Are harleys really that slow?

Went for a nice 200+ mile ride today. Twice I had guys on harleys next to me at a light. One guy on a sweet looking bagger and the other on a sporty classic 1200. Both times we got into revving the motors indicating a mutual desire for a quick drag. The first guy on the sporty didn't have a chance. I wasted him. The second guy I came across during my ride, the guy on the bagger, got a head start. I shifted normally from 1st to 2nd then gave her hell and wasted him.
Are harleys really that slow to where a tiny little 550 can blow their wheels off? Or do these guys just not know how to ride? I had the same experience with a guy on a dyna last year and wasted him too.

 

My bet is they dont know how to ride fast or didnt care.

I have a friend who has a dyna running high 11s in a quarter mile trapping 105 or so. I don't think your 550 would do that even if your an excellent rider weighing around 100 pounds. lol

I havent had a chance to drag anyone yet, but I certainly have ridden faster bikes than my XJ. Hell my CR250 would have given this a run for its money, but then again it was pretty quick.

 

Never ridden harley, but these XJ's weight a lot less and have 6 gears, displacement ain't everything when we're talking about acceleration :wink:

 

What is it with everybody dogging harley's on this site. Yes I do agree that certain GUYS who do own Harley's are IDIOTS. But I own one fxdwg and I like it. Not as fast as my xj1100 but it's fast. ANd I think I would blow your 550 away with it lololol

 

Harleys are an aquired taste, personally I love them, but I do think they are a little over-rated. I've owned 2 and loved both of them, my problem was the cost to keep them going. I think Harley is a little out of line with the prices

 

Maybe they just ride responsibly. Were they trying to race you? I never got beat by ANYTHING from 0-60 when I had my 883 Sportster, but after that it was usually over, except for the view of a rapidly dissapearing taillight ahead of me. Typically speaking, Harley has more lowend power, whereas the high revving inline fours produce most of their power in the upper rpm range. My 1200 Sportster redlines at about 5200 rpms, and tops out at about 110 mph. I would guess your bike is doing about 60 mph at 5200 rpms. My Sportster is not as fast as my 1982 Maxim 650 was, but it gets over 50 mpg (I was lucky to get 40 with my Maxim), and it has enough torque that I don't have tap dance with the shifter when traveling up and down big hills. I guess it is all what you are into. At my advanced age, I am into liscense preservation and affordable insurance premiums. Not preaching, as I had more of my share of fun when I was younger. Also, I have owned many Maxims ( including a 1985 Maxim X that I put 45,000 miles on, and multiple points on my liscense), and I think the chain drive 550 is an absolute screamer!

 

I think so too. I'm sure most of them are good bikes, but prices usually has a lot brand extra, atleast in Finland they do...

 

Harleys. Hmmmm It's been an age old debate since the dawn of time this one (well at leats since 1903 lol)

Personally I like Harleys, especially sporsters. I like trimed down bikes, and sporties apeal to me.

Harleys are not fast. But then they were never designed to be. They are built for long cruising, and no other bike in the world can match a Harley for that.
Had a go on a V-rod a year or so ago, the owner was telling me how it was at leats the equal of an R1. (now at the time I worked in a Yamaha dealership and had a 2008 R1 as a company vehicle) I rode the V-rod and rode it hard, and I have to say I was really dissapointed with the performance. Was about as quick as a XVS1300 star, and absolutely nowhere even near an R1.....

But (and this is the thing) The noise that Rod made and it's looks were absolutely fantastic, and I would be so proud to be seen riding one, let alone owning one.

If I ever manage to own a Harley it'll be for cruising thanks. And I'll love it.

Being from the UK, we tend to go for sports bikes due to the types of roads we have. Harleys especially baggers are just too big and heavy
Don't get me wrong, we have a huge following for them, it's just sportsbikes are far more popular here.

In short, harleys are cool, just not fast.

 

They dog Harleys on every site. Except the Harley sites ... there they just dog Sportsters, or as they are somestimes called, "Skirtsters".

 

Well I wouldn't even attempt a race with a Vrod. Those definitely are fast. I guess anything half engineered by a super-car manufacturer like porsche would be fast. The guy on the Dyna last year was absolutely trying to race. The guy on the sporty today was also definitely trying to race. Don't know about the bagger though. But he did take off with some pretty cranked throttle.

I don't hate Harley. But it's name has been taken from real bikers and shat on by people who make tons of money, buy more than they are worth on credit, and then, because now they have a Harley Davidson, act like kings of the road every friday... with enough spent in accessories and apparrel to buy 2 brand new metric bikes and a harley. And they don't care about how long it will last or how reliable it is. hell, they can just buy another fully loaded one on credit when that one is too old for them. It's not harley. It's the people that shouldn't be on them. Otherwise, for the real bikers and real motorcyclist, a harley is a great bike. Comfortable, lots of torque and enough payload to throw everything and 2 fat people on it and ride into the mountains, lots of shiney, awesome sound, and ALWAYS project potential. Take the yuppy weekend warrior jerks off of them and they'd shine again for the people who would keep the name and the legend sacred.

 

What XJ do you have? Pretty sure mine is only 5. Harleys have between 4 and 6 depending on the bike.

 

He has a 550 Maxim. 550's have 6 gears...all the rest of us only get 5.

 

That little 550 seca. Just fast googled some Sportser 1200 and it had only 4, but it was some older one... My knowledge about Harleys is pretty limited

 

According to wikipedia - the sportster got 5 gears in 1991

 

The Seat Ibiza (google it) was half engineered by porsche.It was
sh!t...don't mean a thing

Anyhoo, Pinks season 1 episode 2 guy called Paul Hart took his brand new VRod up against Mike Voorhees old Suzuki GS1000 (30 odd yrs old).......and got absolutely creamed.

 

does anyone know what kind of quarter mile times the different XJ's can do? Preferably in stock form.

I've seen some old bike mag articles which claim the 750 Seca will do a 11.97 sec quarter.

What about the 550?

 

I suppose you are right on that. Porsche also made the 914... But as far as bikes go, the vrod is pretty damn fast. Argue that any way you choose but for all intents and purposes it's a pretty fast freakin bike. Doesn't mean I am going to grab one because I lost mine, but there are some pretty intense drags where the vrod just shows it's comp up. Over 120 brake HP and over 80 ft lbs of torque... It can pull a quarter in slightly under 11.4 which is faster than the Suzuki m109. And this bike was engineered for performance. Porsche played that role. They make the 939 which is fast. They make the 914 which was a pile of crap. But dodge make the neon. They also make the SRT-4 which, when made in the neon body, was the fastest american production economy car made with a 0-60 in just over 5 seconds.
My point is, porsche put good engineering into the v-rod's performance. The bike is fast and the xj550 couldn't handle it. And I love my 550

 

Quite true. They also went to belt final drive in 1991.

 

In 914 defense

It will post the best times all day long at most auto cross courses.

 

Not against an 80cc shifter =] LOL

But with a good driver and VERY little work done to a 914 it would do very well in an autocross. Actually the 914 was a great car, if you never get weather over 75 degrees. That air cooled VW mill doesn't like heat.

 

I'll bet if I get the yamaha it will last me 10 years. I take care of my stuff, and other than doing a little twisty shredding I don't plan on wheeling and stunts. And I like to go fast sometimes but racing and going 80 mph are 2 different things. Think I'll do the FZ1 either first generation with carbs or a later 2nd gen with fuel injection. The early fuel injection was dangerous on the fz1. But really can't go wrong with carbs.

 

Dangerous FI? Something I must not have heard about...

Carbs are always good if you dont have to pay someone to work on them. lol

 

Wow, I thought this thread was going to be a Harley bashathon. Nice to know there is such a wealth of knowledge and maturity amongst the members.

 

I dont see any real reason to bash a HD other than sky high prices and high ownership cost. Hell I grew up around Harleys and Honda CBXs and the it seems we had the Hondas apart more often, of course they also got ridden much more often. The harleys were my dads show toys that got ridden once in a blue moon and the CBX's were his daily drivers.. Still looked show clean though.

 

You may be surprised how many of these people that make tons of money DO NOT buy these on credit.They may pay too much but they dont pay all that interest.There are more nad more people nowdays that actually SAVE up to buy new cars and other things.Try it sometime,dont be a hater of those who live within their means or earn enough to buy what they enjoy.I do not own a Harley,cant justify the price but I do like the way some of them look and sound.

 

Love HD, just not the price or some of the owners...

skillet

 

The last Harley I owned was a 102ci stroker built from an 1984 FXST Shovel Head(last year for the shovel and first year for the Evo). It was a screaming rat bike. Easily the fastest bike I have owned. I think my Seca is probably a bit quicker off the line due the gearing but that FX would never stop accelerating. I don't think I ever found out just what the top end was(my cojones are only good for 130mph).

I loved that ugly ass Harley but I will never, ever buy a new one. Harley-Davidson has completely forgotten about the people who made them what they are. The blue collar everyday Joes who kept them alive and viable evn through the AMF fiasco years have become persona non grata.

 

Always found the Harley thing interesting but the modern day marketing routine puts me right off.
Not fair to compare a VRod to a 550 seca after all isn't the VRod a little over double the capacity.
Been to the local drags a few times and while the Harley's sound awesome and look the part they seem to spend an awful lot of money on performance gear to get similiar times to Joe Blow's jap bike.
Mind you vertical wheelies and thundering exhaust is a spectacle all its own.

 

I didn't mean to compare against a 550, I meant in general. Fireblade, R1, GSXR1000, gsxr6, R6 take your pick of the fantastic plastic bikes, all will destroy a standard V-rod. The V-rod is an amazing bike, just not up to the performance of a modern sports machine

This in no way means I do not like them. Like I said before, the noise and presence of a vrod is unbelievable, and the reason i would have one in my fantasy garage!!!

 

Again there is a point completely missed. And a LOT of these yupps are financing beyond their means. Sure a lot of people buy things outright. But as far as I go, I BUY EVERYTHING WITH CASH. I interact with people DAILY who live way outside of or pushing the limit of their means. I'm not hating anything. I am stating an observance. And to "Hate on" I guess I'd have to be jealous. But I do pretty well for myself and actually own EVERYTHING I have. And as a person who saves and buys what he wants outright, in cash, I make sure that I get exactly what I want. So trust me... I wasn't hating. But that wasn't even my point.

 

Ya the rockets would destroy a vrod, all being stock. Haha. Its such a cool looking bike too. If I had to have a harley I'd go with a Yamaha Vmax... oh... haha... I mean a Vrod. What's really a trip is the hardcore harley guys call it the vturd and don't like it at all. But they respect BMW and like lots of power. When the Vrod first came to the market, before I rode street bikes, I saw a NOVA special called "The Making of the Vrod" I thought it was the baddest thing ever in the whole wide universe. haha I thought everybody who had anything on 2 wheels would be drooling over it. Oh well... now I am starting to talk myself into wanting a Vrod. Too top heavy though.

 

Balancing things up a little...............

 

that looks so slow....

 

It's really not slow. Haha... it a drag bar. But check out some youtube vids of the vrod. Its fast. Why do I keep defending the vrod. Ok... I'm done with this thread.

 

Not all Harleys are slow. I used to watch the "All Harley Drags" at the Woodburn, OR drag strip. The big dogs run pure nitro methane. Just the pressurized gas out of a cylinder like a welding cylinder. I've stood behind them when they launch. You watch the tree and when it goes green your eye can't catch up to the bike before it traps at the end of the quarter mile. Impressive to say the least!

Loren

 

Gotta disagree with this statement. My BMW K1200LT is far superior to a Harley for long distance touring. I go between 250 and 300 miles on a tank of fuel, my brother in laws 2006 full dresser goes 150 miles between fill ups. My scoot is virtually vibration free. The frame is MUCH more rigid resulting in more predictable handling, the noise they make from a loudness standpoint is about the same. Mine sounds like a Ferrari (high revs) and his has that low rumble characteristic of a Harley (Duh!). He has more low end torque so he leaves the line quicker but once I reach 5000 RPM's mine pulls away like a freight train. I have an electric adjust on the fly windshield that is the cats meow. I never have to look through the plastic. Raise it to just below eye level and the wind and rain goes away. Harley's luggage holds more because they are square. Harley's luggage is ugly because they are square. Top speed? Who cares? You can get a ticket with either one.

Bottom line? Ride whatever trips your trigger. I tour on my Beemer and I'm very happy with it. My brother in law is very happy with his Harley. (Mine's better :lol: )

BTW Either one will bankrupt you if you have to pay the dealer for service. Oil change at the dealer for mine is $158.00. This does not include the gearbox or the final drive. Just the engine! A replacement mirror is $600 USD. Hit a big pothole and they will fall off so we make stainless steel cable ties to keep them from hitting the ground. Clutch replacement(dry clutch) is right at $2000 USD. I will NEVER, EVER, EVER think repair parts for my Maxim are expensive.

Loren

 

eh

Seems like they are built to look and sound a certain way, which in my opinion when building any machine, that should come second. If you build something that serves its purpose the best, (getting a person from point a to point b on 2 wheels) being awesome comes naturally.

But society always has been and probably always will be shallow.

(sorry.. harsh.. yes.. lack of sleep from guys (and gals) rippin around on their super loud bikes into the wee hours of the night are making me grumpy)

Anyway, in regards to the OP

I think I just read the V Rod (stock form) hammers out a 1/4 in about 11.91 seconds.

And I believe it is one of the fastest stock HD's. (Correct me if I'm wrong)


Therefore, yes, Harley's really are that slow.

 

Harleys mostly are slow, STOCK! Harleys prepaired for drag racing do kick ass, I personally don't like the way they run, especially at idle. They are as annoying as an old odd fire V6. the only time they idle right if if something is wrong. Porshe 914 in germany was a Volkswagen 914: with the Porshe 6 they were fast in their day (120+ mph), our muscle cars were'nt any faster than the 914-6 which was made for cornering. The xj 750 or 900 is definetely a better race bike than the xr750 was, or the 883 is for that matter. I'd put my money on a stock xj1100 over a a stock sportster 1200 any day, but not the new xr1200 or V-rod. Like dirty harry said "A mans got to know his limitations." same with bikes.
I wish the science, technology and parts supply (including after-market) that followed Harley Davidson all of these years existed for my xj750. I'd ride it untill I couldn't climb on the seat any more! Maybe some day Yamaha will realize that americans love drag racing and launch a balls out drag racing program. I'd love to see equally factory prepaired ($1,000,000) V-maxes go heads up agianst H.D. factory bikes in Pro Stock.

 

I didn't say touring. I said CRUISING. yup if I wanted to go round the world it would be on a BMW. but if I wanna cruise it'll be on a Harley............or maybe my Ducati Monster...mmmmmm

I don't know about servicing but we have motobins in the uk for BMW parts....reasonably cheap (mayne worth looking in to if it might help keep your costs down)

BMW parts

 

My bad, I thought the question was are Harleys slow. Cruising and touring have little to do with going fast. Unless you're police, fire, rescue or military going fast is it's own purpose.

 

Every bike has is purpose, some you ride for thrills, some look good.

 

When I had my Sporster the other bikers called it 1/2 a harley and we called Jap bikes boat anchors and I had a boat anchor before I had my first harley. What matters the most your face in the wind or what your riding to get your face in the wind?

 

Well... my nose in the wind first... but I want what I am riding to last a long time too. I hear sporties dogged a lot. 1/2 a Harley, "Skirtsters", etc. But they have made some beast sporties. But what I am riding makes a huge difference. I would never buy a dual-sport unless I lived in the desert and used it mostly as a dirt bike. Would never buy a dual-sport, priod, over a street bike. So it does matter to an extent. But you're right... any bike is better than no bike. And the reason a biker rides should matter more than what he rides.

 

ive helped build some fast sporties run neck in neck with a v65 honda and a 1000j kawasaki . wich is pretty fast for a briggs and stratton

 

I'd like to have 6 months, about 3 or 4 Grand in Travelers Checks and a Honda GoldWing, ... so fully loaded that I wouldn't have any space left to bring-along any bad vibes or hang-up's.

I'd leave my house and ride to California.
Have a Doctor write me a prescription for 8 oz's of Hawaiian Sensimilla for chronically aching flat feet.
Get a Zig-zag Man tattoo.
Quit shaving.
Follow the Sun.
Scratch-off another line on my Bucket List.

See ya later.

 

You always make the most sense, rick!

Consider a 45 degree v-twin with forked connecting rods, so that they are pushing on the crankshaft only 45 degrees of rotation apart, so basically at the same time, but just far enough apart to be out of sync. I don't care about anything else; that is just a horrible, horrible engine design IMHO.

But only Harley makes those, and (as far as I know) all Harley's have those, it's what makes a Harley a Harley. Ergo, Harley has a bad engine design.

Any engine that has that much vibration but hits peak torque at ~2500 rpm and peak HP at ~3000 rpm, and redlines at ~5-6000 rpm just is a bad design. It's more important to look at the torque/hp graph. It looks like your 401(k) in the last half of 2008. Goes straight down. Seriously...look it up.

And that is the answer to the main premise to this post. The Harley engine is inherently flawed regarding performance, and is, in fact, slow. Look up performance parts for Harleys. For a lot of money and effort you can get your 1500+cc Harley to put out 128 hp. Or you can get a stock Triumph with well less than half the displacement that puts out about the same.

Go the the AMA drag racing site. Harley's need their own category, because the fastest ones can't beat the other bikes in the quarter mile, by 2 whole seconds. I couldn't believe it when I saw it. Harley requires it's own All Harley class just to keep up. It's like needing to separate men and women in Football. Harley ain't the mens class, either. Just in case you're wondering, it doesn't appear that there are any Harleys in the sub-5 second top fuel class.

I know lots of guys that are Harley fanatics. They won't even consider anything else, and I think that is similar to a lot of Harley riders. I have no doubt that if they took the name plate off the bikes, Harley wouldn't sell nearly as many units, and many of those Harley fanatics wouldn't find themselves riding a Harley.

Unless you are focused on how it sounds (IMO obnoxious). Or looks (IMO gaudy). Or you just don't care to take it past 3k rpm (IMO boring).

But others have different opinions and values. If I cared about those things, and I was the "buy American at all costs" type, and I worked to put out an image, then I might be interested in Harleys.

But I'm not.

 

i was visiting a friend recently who is a die-hard harley fanatic. i woke up early the next morning and was sipping coffee and perusing his service manual - and i will say it looks like it would be easier to do a complete engine overhaul on a harley - simply because the transmission is separate.

that said - i was dissapointed in the inner workings of the engine. I'd always assumed that the pushrods were driven off of cam lobes on the crank shaft. i.e. the crank shaft did double duty as a camshaft - this would make good sense to me as then there would be no cam chain to stretch.

unfortunately for my opinion of harley, i learned there not only is the crankshaft just a crankshaft and that there are 2 cams (i don't see why they couldn't use one). but one cam is driven via chain off the crank, and the other cam is driven by another chain connected to the first cam.

i can't think of a worse possible situation to be in - it seems to me that (at least part of) the reason these bikes can't rev very high is that the valve spring not only has to close the valve, but also has to push on the rocker arm and push rod. so the valves close more slowly = lower red line.

and, not only are you still dealing with the inherent problems of cam chains stretching, but you've got 2 different chains that can stretch differently. granted, they're shorter chains than what is in our overhead cam bikes, so the effects of stretch on timing should be, i think, less significant, but still - why have push rods if you're still going to have cams and chains anyway??

course, the biggest strike (for me) against harley is simply that for the price of a "cheap" introductory harley, i could buy 3 or 4 KLR650s or a dozen used XJ750's.

I will admit that I think the XR1200 looks to be fun as heck. although i can't for the life of me figure out why they put the voltage regulator right behind the front tire - seems like the worst possible place to put electronics.

edit: oh yeah - i forgot the main reason i posted in this thread: i wanted share my analogy. i tend to think of harleys as andre the giant, while [insert favorite better performing motorcycle here] is more like bruce lee. take that to mean what you will.

 

skeeter all harley evo motors 1200 and big bike use 1 camshaft gear driven the only motor that uses 2 is the harley twin cam

 

Hell ya! Well... unless you are a zx12... then you ARE Bruce Lee.
What i don't get is with dual overhead, 4 or 5 valve per cylinder technology, and the tech to water-cool the twins and the tech to really produce better output to displacement, why does Harley stick with push-rods?

 

i think that ALL v-twin motors lack power. not just harleys. harleys are 45, japs are 53 degrees i think it was.

i had an 86 v65 magna that couldn't keep up with harleys though. i don't know if the cam was worn out. due to the cam problems the magnas had. but i'm thinking in 86 the power was tweaked down. it's the only motor that didn't blow second gear. but the gear was also redesigned. i test rode an 84 and it beat the pants off that 86 i had.

i've been looking at a lot of the horses on the vtwin motors and they are all weak compared to what the 4 cylinder motors used to put out.

right now i have an 81 yama 650 maxim. it's a little on the weak side but it's been keeping up with the newer vtwin bikes.