I would like some kind of comfortable bagger with a similar engine--I'm cautiously anticipating Lloyd spending less time with the baggers and more time with the FTR. We know from the Victory P156 and the times it was making at Pike's Peak that there's a hell of a lot more than 100 hp to be made out of that engine.
I'm right there with you, but you do have a torque problem. The Octane-Scout motor only puts about 60 ft-lbs to the rear wheel to get it moving. Revving past 8000 rpm's is where it gets its hp from. It works on a 500 lb bike but it's going to feel pretty lethargic on an 800-900 lb bike. It's going to need at least 30% more Torque to get a bagger-Tour moving well. I think you could bump the motor up to 1600-1800 cc's and get there though. I've ridden a couple different BMW K1600's. Love the motor! Problem is the same with the Goldwing's 1600 cc boxer. The motors are so wide there's not really a good place to put your feet. Standard seating is great for spirited short rides but some mile long Victory floorboards and the Visions bucket seat is the king of comfort for all day tour riding. I still think a second gen Vision with toned down looks, bigger bags, and a 1600-1800 cc version of the Octane's engine woulda put a serious dent in Goldwing and K1600 sales.I would like some kind of comfortable bagger with a similar engine--
I like the Moto Guzzi with the 1400cc engine alot. Better fuel economy and with the ability to rev, a smaller engine can be a ton of fun. I love the small twins. Torquey, and rev-able (is that a word?)
The Scout/Octane engine is pretty cool and has a lot to offer.
Making engines bigger and bigger makes no sense. 121 cu inches? My Subaru probably gets better mileage.