| Author | Message | ||
     Jonnyrotton |
Does anyone know what Buell's reasoning was for bring out the xb series with the 984 motor before the 1203 motor. Did they feel that the 984 was a superior bore and stroke combination? Or did they put out the 984, kinda of holding the "ace" in the pocket with the 1203 so they would have a "new and improved" model to slap on us later? It seems Buell built it's reputation on the 1200 with it's stump pulling power only to bring out the 984 which everyone critized for being underpowered. | ||
| Court |
>>> bring out the 984 which everyone critized for being underpowered. I'm sorry I missed that. Tell me about the criticisms. I had a test bike, a 984, for 9 months and found it to be an excellent product. All the reviews I have read here seem in concert. If I were to by an XB now I would but the 984. Court | ||
| Jos51700 |
Court, do you think the reviews on Badweb might be a little biased?  I do remember "power" being one of the very very few criticisms of the XB9, that went away once the first impressions went away and people actually got to know the bikes. | ||
| Metalstorm |
I remember the guys at motorcycle dot kom calling the XB9R under powered and yet they found the power in the XB9S version (same power mind you) to be near perfect for its application.  Other than the "power thing", I recall them saying really nice things about the 9R though. | ||
| Ekass13 |
If I were to by an XB now I would but the 984. Court That warmed my heart, and might use that quote often | ||
| Indy_bueller |
I prefer my 984 to a 1203. I've ridden them back-to-back, and I didn't miss the extra power. | ||
| Srwitt |
The extra power isn't much extra, I shift alot less on my 12 than my buddy does on his 9, but when it comes down to a side by side drag, I barely pull on the 984, and I'm a bit lighter than my friend. Well the power doesn't show up until the triple digits anyways. | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
I think the reason was the 9 was designed first, the 12 is basically the same as the 9, but with a different crank and bore. So, the 12 grew out of the 9. It wasn't like Buell had both motors sitting there on EB's desk and said, "make the bastards wait for a 12". Court would know more than anybody about this. | ||
| Azxb9r |
Before I bought my 9 (and later discovered the BadWeb) all of the reviews that I read on the xb9 complained about it being down on power. All of these reviews also were comparing the power output of the 9 to that of liter-bikes. My guess is that Buell developed the 984cc engine to do something in particular(run smoothly?) and the size is just what they ended up with. The 1203cc engine was a response to the request for more power. Just a guess. | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
The 9 guys want the 12 crank, the 12 guys want the 9 pistons, primary and quick revs. Maybe Buell should just make a 1125 air cooled and be done with it. | ||
| Nik |
I think the reason was the 9 was designed first, the 12 is basically the same as the 9, but with a different crank and bore. Bore is the same on both. Only the stroke is different. I like the revvy smoothness of my 9. I rode both before purchase and am never left wanting for a 12. | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
Thanks Nik. I knew it was one or the other. | ||
| Hogs |
Different Stroke, Same Bore I believe, Just higher dome pistons=More Compression, And YEs this 12 guy may try the 9 Pistons Sooner than Later...Once I ever get the fuel/spark Down to a Science...Just may throw the 88 Kit in there for good measure instead though, and a set of 585 Cams. LoL where does one stop...... | ||
| Jonnyrotton |
I guess what I am asking is....when the Buell engineers sat down to design the XB platform(which would be unveiled to the whole world as the "new buell") and were testing and deciding on a bore and stroke configuration for the new motor. Was the 984 the bore and stroke they felt to be the best combination/compramise for over all performance? And then as the world got it's hands on the new Buell and declared it underpowered, that they then decided to address the power issue with the 1200? Or was the 984 meant to be the "600" later to be joined by the 1200 as the "1000" | ||
| Sweatmark |
This is a good question. Considering all of the new design concepts introduced with the original XB9R, the selection of engine configuration - aside from the use of Sportster-derived & Buell-tweaked powerplant - must have been a conscious decision. In other words, Buell did not grab a pre-existing motor from a tuber model and slap it into the fuel-in-frame chassis. So why the smaller capacity? Weight savings? Smoother torque curve and operation? Slightly lower production costs? Attract more beginning & intermediate riders? Simply double the displacement of the Blast, whose motor size was likely a balance between weight, thumper smoothness (shorter stroke) and power needs? A great question for an Anonymous "in the know". | ||
| 4cammer |
I know that when I have my '07 XB9R between 3K and 7K it is total bliss. Smooth, direct, and she never lets me forget that she is a MOTORcycle designed by motorcycle people. Buell knew what they were doing w/the "small" displacement XB. | ||
| Sokota |
The 984 stroke is the same as the XR750 , not one to be considered underpowered. Wish a 1170cc , 3.125 stroke was factory available. Or offer the XBRR engine for street duty, which also has the 3.125 stroke. (Message edited by sokota on October 07, 2008) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I had the chance to ride Barkers 9R for most of Saturday. I really liked the motor, but I noticed that I had to keep the revs up (like an IL4) and couldn't use the 12 grunt to nut out of corners. I enjoyed how quickly it spooled up. I'd love a larger displacement short stroke engine. I will probably end up on the hunt for a 9S at some point in time. Riding Barker's bike, I realized that I really enjoyed the added nimbleness of the smaller bikes. The Uly is a great handling bike, but it ain't nearly as flickable as te R or an S. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Presto mergo! | ||
| Starter |
Maybe they just wanted something that would make the I4 crowd consider them. Sure got my $. Maybe they wanted wanted an engine to suit the wheelbase? | ||
| M1combat |
I'd probably buy the nine as well, but then I'd bore it as far as it'll go. My next crank will be an XB9 stroke or shorter. | ||
| Jonnyrotton |
I would love to hear from Anonymous on this one | ||
| Slaughter |
Short stroke/big bore... 1169cc tasty. The 3 13/16 bore is nice IF PROPERLY done. Add a 2008 crank and you really have a motor that'll hold up really well. It's quick revving and if you wanted to rebuild a street motor, it'd be well worth your while. We're looking into the CA-Legality of it for on-road use. Mine is strictly race but the mods can work for the street just fine with pump gas. | ||
| Gemini |
they started with the xb9 because it met the current race rules at the time for a v-twins | ||
| Spiderman |
Where is your reference and/or proof for that statement? | ||
| Gowindward |
I would bet it was all about price points in the market place and where in their pricing strategy they felt they needed to have a bike or bikes. The 9's price put them squarely in competition with the 600cc price market, while the 12's are in the liter class price market. | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
I thought it had something to do with keeping it less than 1000 or 1200 for racing as well. Could have swore I read that here somewhere. This would be a great time for Anon to show his/her/thier head(s). | ||
| Dbird29 |
I thought is was because it was a 2 jug Blast motor. Didn't they do the Blast to prove out concepts and process? | ||
| Gemini |
i dont' have written proof. the guy i talked to before buying my bike use to race for the dealership i bought my bike from. he quoted some specs of max cc before any bore out to keep under specs for race application. | ||
| Midknyte |
Ah the irony of the praise for the 9, now that it's gone because no one was buying them... |
