| Author | Message | ||
     Rkc00 |
I am looking to sell/trade my 03 XB9S for a new City X. What do you guys/girls think about the 06 tranny change? Is it enough of a reason to wait for an 06? The dealer by me will not take a buell on trade on a new 06 but will take it on a 05 he has on the floor. Any body interested in a 03 with 13,000 miles? It has the upgraded belt and I have a spare also. I am on Long Island. Mike | ||
| Imonabuss |
I have an '05 CityX, and just love it. I know the transmission is supposed to be improved for '06, but my '05 is the best shifting H-D engined product I have ever owned. So, I don't think you would be disappointed at all in the '05, especially if you get a better deal on it. Wierd though that the dealer wouldn't take your old bike for an '06, is he one of the ones getting out of Buell? | ||
| Whodom |
Mike, I'd think it would at least be worth taking a test ride on an 06 to try it. This might be a quantum leap forward as far as the transmission goes; it's fundamentally different from every HD/Buell transmission up to now. Otherwise the improvements over the 05 seem to be very minor. | ||
| Metalstorm |
I have no qualms about the tranny in my '05 12S cg what so ever. Compared to my '99 Sportster it's silky smooth. I can find neutral every time. It's not a big enough reason for me to trade up. But then again I am in total utter lust with my bike. I wouldn't trade it for anything. not even a Firebolt which I still think is the coolest looking bike ever built. | ||
| Edmsportster |
To further the discussion...I rode the '06 XB12XSs and the '06 City X today....I was gonna ask a similar question. I ride a sportster so the tranny on the Buell was a dream. I have found an '04 XB12S with only 150 kms on it with race kit for $12000 CDN , were there any major upgrades between 04 and 05? Was there problems with the tranny in 04, 05? Or was it just a change for the sake of making a change? Anyone who has an 05 ridden the 06, any real difference | ||
| Buellshyter |
The new 06 Buells use helical gears in the trannie, as opposed to the constant mesh gears of previous years. The V-Rod has used helical gears since it's inception. Perhaps, you can test drive a V-Rod to get the feel for what the new Buell trannie will feel like. | ||
| Metalstorm |
As far as upgrades between 04 & 05, all I can think of for the 12S & 12R is bigger forks. They went from 41mm to 43mm. The 12Scg kept the 41mm forks. The 9 saw good improvements. 05 got a one piece throttle body similar to the 12 but still 45mm in size as opposed to the 49mm of the 12. New ecm (most likely for the new throttle body but not sure) and the 12 airbox lid became a stock item. That's about all I can think of. on edit: the 9's got the bigger 43mm forks as well (Message edited by metalstorm on July 30, 2005) | ||
| Steve_a |
"The new 06 Buells use helical gears in the trannie, as opposed to the constant mesh gears of previous years. The V-Rod has used helical gears since it's inception. Perhaps, you can test drive a V-Rod to get the feel for what the new Buell trannie will feel like." The Ulysses shifts a lot better than the V-Rod. One transmission was designed by German gearbox maker Gertag for Porsche for Harley, the other by the same engineers in Milwaukee who did the recent Big Twin transmissions and the last Buell box. They've learned some stuff along the way, and the new XB/Sportster transmission shifts really well, and neutral pops up on first try almost every time. The old XB9/12 transmission shifted OK, especially with some miles on it. But the new one is as big an improvement over the old transmission as the first XB9 transmission was over that of the Sportster based Buells. It's hard to say what's that worth, but it's certainly worth something. The transmission was changed for two different reasons. Buell was still getting hit in reviews and owner surveys for poor shifting, because many of its customers were familiar with Japanese machines and expected better. Harley wanted a quieter transmission to get the Sportster through upcoming noise laws. The two causes came together for the '06 transmission. There's nothing unreliable about the previous one, and it certainly has a lot more operating history under its belt. | ||
| Typeone |
coming from a Japanese bike, i'm happy to hear about this improvement, i just wish my '05 had the new tranny. (Message edited by typeone on July 31, 2005) | ||
| Reepicheep |
I wonder if the quieter tranny is what let them move the intake up to the airbox cover and no longer down through the frame. I wonder if it gave them a bigger noise budget to work with. It gives me an idea, I have a plan  | ||
| Whodom |
Reepi- Good question; I was wondering the same thing. | ||
| Rkc00 |
Thanks for all the info. Called the dealer that I got my Road Glide from about the City X and the XB12X. Hope to hear from him this week about a trade in on my 03 XB9S. If I can work this out I might get the XB12X and next spring sell the Road Glide and get a Street Rod. | ||
| Chainsaw |
I gotta say, the City X is really growing on my, especially in "Kick Ash". I need a bigger garage! Are the Helical gears any more durable or reliable than the constant mesh gearing? | ||
| Whodom |
Chainsaw, I believe straight cut gears are actually somewhat more durable than helical cut gears, all other things being equal. For instance, auto racing transmissions typically use straight cut gears. That's not to say helical cut gears are unreliable or not durable; all street auto manual transmissions use helical cut gears because straight cut gears make a LOT of noise. One possible benefit of the new dog-ring shifting arrangement of the new Buell trans that I haven't seen mentioned: it may allow power-shifting (no clutch) without spewing gears all over the countryside, something said to be nearly impossible with the current transmissions. | ||
| Steve_a |
I was able to routinely shift the Ulysses transmission without using the clutch. | ||
| Whodom |
Sweet! I bet that'll result in significantly faster quarter mile times in future test runs. | ||
| Chainsaw |
I was able to routinely shift the Ulysses transmission without using the clutch. I understand you were test riding these Steve. Do you do clutchless shifts to just see if it will, or are you trying to break something? Is this something a bike should be able to do, and to what benefit? I've only ever had manual transmissions. The only reason I can think of not using the clutch, is if I were picking my nose or "non-verbally communicating" with a cager. Educate me! | ||
| Chainsaw |
Oh, thanks Whodom. Small world, my dad's company is in Summerville, SC. another Damn Yankee transplant! | ||
| Whodom |
Chainsaw, Cool; what's the name of his company? If you're ever down this way, let me know and I'll take you out and show you what passes for "twisties" in lower SC. | ||
| Oldroadtoad |
Quote: "I was able to routinely shift the Ulysses transmission without using the clutch." Steve a Quote: "I understand you were test riding these Steve. Do you do clutchless shifts to just see if it will, or are you trying to break something? Is this something a bike should be able to do, and to what benefit? I've only ever had manual transmissions. The only reason I can think of not using the clutch, is if I were picking my nose or "non-verbally communicating" with a cager. Educate me!" Chainsaw I suppose one could make the argument that the gentleman in question is just making the transmission into a motorcycling version of the "Tiptronic" found in automobiles, but I just think it is because he does not own the bike and does not have to pay for any boo boos.  This treatment of test bikes may also indicative of the hideous fuel economy bikes usually (not all ways) deliver in the hands of motorcycling journalists. When I subscribed to CW, I recall some thing about the amazing fuel economy of the DRZ400SM. In the range of mid 50s mpg, I believe. My DR650 regularly returns 54 mpg combined high way and city, with pure free way riding giving me 58 mpg. 600 class sport bikes in the 30 mpg range is a travesty, and big cruisers like the Nomad in the mid 30 range is also, to be polite, not good. Car-like would be more like it. Even my Roadking has provided me with a high of 50 mpg on the free way, and on a recent trip averaged 45 mpg, albeit with a low of 39.5 mpg against very strong desert winds. I did not appreciate the 39.5 mpg, believe me.  So hey, Mr. Anderson, do journalists just beat the stuffing out of a bike because they can (i.e., do not have to live in the real world where one pays for one's fuel/maintenance/tyres, etc.), or what is the true story? I am being polite, and I hope you can explain. If you want to. And lest you think ill of me, I much preferred Cycle World to that incubus of a rag, "Motorcyclist", I just no longer read magazines, as I tend to believe what those that own a bike report on it. Of all the magazines available, CW and RoadRunner were/are the best of the lot. No need to "defend" any thing, I would just like to know the real story. Thank you kindly. The Toad | ||
| Sokota |
Clutchless shifting is in reference to the Ulysses off road abilities, as conditions dictate it would be unwise at times to release digits from handlebar to operate clutch "just to shift". | ||
| Wedge |
Clutchless shifting also limits the amount of time off the throttle during drag racing ect. can be done very smoothly, and I do it often on my Z1000 to maintain a wheelie farther. I also use it when roadracing my F4i to get the last little bit because its a bit behind on power/weight from the newer bikes(oh and I'mkinda slow too) | ||
| Oldroadtoad |
I suppose those are valid reasons, and thank you for them. The only reason I could think of for doing this, is if your clutch cable breaks. The last time that happened to me was in the mid 1970s, and I had to shift with out using the clutch so that I could get home. And put another clutch cable on. Why bother to have a clutch (except for using neutral, of course), if you are going to do this? Would this not constitute abuse, and if not, again, why bother having a clutch? Why not just make them into over sized mopeds, via an automatic transmission? Ugh! Automatic motorcycles sicken me, LOL! Hondamatic, any one? The Toad | ||
| Steve_a |
I don't do clutchless shifting to abuse bikes. With really slick shifting bikes, particularly ones with close ratio gearboxes, you can easily upshift just by unloading the throttle and hitting the lever up quickly. If you do it right, there's no noise, no jerk, no big load -- just a really fast gear shift. You can do the same thing by blipping the throttle on a clutchless downshift, but it's a little harder to do smoothly. And that's the whole point -- to do it smoothly, not to try to break anything. It's not something you could do at all on older Buells or Harleys. Cycle World test bikes tend to get ridden hard, and unless they're out on a long interstate tour, the mileage on them tends to be reasonably horrible. All-in-all though, from listening from Erik's description of some of Buell's warranty issues in Europe in the old days, I don't think Cycle World qualifies as the 0.5 percentile rider that Buell tests to currently. There are owners out there that actually ride them harder than us, if not many. And I do tend to be hard on vehicles, particularly my own. I used to joke, when I owned an Alfa Milano, that no one else would be as stupid to run it as hard as I did. I haven't had a bike break under me for more than 20 years, since I had a Woods-Rotax SJ600, a BMW K75 and a Honda VF500F throw rod bearings. The Rotax was missing a big-end oiling hole, and the other two were also probably both due to manufacturing defects. (Honda recalled the earliest VF500's with out of tolerance crankshafts, and BMW didn't want to talk about the K75.) | ||
| Oldroadtoad |
Thank you. By the way, why do we never see you at your own magazine's forum? Just curious, as most toads are... The Toad | ||
| Chainsaw |
Thanks all for the clarification. |
