[mjw930]

The TC96 lump is the single biggest reason I don't own a street glide, that motor is an antique piece of crap

Okay not trying to spill the koolaide here, but you know I pretty much say what I feel...
Aren't all air cooled/ oil cooled V-Twins antiques? Isnt that why we love them???
I will say Victory's are less antique from my real world riding but still....

LOL, you got me there. OTOH, I'm not classifying the cylinder layout and antique, just Harley's execution. Come on, pushrods, separate tranny, single plenum induction......... At least the Freedom design is 4 valve, OHC, shared tranny, split intake runner, etc.....

The proof is in the numbers. The stock 106 makes more power and has a longer service life than the TC, that's a function of engineering and when you arrive on an engine layout then execute it clean sheet with modern technology you end up with a superior product. Harley's single biggest problem is it's "tradition". The engineers and leaders of the company know they need a clean sheet engine (I know, I've talked to them at length in a past life) but they can't get past the acceptance issue with their "faithful". Porsche had the exact same issues but they needed to look past the traditionalist if they intended to survive and the cars you see them produce today are a result of that. Perhaps this downturn will be what Harley needs to allow them to say damn the tradition, we need to move forward.

 

[mjw930]

Lucky for us we have choices and spirited discussions. I would like to see the 103 or 110 ci harley motors up against the 100 or 106 victory which is apples against apples.
One harley only person I know says changing stock harley exhausts is the first must do so some models will not sound like old volkswagons. Then some of them sound great and perform better.
I just could not put up with the rough running vibrations of the harley.
Back to the original theme of the thread, is one item (hammer) any better because someone advertises it as better than another item (v-rod). Just another annoying way of advertising. Not very creative.

You can make those comparisons yourself as dyno charts and reviews of the 103 and 110 motors are all over the place. When I was looking at the SG and XC I talked with a number of prominent H-D engine builders and came up with a package that would give me roughly the same power delivery as the stock Vic 106. It was a combination of the factory 103 kit with aftermarket cams, an aftermarket exhaust and a custom ECM tune. Total bill, $4250! That was on top of the $21K OTD price of a SG with the accessories I wanted. I walked OTD with an XC with similar accessories for about $20,500. Aside from the riding dynamics and looks I saved $4750 and didn't have to give up engine longevity in the process.

Getting back on track, since this was about the Hammer vs. V-Rod, if they were reprinting a shootout done by a relatively impartial organization then it has merit. On it's own it's too self serving and reeks of bias.

 

[mjw930]

I don't get paper magazines so until that's available online I'll just have to take your word for it. Scan the charts and post them because every magazine (and person I personally know) has rarely seen more than 80 ft lbs PEAK torque from a stock TC96. Every dyno run I've seen for a basically stock XC has made 80 lb ft from 2250 rpm.....

Vic's numbers I posted earlier are pretty close to what I've seen from independent sources for both torque curves. If you think the TC96 motor is superior in any way over the Vic 106 I suspect someone spiked your kool aid. Installed in a rubber isolated cradle it "might" be considered smoother at speed but ride a rigid mounted TC96B with the counter balancer like ours and see how buzzy it is above 3000 RPM.....

The TC96 lump is the single biggest reason I don't own a street glide, that motor is an antique piece of crap that REQUIRES close to $4000 in upgrades just to make it usable IMHO. 80TQ and 61HP at the rear wheel in a bike that tops 1000 lbs loaded is laughable.

 

[mjw930]

veryone here shouldw the stock HD 96 makes more torque than our 106 does until 3500 rpm then it falls flat on its face where we continue to climb. Our bikes aren't always a clear cut winner. Considering most of the riding is I the 2000-3500 rpm range the HD IS THE BETTER motor for day to day driving power wise. If you love racing. Its a crap shoot. Hell the way video portrays the hammer its better than a ZX14 since it still has more torque and displacement

I'm not sure where you get your numbers but the STOCK HD 96 NEVER makes more torque than the Vic 106.

 

[mjw930]

Crazy,

Funny how these always turn into competitions on 1/4 performance and raw numbers. Honestly, since 99% of the people who ride these bikes never see the drag strip these are pretty much irrelevant.

OTOH, I will say that on the 1130cc '03 V-Rod I was able to consistently haul my 220 lb fat ass down the 1/4 mile in the 12.20 neighborhood with a strong ECM tune and some good pipes. My 1250cc '08 spinning the heavier 240 rear wheel and tire made about 10% more power at the crank but was actually never able to break 12.40 with me on it. Both bikes were solidly into the 11.9's with a smaller 160 lb rider who does it for a living so your point is well taken.

As for needing to be above 5000 rpm to do anything, I disagree. As you can see from my last dyno run on the 1250 motor it's making 90% of it's peak torque from 3500 RPM and as for driveablity it's all about the area under the curve, not the peak numbers. The motor may not be a torque monster but it's power delivery is quite smooth from 3500 - 8500 RPM and it will cruise effortlessly all day long at 5000 rpm and aside from a mental block for most traditional V-Twin riders there's nothing wrong with that.

(and I truly miss he ability to tune my own ECM. I wish someone would crack the Visteon box and make that software public, I HATE piggyback boxes)

Out Of The Box the Hammer is hands down the best "traditional" power cruiser and that's the message they need to be getting out. Having ridden both and the ultimate performance aside, the Hammer is a better ride for what a cruiser is intended to be. The effortless torque is addictive and the looks and ride are first class. The only thing I was not thrilled with was the handling and from what I've heard that's 90% attributed to the 250 dunlop's tire profile. Swapping tires out with a 240 Avon Cobra would make the initial turn in much more linear and solve the ONLY handling quirk I have with the bike.

I honestly thing Victory would be far better served in this comparison not trying to "beat" the V-Rod but pointing out that you can get very similar raw performance in a more traditional style package.

 

[mjw930]

Oh, the Jackpot is the natural competitor to the Rocker C, not the Hammer.

 

[mjw930]

Don't get me wrong guys, after riding V-Rods for 7 years I got off a demo of the Hammer and had I not wanted to get a touring bike I would have a Hammer in the garage, it's a great bike.

I love the analogy of a Tae-kwon-do kid vs. the bully. That pretty much nails it!

A bike doesn't have to better in any particular area to be desirable and the Hammer is a very desirable bike, just as the V-Rod is.

It's a shame Victory feels they need to pick a fight to sell their product. In this example they brought a knife to a gun fight......