2004
Model Range
Words:
Andy
Hornsby
Pics: Harley-Davidson Archive & www.buell.com
Everything’s going to plan, you’ve sat back as long as you can before deciding you’re not going to get round the news embargo surrounding Harley-Davidson’s 2004 models, so you make it up ... sorry, you speculate. I’m sure there’s a difference.
We talk
to our connections inside Harley’s UK press office. Harley’s
not happy, and legal speak is in the air. The pics are press shots, the
detail can only have come from the horse’s mouth. It’s what
we’ve been waiting for.
Can we ignore
it? Can we hell.
The cat
is out of the bag, and the news is now in the public domain. Question
is, are we brave enough to put it up on-line? Not until the 28th we’re
not. Well, at least not until a roadtest based on the experiences of a
US press call is posted – presumably the same press call that the
embargo-busters got all their factory press shots. Yes, factory press
shots.
If Harley-Davidson
are naive enough to believe you can give a journalist a scoop and expect
them not to publish, then they deserve the leak ... but of course Harley
are not naive, they are masters of marketing and the very underground
nature of the news creeping out will guarantee its proliferation. We finally
get an off-the-record nudge that we can use whatever we can find, and
here it is – in a form we can remove at the drop of a lawsuit through
the letterbox.
Of course
it could be a deliberate release of misinformation release to make us
all look very silly, but it’s a sophisticated one if it is.
2004-on
XL Sportster
The
fact that Harley announced in mid-July that there was to be a new XL Sportster
suggested its replacement was going to bear some resemblance to the post
1957 range of motorcycles that we’ve become familiar with, and it
certainly does. More so than anyone dared expect. In fact I’ll go
so far as to say I reckon we’ve been duped: if it wasn’t for
the furore that has accompanied the impending launch, I don’t think
anyone would have noticed, and certainly not paid it anywhere near as
much attention.
American-V
has long advocated rubber-mounting the Sportster – ideally in its
Buell Thunderstorm guise – and let the poor thing off its lead a
little, and anyone who’s ridden a Cyclone and a XL1200S can’t
fail to have noticed the potential, so is the truth anywhere near the
anticipation?
Yes and
no.
Well, it’s
rubber-mounted.
The new
Sportsters comprise two 883 models which closely parallel the old XLH883
and the XL53C custom, and a pair of 1200 models which fit where the 1200C
and the 1200S used to live – with a minor name change for the 1200S
which has now become the XL1200R Roadster. No Hugger, no XLH1200 but then
we’ve not had the stock 1200 in the UK for years, and a Hugger is
nothing more than a pair of shocks – and the Hugger is now irrelevant
as the new chassis has a lower seat height.
The early
news was that we were going to get the Buell engine, slightly detuned
with about 95hp at the crank, but the reality is sadly markedly less with
just a modest 15% power increase over 2003 taking it to a better, but
still woeful 70hp. It remains to be seen how that will feel in a frame
that allows you to rev the motor harder than before, and get at the power
within, but it smacks of an opportunity missed. We only hope the 15% increase
isn’t to cover the extra requirement to drag that extra weight around.
Extra weight?
What extra weight?
Ah, you
thought it was all good news.
The
diminutive dimensions of the frame have barely increased in spite of the
rubber-mountings that are now interposed twixt chassis and engine, but
Harley engineers are suggesting the frame itself is 100% stronger than
the 2003 item, and 26% more rigid: it needs to be as it can no longer
rely on the motor for structural assistance. The strength has been provided
by thicker wall tubing, rather than embracing a more radical solution,
and that means weight. Around 50lbs more according to the figures we are
hearing – which is almost twice the weight of the entire Buell RR1000
frame.
Okay, so
there is a heritage issue here, and the Sportster should have opportunity
to run for at least another three years to make its fiftieth without a
fundamental change in its lines, but hello? There is a radical design
engineer within the group who has been making light, rubber-mount frames
for the last ten years – surely it’s not beyond the bounds of
possibility that a structurally sound, traditional-looking frame could
be made?
But hey,
let’s get to the detail – and I can hear the press release in
the words we’ve got, so am presuming they have some credence.
We are told
that the new Sportster has less power because it has a smaller airbox
than the Buell. Now I know that the Sportster-style carbon airboxes on
staged Buells are usually accompanied by a free breathing exhaust, but
blaming the airbox volume makes no sense. The butty-box on the side of
a Cyclone is as much about reducing induction noise as providing a large
volume of still air, and if there was an issue about the amount of air
that the motor could suck, surely the first thing you’d do is modify
the cam profile so it didn’t try to, so why make a point of using
the hot Buell cams. There’s no mention we’ve yet seen regarding
porting, so perhaps that’s where the differences lie.
But that’s
not all: it gets better.
We know
they haven’t got the same heads as the 2003 1200S with its dual plugs,
because it doesn’t need them thanks to the new combustion chamber
design – which is another way of saying that they really should have
been using Buell heads for years ... but it still doesn’t generate
the power.
Let’s
get it over with: the Sportster doesn’t generate the power because
the will to do so is not there. If there had been, it could have been
achieved and without much more time being spent. In fact you could argue
that it would have taken time for them to have detuned the XB12 to such
an extent.
I’ll
get back in my pram in a moment, but not before one final disappointment.
We hear that the underpowered 883 has been given a power increase too:
two whole horsepower. That was worth waiting for then, wasn’t it?
That might just give a net increase in the power to weight ... hang on
I’ll check.
2003 XLH883:
51hp, 235kg = 4.607kg/hp
2004 XLH883:
53hp, 257kg = 4.849kg/hp
Maybe not
then, although that presupposes the 50lb (22kg) increase is a gross increase
for the bike and not just the frame.
On to better news, for while the motor has a lot in common with its predecessor, a lot of work has been done in the engine to lighten components, improve cooling and generally prepare it for harder use. We know they’ve lightened the rods, pistons and valve train, but there’s no mention of a lighter flywheel so don’t know how much the character of the engine will have changed. There is a suggestion that the lighter components are the reason why it revs 500rpm faster than previously, to 6k, but Harley themselves have been making an ignition module to up the redline on the XL1200S to 6800rpm without the usually "race application only" disclaimer, so don’t get too carried away. All that work, and a change in compression levels to 9.7:1 should give more that 15%, so suggests that there is plenty of tuning opportunity still there.
What
is not open to question is that the increased fin area will improve cooling,
as will the oil spray underneath the pistons that has been used on big
twins for some years now, and no-one will be disappointed to see another
quart added to the oil tank capacity. While they were tinkering inside
the motor, all gaskets got a dose of looking at, and if you were wondering
what’s missing from the outside of the motor, the balance pipe is:
it has been moved, Dyna-style, out of sight.
In fact
there is a lot of the FXDs about the new XLs, and in the absence of a
new moniker, Dyna Sportster is a name that might just stick.
Somewhat
surprisingly, the Sportster retains a carburettor which either suggests
it hasn’t got a projected lifespan beyond the current EPA emissions,
or that Harley are bullish about keeping emissions low without the complexity
of EFI – although with EFI being made available as an option on all
Dynas, I would question the long term commitment to the XL which will
probably hang on market reaction to the new model. I don’t suppose
for a minute that all the X1 Lightning EFI systems were binned when the
downdraught system was adopted on all XB series Buells, so there might
be hope for the future if the new XL is welcomed with open arms.
Lastly,
in the motor department, most covers have been revised to give the classic
shape something of a revamp, but it is modest, and doesn’t detract
any more than the Evo compared to the iron XLs.
Chassis-wise,
the new trellis holds the motor in two rubber bushes, one at the front
which meets a giant loop, cast into the front of the cases, and a second
which combines with the swing-arm pivot at the back of the gearbox. A
rose jointed tie-bar from the front cylinder head to the frame stops the
engine from falling over, and there is another tie-bar at the rear mounting
point at least to prevent the back of the engine, and therefore the driveline,
stepping too far out of line. I can’t tell from the images where
the same is done at the front, which would make sense, but it is alluded
to in the texts I’ve read.
Fat
tyre lovers will be pleased that a 150-section rear has been accommodated,
which follows the path started by the Dynas in 2002 and followed by the
Softails in 2003. In the case of the oh-so-narrow Sportster it meant that
the engine needed offsetting by a quarter of an inch.
Shorter
riders will already have noted that the seat height is lower across the
range, and might like to know that the battery has been moved further
inboard, away from their thighs when at standstill, and if that lack of
height is matched by smaller hands, the bars fitted are the same 7/8-inch
bars fitted to just about everything else on the planet.
Sports
riders will be pleased by the new brakes, perhaps, but less impressed
by the omission of the adjustable forks and shocks from the XL1200R Roadster
– apparently riders don’t want them, and the saving can be passed
down to buyers to make them more affordable. What saving? The 1200C cost
no less than the 1200S previously, and in 883 guises it only added up
to £750 between the base and the custom/sport models. I’d venture
to suggest that a lot of traditional Harley riders needed telling how
to set the forks up or would otherwise leave them alone, in which case
they were irrelevant. I’ll mourn their loss, but I’d mourn it
greater if the power potential had been fully realised. I would expect,
depending on reaction to the 1200R, that a 1200S might reappear for 2005
with the adjustment back – and hopefully more power.
Stylistically,
the Customs get a bigger tank – increasing to 4.5 US gallons –
and with a retro stainless steel tank detail running its length, incorporating
the filler cap. Meanwhile the stock 883 and the 1200R stay with a revised
version of the 3.3 US gallon tank. The shape of both tanks is familiar
Sportster-fare but the fitment is different to pre-2004 models, which
means you probably can’t fit the custom tank you’ve bought for
your current model without serious reworking.
All in all,
reservations aside, it should carry the XLs through to their half century
with ease, but it’s anyone’s guess what happens next.
2004-on
Dynas
The only
news we’ve picked up on so far is that the model range has shrunk
by one, and another attempt at a mid-sized bagger has bitten the bullet:
the T-Sport is gone. Shame really because a screen could possibly have
made all the difference. Signs that the Dynas are destined to continue
are good, with EFI being available as an option across the range, which
brings with it a longer, flatter fuel tank. That should silence the conspiracy
theorists who saw the VRs as the new street range for a short while at
least.
2004-on
Softails
Not much
to report yet here either except the demise of the Heritage Springer Softail,
while the Springer Softail has wider and flatter handlebars.
2004-on
Tourers
The
unexpected surprise of 2004 is a new Road King – or more accurately
an additional Road King: the FLHRSI, or Road King Custom, although Sport
is at least as appropriate and sits better with the model designation.
Sitting
pretty on a pair of slotted disk wheels, extensively debadged and fitted
with undressed leather bags, it is likely to attract a lot of attention
for the serious mile-eaters who want that little bit more style than they
get from a full-on dresser but without the frippery of the Classic.
It could best be described as uncluttered, and that lack of clutter is best seen when viewing it alongside the Classic upon which it is based. The headlamp nacelle is the major departure in terms of new bits, and leads to many other details. No longer the spotlamp-flanked Duo Glide-on piece of loveliness, it has a more rounded profile, and looks to incorporate a chrome wind deflector in place of the police style screen that has seen service since the Electra Glide Sports. I hope it comes off, or at least that it looks better viewed from the front than the side, because that’s the only issue I have with it. If that tank console is based on the Deuce’s, and all we know at the time of writing is that it, and the speedo, have been reworked, it will add be a welcome addition, while the first factory-fit beach-bars will be welcomed with open arms ... geddit?
Open arms?
Beach-bars? Please yourself.
I can take
or leave the bars, and it’s only half a dozen screws to sort that
out anyway, and while I suspect the rearward sloping pillion seat would
not meet with the approval of she who must be obeyed, as long as they
do it in black as well as the incredibly red one that I’m looking
at, it’s got the makings of a popular addition to the range, and
the replacement for the more European, and not especially successful T-Sport.
In addition to the new King on the block, all tourers are getting another
half-inch on their tyre width – which sounds like the end of the
road for the MT90x16 tyre in favour of the 150/80x16.
The Road
Glide’s frame mounted screen – which wasn’t a popular option
in the UK – has had someone out with the protractor: the screen is
tilted forwards by four degrees and the screen altered to suit that line.
2004-on
VRs
It’s
strange that a revised Sportster should be steal the thunder from the
other known quantity … well, the bit we were told about in the original
teaser: another VR model. We originally heard of three new VRs and, frankly,
it’s about time they made more of it.
Okay, so it made no sense to compete with yourself for the limelight, and the Anniversary show was the major push for 2003; and to be fair, the V-Rod was still creating ripples in 2002, but they’ve had two years since the VRSCA’s launch to get their thinking caps on, and the waiting world expected great things.
I do wonder
whether there isn’t still a surprise up Harley’s sleeve on this
so a lot of the stuff we made up ... sorry, speculated about, has some
mileage left in it so, break for italics and a flashback to three days
ago ...
How Harley
treat their second model based on the Revolution engine will tell us a
lot about their future plans for the whole range. Will it be a custom,
a streetbike or a tourer? If it comes to it, what is the V-Rod? The flexibility
of the new motor means it would suit any role, but the lack of Harley’s
trademark bottom end power means it will have to make a greater impact
on the custom category than it has managed so far. Will it come with a
new, less radical chassis? Unless it’s another custom of sorts, it’ll
probably have to.
Have
they made enough inroads into the popular consciousness to push into Sports
tourer country. It’s a very big market in the UK and Europe and the
motor will stand up well against the competition in that class –
and it’s an image conscious, moneyed market, and as such a fertile
ground for Harley’s marketing teams to make rich pickings.
Alternatively,
a number of sportbike riders – the mainstream press included –
are crying out for the VR engine to be harnessed in something for them.
They’ve long cited the Buell chassis as the natural home for the
water-boiler, but Erik is on record as not being keen to accommodate the
extra complexity and weight, and it would play havoc with the Buell’s
balance. Would a Harley sportbike be accepted? Would the spawn of the
VR1000 make the switch from track to road, and if so would it be any more
successful than it was on the roundy-roundy?
But then
it could be slotted into a serious Tourer. It would form so small a percentage
of the overall visible bike that it might slip through unnoticed, but
while its 1130cc motor has all the power you’d want on tap, and delivers
it easily, I suspect it would prove a little too revvy for a leisurely
long-haul dresser?
What
about the streetfighter class? Buell is already there with a very different
offering, but that’s where the loudest cries are coming from. Perhaps
a streetbike/musclebike to put up against the retro models from everyone
else? That’s where our money is. A black-framed streetbike, retaining
the radical geometry of the V-Rod, because the tooling costs have got
to be paid for somehow. Lose the binnacle and monopod riser, replace the
laid-down headlamp with the twin spots off the new Lightning, and stick
in some wheels with holes in ’em. The radiator cover could be abbreviated
to make it leaner-looking, and maybe upside-down forks, while we’re
on the wish list. The base outline of one that we mocked up eighteen months
ago starts to come out – well, we needed somewhere else to show it
off, and with further modifications from eighteen months’ development,
I reckon it would be received upon with great enthusiasm.
It’s
also worth remembering, however, that there has long been talk of another,
bigger motor developed alongside the Revolution, and it clearly wasn’t
the new Sportster motor, and at least one source is not talking of a new
VR, but of a new V-Rod and that’s another thing entirely. Take a
VR motor out to 1400cc, give it the torque it currently lacks, and demonstrate
the potential of the motor. Add stump-pulling low speed torque to the
V-Rod and you could forgive it almost anything – even the radiator
… okay, so perhaps not everything. We’re still waiting for the
ground-swell of opinion to shift in the V-Rod’s favour, and it would
be interesting to see whether more torque will change perceptions.
More
torque might encourage those traditional riders who bought one to keep
it, rather than switch back to the air-cooled big twins – which can
only be a good thing from Harley’s point of view as those people
have gone as far as to accept its ultra-modern appearance. On the other
hand, having seen reactions of people who haven’t ridden one, and
compared them to similarly inexperienced people’s reaction to Victory’s
Vegas, I have to say that the Vegas was more acceptable. More torque might
mean better press and that might sway a few, but I think there is still
some work to do there on the aesthetics, or else wait until the world
catches up. Remember the original reaction to the Ford Sierra? Or the
Suzuki Katana? They don’t look quite so radical now do they? Best
to gloss over the Yamaha GTS though, eh?
 |
| ABOVE: The American-V Secret Laborartory created this mock up to illustrate what we reckon the new VR could have been ... or perhaps should have been. |
That was
what I was going to say, and then we saw the truth. Bleedin’ ’ell,
and they say the English are conservative.
Is that
it?
A V-Rod
with a black frame? Is John McEnroe in the house? We’ve could do
with his best remembered catch phrase right now. Failing that, get Victor
Meldrew on the phone.
Three years
on from the most radical, mould-breaking production motorcycle for generations,
how do you follow it up? Send it to the paint shop ... oh, and give it
a few new badges. Break out the party hats, it’s going to be a long
one.
Granted,
I’m delighted that the frame is black on the VRSCB because it ties
in with the VIN thing elsewhere in this issue, and because it gives it
a significantly different look, but that’s what they could have done
in 2002 without undermining the impact it was still making, or as part
of the Anniversary Scheme where it would have tied in with the black "tank"
top.
Are there
any big differences?
Well, you can switch the handlebars on the B, and there are some powder-coated finishes on the motor.
How about
more torque?
Well, they
appear to have answered the criticism that it won’t short-shift into
second by reducing the overall gearing, but it could of course be to allow
it to accelerate even more quickly at the expense of the 130mph+ top end,
which was neither necessary or especially comfortable.
Perhaps
the R&D team were seconded into attending the biggest international
party that the motorcycling world has even seen, but now that’s all
out of the way – and assuming the hangover isn’t too bad –
perhaps they could resharpen their crayons.
BUELL
2004: Return of the long-strokes
For
those of us who mourn the passing of the long-strokes, Buell have supplemented
the short-stroke 985cc motors with a couple of 1200s. The XB9R Firebolt
and XB9S Lightning are not being replaced by the 1200s as they offer a
different sort of power and experience, and to that end they have had
some amendments for 2004.
Most notable
among the improvements is the drive belt’s increase in pitch –
the distance between the centres and therefore the size of the rubber
"teeth" on the belt – from 11mm to 14mm. The belt has been
the Achilles heel of the new models to date and the more substantial belt
should increase the torsional strength, while giving more grip to cope
with the increased torque of the more powerful new models. It’s been
suggested elsewhere that the modifications to the belt will make it less
susceptible to stress when hauled out of the way to aid wheel removal
– as has been the official explanation of the failures to date –
but I suspect that the bigger teeth will make the belt less pliable, and
mean that you’ve got to take the belt guards off rather than try
to wrestle the wheel past the belt in-situ. The belt guards themselves
have been redesigned for easier removal, which should make that job easier
– and more likely to be done by the book. Either way, it should bury
that issue.
Comfort
often features high on a pillion’s agenda, and their footrest positions
on both models is two inches lower than on 2003 models, courtesy of revised
brackets. The Firebolt retains its high footrests but anyone with half
a brain knows that you can stick the Lightning’s footrests onto the
Firebolt to make it feel less crowded. The Firebolt also gets longer stalks
on its mirrors, for those thick-set riders who want to see past their
shoulders, and instruments that you can read in place of the bloody-awful
numbers of the existing model. The Lightning is still available as the
Low, with its seat height reduced by an inch and a half, for the vertically
challenged.
Colours
for 2004 are familiar on the 985cc models, but with the omission of the
white Firebolt. The baby Firebolt gets white wheels for 2004, while the
smaller Lightning sticks with bare metal for instant identification: probably
more for the sake of the 1200 riders than those on XB9s.
So, to the
1200s themselves. What do get if you add seventeen and a bit millimetres
to the XB9’s stroke? The internal dimensions and power output of
the X1 Lightning without a major increase in weight over the XB9. The
new XB’s specifications are almost identical to the 9’s: same
sharp steering geometry, same tiny wheelbase, same gear ratios (incidentally
the primary drive ratio has been revised downwards for 2004 from 1.68:1
to 1.5:1), same wheels, tyres and brakes.
What isn’t
identical is the power output.
The 84.2hp@7,400rpm
of the XB9 jumps to 100@6,600, while the torque climbs from 63ftlbs@5,600rpm
to 81@6,000 for the international models. I’d have expected lower
revs for peak torque – but it is peak torque that we’re referring
to – and there is a little trick up the XB12’s sleeve …
well, in its exhaust. The XB12s feature a variable path for exhaust gases,
which boost torque in the mid-range and higher: expect a flatter torque
curve with loads of bottom-end power across the rev range – against
that broad spread a peak is arbitrary, but we’ll await the graphs
before going overboard. This is the magic that is called the "Interactive
Exhaust", and probably goes a long way to adding the extra 10lbs
of weight that distinguishes the bigger from the smaller bikes, because
I can’t see an additional 34mm worth of barrel making that much difference.
Bearing in mind that you can power-wheelie an XB9S without trying, the
rumours of the brutal torque of the XB12S lofting the front wheel with
ease shouldn’t be underestimated.
There is
a downside to the bigger motor: it only does 48 rather than 50mpg on the
US Government recognised urban cycle, although they both manage 65mpg
on the highway according to US EPA stats. Yes, that was sarcasm, before
someone takes issue. Sixty-five miles per gallon – sorry, US gallon
– on a sport bike? Yes, a US gallon is smaller than a UK one, 15%
smaller, but their miles are the same so that really means 55 and 75 mpg
respectively. No wonder Buell reckons he can keep emissions down: he’s
not burning anything. There are people out there who would be delighted
to get that from a CB500. Granted, those a government figures, but compare
those to other government figures on other bikes. Bleedin’ ’ell.
Appearance-wise,
all XB12s have orange – sorry, Translucent Amber – wheels, a
graphite grey frame and swing-arm, and all are available in Midnight Black
or Racing Red. The engines get a textured finish in a magnesium tone on
major engine covers.
Prices were
announced as we went to press and the news is all good. The XB9s have
dropped from £7,395 to £6,995, and the XB12s have come in
only slightly higher than the original base at £7,645 – the
special finishes will account for much of that, and the "Interactive
Exhaust" the rest, because there are so few differences between the
ranges.
Still not convinced they are a force to be reckoned with? Well, Buell have demonstrated their confidence in the changes, by doubling their warranty period to two years. All we need now is a frame that is a better fit for us six footers. It’s just stepped up a gear in East Troy.
Archived News: click on link where available