mixing oil in the same ratio that one would typically find in a two-stroke. e.g. it's a four-stroke without a crankcase oil sump. Bought this thing a couple years ago. Got it home and read the literature. Hmmmmmmm
- 34cc displacement, 1.4 hp (1.0kW)
- C4 Technology® high torque 4-stroke engine features all position operation. No dip stick! Uses 50:1 mixed fuel
- Incredible torque. Quick throttle response
The type of engine your talking about is usually referred to as a 4-mix. Meaning four strokes/mixed fuel. The engine seems to be more like a hybrid of the two stroke and four stroke engines. It's supposed to be quieter and produce less emissions than a two stroke.
By the way E-Tec outboard engines are EPA approved.
Here's a link to show how the 4-mix engine works:
http://www.stihl.com/isapi/default.asp?c...mix/default.htm
Personally, I'm not particularly impressed with it. A two cycle engine with a catalytic converter will be simpler, more powerful and considering the size of the engines, not much of an environmental threat.
Originally Posted By: ZGRider
Originally Posted By: kballowe
I got a weed eater that's a four-stroke. Funny thing though - ya gotta mix oil with the gas.
Shindawa.
I got a lawnmower that's a 4-stroke, and it doesn't mix gas and oil.
What's your point?
Just had never seen a four stroke that required mixing oil in the same ratio that one would typically find in a two-stroke. e.g. it's a four-stroke without a crankcase oil sump. Bought this thing a couple years ago. Got it home and read the literature. Hmmmmmmm
- 34cc displacement, 1.4 hp (1.0kW)
- C4 Technology® high torque 4-stroke engine features all position operation. No dip stick! Uses 50:1 mixed fuel
- Incredible torque. Quick throttle response
The type of engine your talking about is usually referred to as a 4-mix. Meaning four strokes/mixed fuel. The engine seems to be more like a hybrid of the two stroke and four stroke engines. It's supposed to be quieter and produce less emissions than a two stroke.
By the way E-Tec outboard engines are EPA approved.
Here's a link to show how the 4-mix engine works:
http://www.stihl.com/isapi/default.asp?c...mix/default.htm
Personally, I'm not particularly impressed with it. A two cycle engine with a catalytic converter will be simpler, more powerful and considering the size of the engines, not much of an environmental threat.
My 74 RD350 had an oil tank...no mixing necessary. But I must admit it was not as reliable as my Harley. It would constantly foul plugs and leave you stranded. The carbs were very difficult to keep in proper adjustment. It was a fun motorcycle but really lacked the size/weight to make it a real street cruiser. I rode it on several 200-300 mile trips and felt like somebody beat me up afterwards. Plus the resale valuse of those bikes dropped like an anvil thrown from a 747. Once you drove it off the lot..50% of your cash went up in 2 cycle smoke.
It was fun to ride and fast for it's weight displacement class. But the bigger Yamaha 650 and Honda's (4stroke) were really the bikes of the day for Japanese. The KAW triples were cool but also very unreliable.
I think if I were to get a smaller displacement bike to ram around on I would pick the Triumph Bonneville.
It was fun to ride and fast for it's weight displacement class. But the bigger Yamaha 650 and Honda's (4stroke) were really the bikes of the day for Japanese. The KAW triples were cool but also very unreliable.
I think if I were to get a smaller displacement bike to ram around on I would pick the Triumph Bonneville.
- Status
