Gary7

19th January 2007, 18:34

Would it be fair and accurate to say that the 07 XL883s with EFI produce as much HP and TQ as XL1200s did ten years ago? (I'm talking bone stock off the showroom floor.) What about five years ago?

View Full Version : Would this be a fair and accurate statement?

Gary7

19th January 2007, 18:34

Would it be fair and accurate to say that the 07 XL883s with EFI produce as much HP and TQ as XL1200s did ten years ago? (I'm talking bone stock off the showroom floor.) What about five years ago?

CBAS5

19th January 2007, 19:22

No. The are still behind on hp and the torque they produce is still about half of the 1200's. The hp they make has improved, but they have gained significant amounts of weight.

4banger

19th January 2007, 19:25

Heck no, dream on!

Matt

19th January 2007, 20:10

Stock they are certainly cleaner (02 sensor, cat). A fair question would be between a stock '97 883 and a stock '07 883. The '07 probably gets the nod.

Matt

Matt

Gary7

19th January 2007, 21:10

No. The are still behind on hp and the torque they produce is still about half of the 1200's.

Let's talk some numbers. The HD web site lists the following torque numbers for 07 Sportsters:

XL883: 55.0 ft. lbs. @ 3500 rpm

XL1200: 79.1 ft. lbs. @ 4000 rpm

That's about a 45% difference. Significant, but the 1200 certainly doesn't produce TWICE as much torque as the 883.

Who's got the specs for a 97 1200 so we can actually compare numbers to an 07 883?

Let's talk some numbers. The HD web site lists the following torque numbers for 07 Sportsters:

XL883: 55.0 ft. lbs. @ 3500 rpm

XL1200: 79.1 ft. lbs. @ 4000 rpm

That's about a 45% difference. Significant, but the 1200 certainly doesn't produce TWICE as much torque as the 883.

Who's got the specs for a 97 1200 so we can actually compare numbers to an 07 883?

roadster

20th January 2007, 05:14

Are you serious?

TiBaal89

20th January 2007, 05:17

Would it be fair and accurate to say that the 07 XL883s with EFI produce as much HP and TQ as XL1200s did ten years ago? (I'm talking bone stock off the showroom floor.) What about five years ago?

Good God, I don't think so. :geek

A better question might be - how far back in history do have to go until the most powerful Sporty at the time was only as powerful as the '07 883?

I don't know anything about power numbers on the old iron and stuff...

Good God, I don't think so. :geek

A better question might be - how far back in history do have to go until the most powerful Sporty at the time was only as powerful as the '07 883?

I don't know anything about power numbers on the old iron and stuff...

Paul

20th January 2007, 05:54

No,and no.

Phelan

20th January 2007, 06:05

How about this. If I am not mistaken the '98 1200S was rated at the same power as my '03 1200S. Both were rated at 79ft. lbs. Don't remember RPM though. There hasn't been a significant power increase for stock HDs in years. Just made 'em burn cleaner for emmisions standards.

DC in PHX

20th January 2007, 06:19

Certainly not. but you got a great bike anyway, so enjoy what you have!

DC

DC

Gary7

20th January 2007, 06:41

A better question might be - how far back in history do have to go until the most powerful Sporty at the time was only as powerful as the '07 883?

Well, this is more or less what I was getting at. Clearly there was a time when no stock BT or XL engine produced as much HP as the 07 883.

Interesting to see the reaction of some people to such a straight forward question. :rolleyes:

Well, this is more or less what I was getting at. Clearly there was a time when no stock BT or XL engine produced as much HP as the 07 883.

Interesting to see the reaction of some people to such a straight forward question. :rolleyes:

TiBaal89

20th January 2007, 17:44

Well, this is more or less what I was getting at. Clearly there was a time when no stock BT or XL engine produced as much HP as the 07 883.

Right you are... well, I'll offer the obvious answer ;) I hope someone can do better than this! It is an interesing question about the general state of the art of motorcycles!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/1907_Harley_Davidson.jpg

Right you are... well, I'll offer the obvious answer ;) I hope someone can do better than this! It is an interesing question about the general state of the art of motorcycles!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/1907_Harley_Davidson.jpg

countersteer

21st January 2007, 01:32

Well, this is more or less what I was getting at. Clearly there was a time when no stock BT or XL engine produced as much HP as the 07 883.

Interesting to see the reaction of some people to such a straight forward question. :rolleyes:

The first OHV BT (Knucklehead) featured about the same power to weight as the current 883, so you can safely say your new Sportster is nearly as fast as a stock Knucklehead and is faster than the first Panhead that carried an additional 100 lbs but made only two horsepower more than the Knuckle, only six horsepower more than the 2007 883, for whatever that's worth.

From The Complete Illustrated Encyclopdia of American Motorcycles by Todd Rafferty, 1999 Quadrillion Publishing:

1941 FL (Knucklehead), 1208cc, 48 hp, 575 lbs

1941 ULH (Flathead) 1340cc, 34 hp, 545 lbs

1948 FL (Panhead) 1208cc, 50 hp, 656 lbs

1950 EL (Panhead) 989cc, 40 hp, 565 lbs

1952 FL (Panhead) 1208cc, 55 hp, 590 lbs

1952 K 743cc, 30 hp, 400 lbs

1955 FL Panhead) 1208cc, 60 hp, 598

1957 XL, 883cc, 40 hp, 495 lbs

1958 XLCH 883cc, 45 hp, 480 lbs

1964 XLCH 883cc, 60 hp, 480 lbs

1980 XR750 750cc, 90 hp, 320 lbs !!!

1971 FX (Super Glide) 1208cc, 65 hp, 560 lbs

1972 FLH (Shovelhead) 108cc, 66 hp, 783 lbs

1977 XLCR 1000cc, 68 hp, 515 lbs

1983 XR-1000 1000cc, 71 hp, 490 lbs

Interesting to see the reaction of some people to such a straight forward question. :rolleyes:

The first OHV BT (Knucklehead) featured about the same power to weight as the current 883, so you can safely say your new Sportster is nearly as fast as a stock Knucklehead and is faster than the first Panhead that carried an additional 100 lbs but made only two horsepower more than the Knuckle, only six horsepower more than the 2007 883, for whatever that's worth.

From The Complete Illustrated Encyclopdia of American Motorcycles by Todd Rafferty, 1999 Quadrillion Publishing:

1941 FL (Knucklehead), 1208cc, 48 hp, 575 lbs

1941 ULH (Flathead) 1340cc, 34 hp, 545 lbs

1948 FL (Panhead) 1208cc, 50 hp, 656 lbs

1950 EL (Panhead) 989cc, 40 hp, 565 lbs

1952 FL (Panhead) 1208cc, 55 hp, 590 lbs

1952 K 743cc, 30 hp, 400 lbs

1955 FL Panhead) 1208cc, 60 hp, 598

1957 XL, 883cc, 40 hp, 495 lbs

1958 XLCH 883cc, 45 hp, 480 lbs

1964 XLCH 883cc, 60 hp, 480 lbs

1980 XR750 750cc, 90 hp, 320 lbs !!!

1971 FX (Super Glide) 1208cc, 65 hp, 560 lbs

1972 FLH (Shovelhead) 108cc, 66 hp, 783 lbs

1977 XLCR 1000cc, 68 hp, 515 lbs

1983 XR-1000 1000cc, 71 hp, 490 lbs

rottenralph

21st January 2007, 01:55

So far only one member posted some data. I went to a dyno shootout in 95 and beat all the bigtwins in our club with a whopping 70/70(milled heads, cams, theader, and and and). I am sure in stock trim it is closer to the 50 that the modern 883 f.i. has. Torque on the new 883 is helped by new cams so that might be negligible. It is not an equal comparison but I suspect that if you pull up to a 1200 from 95 or so that is stock you will not be left in the dust nor will you be leaving them in the dust unless your gearing helps you out at the lower end. I think that a good dyno run for a 95 1200 stocker and a new 883 efo would yield very similar numbers. I suspect after the dyno, the looks on the faces of the naysayers would be similar to that look GAry Coleman gave on different strokes.

Mine was a pig when I bought it. I rode a 75nkawa z1 w/4 into 1 Kerker before that.

Mine was a pig when I bought it. I rode a 75nkawa z1 w/4 into 1 Kerker before that.

Gary7

21st January 2007, 02:15

The first OHV BT (Knucklehead) featured about the same power to weight as the current 883, so you can safely say your new Sportster is nearly as fast as a stock Knucklehead and is faster than the first Panhead that carried an additional 100 lbs but made only two horsepower more than the Knuckle, only six horsepower more than the 2007 883, for whatever that's worth.

From The Complete Illustrated Encyclopdia of American Motorcycles by Todd Rafferty, 1999 Quadrillion Publishing:

1941 FL (Knucklehead), 1208cc, 48 hp, 575 lbs

1941 ULH (Flathead) 1340cc, 34 hp, 545 lbs

1948 FL (Panhead) 1208cc, 50 hp, 656 lbs

1950 EL (Panhead) 989cc, 40 hp, 565 lbs

1952 FL (Panhead) 1208cc, 55 hp, 590 lbs

1952 K 743cc, 30 hp, 400 lbs

1955 FL Panhead) 1208cc, 60 hp, 598

1957 XL, 883cc, 40 hp, 495 lbs

1958 XLCH 883cc, 45 hp, 480 lbs

1964 XLCH 883cc, 60 hp, 480 lbs

1980 XR750 750cc, 90 hp, 320 lbs !!!

1971 FX (Super Glide) 1208cc, 65 hp, 560 lbs

1972 FLH (Shovelhead) 108cc, 66 hp, 783 lbs

1977 XLCR 1000cc, 68 hp, 515 lbs

1983 XR-1000 1000cc, 71 hp, 490 lbs

If this is like HP numbers for cars, the numbers on the older bikes are meaningless since what was reported back then was gross HP taken at the crankshaft. The HP figures for modern cars (and I assume bikes) are SAE net. A bike putting out 48 bhp gross would only be putting out about 36 bhp net.

From The Complete Illustrated Encyclopdia of American Motorcycles by Todd Rafferty, 1999 Quadrillion Publishing:

1941 FL (Knucklehead), 1208cc, 48 hp, 575 lbs

1941 ULH (Flathead) 1340cc, 34 hp, 545 lbs

1948 FL (Panhead) 1208cc, 50 hp, 656 lbs

1950 EL (Panhead) 989cc, 40 hp, 565 lbs

1952 FL (Panhead) 1208cc, 55 hp, 590 lbs

1952 K 743cc, 30 hp, 400 lbs

1955 FL Panhead) 1208cc, 60 hp, 598

1957 XL, 883cc, 40 hp, 495 lbs

1958 XLCH 883cc, 45 hp, 480 lbs

1964 XLCH 883cc, 60 hp, 480 lbs

1980 XR750 750cc, 90 hp, 320 lbs !!!

1971 FX (Super Glide) 1208cc, 65 hp, 560 lbs

1972 FLH (Shovelhead) 108cc, 66 hp, 783 lbs

1977 XLCR 1000cc, 68 hp, 515 lbs

1983 XR-1000 1000cc, 71 hp, 490 lbs

If this is like HP numbers for cars, the numbers on the older bikes are meaningless since what was reported back then was gross HP taken at the crankshaft. The HP figures for modern cars (and I assume bikes) are SAE net. A bike putting out 48 bhp gross would only be putting out about 36 bhp net.

countersteer

21st January 2007, 15:43

If this is like HP numbers for cars, the numbers on the older bikes are meaningless since what was reported back then was gross HP taken at the crankshaft. The HP figures for modern cars (and I assume bikes) are SAE net. A bike putting out 48 bhp gross would only be putting out about 36 bhp net.

Yes, I think you are correct, which is my point. I think Dan at NRHS said his '07 883 made 44 hp at the rear wheel prior to stage 1. If that's the case, the '07 883 would run away from early OHV BTs.

Yes, I think you are correct, which is my point. I think Dan at NRHS said his '07 883 made 44 hp at the rear wheel prior to stage 1. If that's the case, the '07 883 would run away from early OHV BTs.

Moved On / My Own Choice

21st January 2007, 16:05

Let's talk some numbers. The HD web site lists the following torque numbers for 07 Sportsters:

XL883: 55.0 ft. lbs. @ 3500 rpm

XL1200: 79.1 ft. lbs. @ 4000 rpm

That's about a 45% difference. Significant, but the 1200 certainly doesn't produce TWICE as much torque as the 883.

Who's got the specs for a 97 1200 so we can actually compare numbers to an 07 883?

Yeah, whoever said 1/2 is smokin' dope.

I don't have any dyno numbers from a decade or two ago, HOWEVER I do think the gap has closed.

On the other hand, the rubbermounts weigh at least 50 lbs more than the solidmounts did so they loose some of that difference.

Still, when the rubbermounts came out they claimed an increase over the solidmounts in hp and torque, when the 07 883s came out with the W cams, they claimed another increase.

So like I said, I betcha the difference is a lot smaller than it once was.

K

XL883: 55.0 ft. lbs. @ 3500 rpm

XL1200: 79.1 ft. lbs. @ 4000 rpm

That's about a 45% difference. Significant, but the 1200 certainly doesn't produce TWICE as much torque as the 883.

Who's got the specs for a 97 1200 so we can actually compare numbers to an 07 883?

Yeah, whoever said 1/2 is smokin' dope.

I don't have any dyno numbers from a decade or two ago, HOWEVER I do think the gap has closed.

On the other hand, the rubbermounts weigh at least 50 lbs more than the solidmounts did so they loose some of that difference.

Still, when the rubbermounts came out they claimed an increase over the solidmounts in hp and torque, when the 07 883s came out with the W cams, they claimed another increase.

So like I said, I betcha the difference is a lot smaller than it once was.

K

milmat1

21st January 2007, 16:07

HOWEVER (Theres always a However)!

Your question is one of Efficiency !

Has that imporoved over the years. Most certainly !!

And anytime you improve Efficiency you will gain HP. But I doubt that they have gained 300cc worth !

Not with the EPA breathing down there necks at the same time !!

Now an 07 883 W/Stage 1 would put a whole new twist on things !!

Your question is one of Efficiency !

Has that imporoved over the years. Most certainly !!

And anytime you improve Efficiency you will gain HP. But I doubt that they have gained 300cc worth !

Not with the EPA breathing down there necks at the same time !!

Now an 07 883 W/Stage 1 would put a whole new twist on things !!

Moved On / My Own Choice

21st January 2007, 16:08

HOWEVER (Theres always a However)!

Your question is one of Efficiency !

Has that imporoved over the years. Most certainly !!

And anytime you improve Efficiency you will gain HP. But I doubt that they have gained 300cc worth !

Not with the EPA breathing down there necks at the same time !!

Now an 07 883 W/Stage 1 would put a whole new twist on things !!

But the EPA has never regulated air/fuel mixtures above idle on bikes.

And that's where you make peak numbers.

Your question is one of Efficiency !

Has that imporoved over the years. Most certainly !!

And anytime you improve Efficiency you will gain HP. But I doubt that they have gained 300cc worth !

Not with the EPA breathing down there necks at the same time !!

Now an 07 883 W/Stage 1 would put a whole new twist on things !!

But the EPA has never regulated air/fuel mixtures above idle on bikes.

And that's where you make peak numbers.

Gary7

21st January 2007, 16:22

Yes, I think you are correct, which is my point. I think Dan at NRHS said his '07 883 made 44 hp at the rear wheel prior to stage 1. If that's the case, the '07 883 would run away from early OHV BTs.

Under the old gross rating system, 44 bhp at the rear wheel would be about 58 bhp. :geek

Under the old gross rating system, 44 bhp at the rear wheel would be about 58 bhp. :geek

milmat1

21st January 2007, 16:27

But the EPA has never regulated air/fuel mixtures above idle on bikes.

And that's where you make peak numbers.

KEV. I didn't know that, I Suppose thats why most new bikes are lean on the bottom and rich on top. Hmmm... Ya Recon..

OK only one way to settle this. WE NEED A RACE !!!! :laugh :laugh

And that's where you make peak numbers.

KEV. I didn't know that, I Suppose thats why most new bikes are lean on the bottom and rich on top. Hmmm... Ya Recon..

OK only one way to settle this. WE NEED A RACE !!!! :laugh :laugh

rottenralph

21st January 2007, 16:52

Good luck finding a stocker. I suppose there might be a few out there.

Moved On / My Own Choice

21st January 2007, 17:07

Gary, I'll say this, there is way too much time between my old 93 1200 and Jenn's 05 883, but after I Stage 1'd the 883 I had the distinct impression is was about as quick as my old 1200.

Just a total seat of the pants, nothing to back it up thought.

Oh, I think top speeds are about the same.

Kev

Just a total seat of the pants, nothing to back it up thought.

Oh, I think top speeds are about the same.

Kev

countersteer

21st January 2007, 22:10

Under the old gross rating system, 44 bhp at the rear wheel would be about 58 bhp. :geek

That number suits me. Still not up to a '64 883 XLCH, but I'll take the EFI refinement over brute power any day. Actually, after 4,000+ miles, I'm still perfectly satisfied with the engine performance of my '07 883, a fact that surprises me since my other ride is an '01 BMW 1150 GS with the same weight but 85 bhp, and my previous primary ride was an '02 LeMans with the same weight and 91 bhp. The Sportster, now with Progressive suspension f&r and a 32" wide Flanders Cafe bar, is just as much fun through the twisties as the more powerful bikes, at least for this old guy who is constantly on guard for deer!

That number suits me. Still not up to a '64 883 XLCH, but I'll take the EFI refinement over brute power any day. Actually, after 4,000+ miles, I'm still perfectly satisfied with the engine performance of my '07 883, a fact that surprises me since my other ride is an '01 BMW 1150 GS with the same weight but 85 bhp, and my previous primary ride was an '02 LeMans with the same weight and 91 bhp. The Sportster, now with Progressive suspension f&r and a 32" wide Flanders Cafe bar, is just as much fun through the twisties as the more powerful bikes, at least for this old guy who is constantly on guard for deer!

Moved On / My Own Choice

22nd January 2007, 00:51

That number suits me. Still not up to a '64 883 XLCH, but I'll take the EFI refinement over brute power any day. Actually, after 4,000+ miles, I'm still perfectly satisfied with the engine performance of my '07 883, a fact that surprises me since my other ride is an '01 BMW 1150 GS with the same weight but 85 bhp, and my previous primary ride was an '02 LeMans with the same weight and 91 bhp. The Sportster, now with Progressive suspension f&r and a 32" wide Flanders Cafe bar, is just as much fun through the twisties as the more powerful bikes, at least for this old guy who is constantly on guard for deer!

I suspect the torque curve has something to do with blurring those hp numbers.

I can see how you'd enjoy all 3 of those bikes...

I suspect the torque curve has something to do with blurring those hp numbers.

I can see how you'd enjoy all 3 of those bikes...

vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.