| Author | Message | ||
     Zradix |
Hello, I posted this in the general discussion page also. I'm not sure where a question like this is supposed to be posted. If you know please tell me that too :-). My real question is which thunderbolt has the best engine? I've heard some have a stock 1200 engine and others have the thunderhead. I'm looking for the powerful one. If there is any big differences through the years it would be very nice to know. I'm pretty sure I want a S3T. I like the more upright riding position. Also does the cyclone have an upright riding position like the thunderbolt? They look like they have a decent passenger seat. I'm 6'2" 230lbs wife is 6' 130lbs so I need some room. Any help would be very nice. Thank-you | ||
| Bartimus |
Well, the '95 S2 is the best plain and simple. That's why I own three. They are even better after you let Aaron massage the engine a bit to let it breath better.  But in reality, the S2's had a stock sportster engine and were carburated. The S3's had fuel injection and had the thunderstorm heads. So, yea, the S3's were more powerful and may be what you want. But I still say the S2's are the best Thunderbolt ever made.  | ||
| Loki |
C'mon Bart don't forget the 97-98 carbed S3. | ||
| Loki |
An S2 for its asthetics. For a few extra bucks you can breathe some extra life into it. An S3 if you want out of the box numbers. Either carbed or fuelie. M2 vs. S3... Take the S3 for its wind deflection and better seating for the back seater. The hard bags are a plus also. The front seater ergos are comparable. You want more upright positioning add the S3T touring bars. | ||
| Tramp |
"s2 is for it's aesthetics"???!?!?!?! The S2 is far easier to work on, as it has removable isolators plates akin to those on the Norton Commando. The S2 is a primarily handbuilt machine, the last of it's line. The S2 also features a touring version which includes LOWER PEGS Not sure why my esteemed colleague feels the s2T didn't have hard bags and high bars. PLUS: the S2 has Harley davidson 1" bars and controls, AND longer fork travel. the front seat ergos are anything but comparable. I own one of each, and the difference is night and day on the ole' nutsack. My S2T CAME WITH HARDBAGS and TOURING BARS... PLUS Lower pegs. The engines of the S2s seem to last longer, and the motorcycle itself is more handbuilt, as it's PRE-HD purchase of 96 or 98 or whatever % of Buell. Absolutely different machine, and the S2T is a much truer touring scoot. Anyone can pop a set of T-Storms on it....why not start with the S2's more nimble, easier-to-service chassis, first? also- the S2 has a dedicated, handbuilt tubular frame-mounted subframe for it's trackster-style fairing... the S3 has a pressed steel bracket... The battery/vr/ecu mounting is much better thought-out on the S2, and the S2 has a big, beautiful, hand-built oil tank, side-mounted. Why would anyone trade all that for a slightly more powerful engine, when any fool can upgrade the S2 engine, cheaply and quickly?} (Message edited by tramp on June 27, 2006) | ||
| Jersey_thunder |
TRAMP, BRAVO,BRAVO... JT | ||
| Jersey_thunder |
Zradix, S2.. Well, the '95 S2 is the best plain and simple. jt | ||
| Road_thing |
Yup, 95 S2 is the one... ...of course, I'm biased, I own one! rt | ||
| Cochise |
it has removable isolators plates Well, of course, in your case, most things on your bike were removable, and thusly were.  | ||
| 1313 |
Well, the '95 S2 is the best plain and simple. PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Not saying a '96 S2 or S2-T is anything to sneeze at either. So I guess I would say the S2 is the best. 1313 | ||
| Loki |
aesthetics: Of or concerning the appreciation of beauty or good taste. I did not knock the S2. I simply stated why I preferred the S2. For its aesthetics. Same reason I like the look of the S2 over the S2T. The bags ruin the look for me. Whoa there Trampster. You read into things way to much! So kick back and get mellow. I did not compare the ergos of the S2 to the S3. Night and day type of thing. As you sit in a S2 and on a S3. The ergos of the M2 and S3 are similar as the the only difference is the seat. The big difference is going to the "touring" bars of the S3T. By the way I do have one of those "hand built" bikes. It just happens to be a '92. So a potential buyer has choices. | ||
| Zradix |
Tramp You say there is a big difference in the nut sack department. Which model is "sack friendly"? When you say the S2T is more of a true touring bike do you mean it's more comfortable on a long ride? Or is it just really toned down sport-wise. I'd like to have a chance to keep up with my buddy's lightning!! Thanks all | ||
| Firemanjim |
S-2 had the best front forks--more adjustment than the later bikes.That is why the Buell racers were always seeking them. And don't forget the self-cancelling turn signals. Sex on wheels--but I have to say with your combined weight and any gear you will be maxing out the rear suspension and that leads to breaking things.That will apply on most of the other Buells as well,XB and tuber. Check out the Uly. | ||
| Tramp |
at 6'2, you'll prefer an S2T. You can still purchase lowered pegs to make an S2 more like an S2T...you simply can't do this switch with the S3, without major work. The S2T pegs are WAY easier on the knees. I can't stress this ergononmical difference enough. The S3 has a flatter-feeling seat, so it's much easier in the nutsack dep't....you know: packaged goods, aisle three. Snag a ncie Corbin, though, and your troubles are gone. I sh*tcanned the seat and tailsection altogether from my S2T, and I run a Cyclone seat, w/No tailsection. Nice difference, and my boys thank me. from your physical self-description, 'zydeco' or 'zoltar' or whatever your screen handle is, I think you'd WAY prefer the bigger diam. HD bars of the S2, AND the nice, big, fat HD controls. huge ergonomical difference, right there. If I recall correctly, the S2 may have heavier flywheels, which is great for hiway touring inertia, as well. I really like my 99% sportster engine for reliability and long-trip ease of mind. | ||
| Phillyblast |
Tramp is correct on the heavier flywheels, as well as slightly taller gearing for hiway cruising. | ||
| Henrik |
Just a point of reference; the S2T foot peg mounts bolt right onto an S3. I used mine on my S3 (reversed for higher pegs) when I was using the S3 on track. I much prefer the later model switch gear. The HD stuff is just too damn clunky and with zero adjustability options for reach. I hate'm. As for load-ability; it can be improved a bit on both the S2 and S3 with stronger fork springs and an aftermarket shock with a heavy spring. .... oh, and I still own my '96 S2T - the best of the best - and the S3 was traded years ago. Not-That-I'm-Biased-Henrik | ||
| Tramp |
henrik- first- take a gander at the offset and the foot controls of your s3 with the s2t pegs mounted in their upright position, you'll see the problem. i prefer the later switch-gear, as well, in fact, my s2t has an s3 front-end. i changed it over for more handlebar adjustability, as the stock s2 clip-ons limited my adjustability, and were playing havoc on my wrists after one cali-ny trip. i wish i'd kept my s2 forks, though...in fact, flush-mounting them with the s3 tripletree would have given me a higher front end along with the longer fork-travel of the s2 fork. funny- we're pretty much on the same page, really. | ||
| Henrik |
Tramp; I had no problems with off-sets of those mounts - just switched left for right and mounted them upside down. I don't remember if I ran the stock shift and brake levers with the S2 peg mount first. I did run it with the Banke shift and brake levers though. Worked pretty well too for keeping the hardware off the ground. Henrik |
