Total Motorcycle Community Forums

ceemes wrote:ouch.

YOU'RE one to talk, mister.

I am sorry but I can't help myself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izzlN2zC ... r_embedded


http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/251889

sorry guys

Wasn't there a Sportster that had a 4 gallon tank which was a tear drop instead of the peanut version? Besides the Sportster got around 50 - 55 MPG which still made long distance doable even on the 3 gallon tank, at least when you consider sports bikes tend to have a 160 mile range average.

JC Viper wrote:Wasn't there a Sportster that had a 4 gallon tank which was a tear drop instead of the peanut version? Besides the Sportster got around 50 - 55 MPG which still made long distance doable even on the 3 gallon tank, at least when you consider sports bikes tend to have a 160 mile range average.

The Roadster model of the late 80's-early 90's had a tank much like the Super Glide, IIRC. But the issue with touring on a Sporty isn't about gas mileage, it's about comfort. I did three cross-Canada trips on my '86 XLH 1100 (4-speed, chain drive) and, trust me on this one, it did NOT make for a good touring bike. The new ones with the rubber mount motors are probably better, but like I said before a Sporty is not designed for long distance touring in the first place.

The difference between the Sportster 883 Low and the Sportster 883 is the lower seat height. Low has mid controls and other Sportsters may have mid or forward controls. Other than that the bikes are identical. I think all Sporster Customs have forward controls.

The Sportster is a fun bike to ride but really not for long distance. I did not feel it had a comfortable riding position for a couple of hours in the seat. I also agree that the peanut tank is very odd, and would not think twice about getting the larger tank.

Gummiente wrote:

JC Viper wrote:Wasn't there a Sportster that had a 4 gallon tank which was a tear drop instead of the peanut version? Besides the Sportster got around 50 - 55 MPG which still made long distance doable even on the 3 gallon tank, at least when you consider sports bikes tend to have a 160 mile range average.

The Roadster model of the late 80's-early 90's had a tank much like the Super Glide, IIRC. But the issue with touring on a Sporty isn't about gas mileage, it's about comfort. I did three cross-Canada trips on my '86 XLH 1100 (4-speed, chain drive) and, trust me on this one, it did NOT make for a good touring bike. The new ones with the rubber mount motors are probably better, but like I said before a Sporty is not designed for long distance touring in the first place.

+1 on this...

You can replace the seat for a more comfortable ride, it's the vibration in the bars that will get to you (you do feel much less vibrations in a rubber mounted XL as compared to a frame mounted XL). 5-6 hours of it is fine. Anything more and you'll feel vibrations in your bones for a week. You can tour with it, but you had better be conditioned to the vibrations. There are definitely bikes better suited to that kind of riding.

Gummiente wrote:my '86 XLH 1100 (4-speed, chain drive) and, trust me on this one, it did NOT make for a good touring bike

I bet. That was not one the better Sportys by any stretch of the imagination. The last of the solid mounted Shovel in a configuration(1100) that was never a happy engine and ill matched to a mediocre 4 speed. You should have waited until the Evo 1200 came out shortly thereafter.

HYPERR wrote:The last of the solid mounted Shovel in a configuration(1100) that was never a happy engine and ill matched to a mediocre 4 speed. You should have waited until the Evo 1200 came out shortly thereafter.

The '86 XLH 1100 is an Evo, dude. And it was never a "Shovel" motor in the old XL's... it was an "Ironhead".

Gummiente wrote:

HYPERR wrote:The last of the solid mounted Shovel in a configuration(1100) that was never a happy engine and ill matched to a mediocre 4 speed. You should have waited until the Evo 1200 came out shortly thereafter.

The '86 XLH 1100 is an Evo, dude. And it was never a "Shovel" motor in the old XL's... it was an "Ironhead".

HYPERR wrote:

You were right about the transmission, though... it had some wonky ratios in it and I spent a lot of time rowing the shifter pedal in traffic. What irked me was they came out with a 5-speed in '88 and then belt drive and a bump up to 1200cc shortly afterwards. Still, that ol '86 Sporty was one of the best bikes I've ever owned and I do still miss it after all these years.