| Author | Message | ||
     Arbozarth |
I'm new here and new to Buells. Can someone explain or point to a web page that makes clear the technical differences between the S2 and S3? Thanks, Randy in Ventura | ||
| Phillyblast |
Arbozarth, here is a good place to start. S2 mo'better pretty much sums it up  (except the pages don't seem to be up anymore  ) (Message edited by phillyblast on August 04, 2004) | ||
| Arbozarth |
Philly: Found 'em here: http://home.comcast.net/~buellstuff/ The S3 article, especially, is a comprehensive list of S3 issues but the articles don't cover differences between the two. (Message edited by arbozarth on August 04, 2004) (Message edited by arbozarth on August 04, 2004) | ||
| Buellerthanyou |
I'll take the challenge!  I'll compare my '95 S2 to early ('97-'98) S3s. Later S3s are even more different (frame, fuel injection, surlyn, etc.). S2: Basically a stock Sportster motor with improved intake and exhaust; 9 to 1 compression; 76hp, 76ft.lbs torque, per Buell; Handbuilt frames; Fiberglass body parts (beautiful!); "Fuel tank" is actually a fiberglass cover over a plastic tank; Handlebars are clip-ons (of an eccentric sort!) and are 1" diameter with Harley controls; Automatic-off turn signals; Slightly longer "reach" from seat to handlebars; Headlight is a rectangular sealed beam "car-type", instead of a replaceable bulb type; WP front forks with compression and rebound adjustment in both forks; No Heimholz airbox; Carbon fiber(kevlar?) "hamcan" aircleaner cover w/ K&N hi-flow filter; Carbon fiber(kevlar?) rear hugger fender and belt guard; Hand-formed aluminum oil tank; Cast aluminum plates which mount footpegs and are removeable to access rear isolators; Rear header comes fairly straight over the frame ------------------------------------------------- S3: '97 - Engine adds Lightning heads and cams '98 on - Engine adds Thunderstorm heads; 10 to 1 compression; '97 - 91hp, 87 ft.lbs torque, per Buell '98 on - 101hp, 90 ft.lbs torque, per Buell; Body parts become some kind of nylon (I think); "Fuel tank" is actual tank, not a cover; Handlebars are 7/8" single piece in a top clamp; Controls are 7/8" type also seen on Ducati; Manual "off" turn signals; Headlight is rectangular replaceable bulb type somewhat smaller than the S2s; WP front forks with compression adjustment in one fork and rebound adjustment in the other (at least, I think that's how it was); Black plastic Heimholz Resonator airbox/intake on right side with standard filter; Black plastic hugger rear fender and belt guard; Black plastic oil tank; Footpegs mounted to frame; Rear header comes slightly forward before going over frame; '98 - Exhaust collector becomes 2.5" (from 2" in '97); '98 dashboard clock added ------------------------------------------------- Both bikes are awesome. The S2 is prettier IMHO and a little more "special", but the S3 is probably a better-built, more modern bike. BuellieDan's wife says that the passenger accomodations on his S3 were far superior to those on his S2 as well! Everybody feel free to chime in with anything I've missed  and correct any mistakes! HellBuelly J http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hellbuellies/ "When I rode Buells, I didn't ride for fun. . .It's no pink tea, and mollycoddles had better stay out. It's a contest and everything that implies, a struggle for supremacy, a survival of the fittest." --Ty "Buellistic" Cobb | ||
| Captainkirk |
I think you said it all........ | ||
| Easy_rider |
It's been awhile since I've seen an S2, but I believe that the S3 dash added a clock, and it seems like something else. At the time it seemed like I was always trying to look at my watch under my jacket and really wanted a clock that looked a little classier than the stick-on you get at the gas station. Did the S2 have White (as in the brand name) heads? | ||
| Arbozarth |
Buellerthanyou: Thanks! Perfect! I am gathering S2 vs S3 info as I find it. http://www.randybozarth.com/buell/s2vss3.htm Can anyone fill in the blanks or offer corrections? Hasn't anyone done this already? thanks, Randy (Message edited by arbozarth on August 05, 2004) | ||
| Henrik |
For rider feel of the bike, I'd say the S2 needs a bit more coercion to pitch into a turn than the S3. Unless you play a bit with the suspension, in which case both are on equal footing. On the S2 you sit more "in" the bike, in comparison with the S3, where you're more "on" the bike. Completely subjective: when riding I feel more "part of" my S2 than I did of my S3. Henrik (Message edited by Henrik on August 05, 2004) | ||
| Lake_bueller |
From my experience, the S3 is more comfortable for the longer haul. The seat doesn't rise as rapidly in front as it does on the S2. Overall looks....the S2 is "damn sexy" (IMHO). The S3 misses some of that flowing look but is still a great looking bike. Overall build...S2 has many specially built parts. The fiberglass body and foot peg mounts are just a few of the great pieces found on the S2. The '97 & '98 S3's are built pre-H-D control. I think the '98 may be the best 101hp Buell ever made. Solid, reliable and fast as lightning. I currently own a '98 S3T and '98 S1W. If I had the means, the S2 would be added to my Buell stable. | ||
| Aaron |
The S2's riding position is definitely different. Your butt is just a little farther back, the bars lower and narrower. I think that's what gives it the slightly slower steering feel, just the way your weight sits on the bike. But it also feels quite a bit more stable, and I find it easier to carve and stay on my chosen line. The bike is just more comfortable. Not a race bike by any means, but very comfortable for the casual canyon carver. The S3, by comparison, has more of an upright seating position, with more twitchier response. Like Henrik said, you feel more "on" it, rather than "in" it like the S2. I haven't done long miles on an S3 (I owned one briefly), but I rode one enough to know I'm tremendously more comfortable sport touring on my S2. The bikes are also set apart by the way they're made. The S2 is just not a production motorcycle, it's got things all over it that you can see added to it's cost to manufacture. Everything from the way the bodywork is shaped (how the hell do they get the tank cover out of the mold?), to the upscale forks, to the unconventional clip-ons, to the aluminum oil tank, to the aluminum side plates, this is just not a production engineered bike, this is a bike that was put together expeditiously with high quality stuff rather than engineered for low cost. I have heard, but don't really know, that Buell lost money on every S2 they sold. Wouldn't surprise me. The S3 by comparison has all of those things engineered to keep the costs down. You look at it, you can tell it's a bunch cheaper to make. In some cases, I think they went a tad overboard, but for the most part, if cost reduction is done right the customer doesn't even notice, and they did a reasonable job. I think losing a way to properly preload the isolators was a huge mistake and they appear to have paid dearly for that. Ever hear of an S2 isolator failure? | ||
| S2pengy |
I have had two isolators tear on my S2's on the side and one at the front... The early S3 had the ignition switch on the side like the S2 but it went up on the dash I believe when they added the clock???? There were a lot of saddlebag issues with the early S3 bags.... Buell changed alot of items during production runs of both bikes... I believe my list of items on just the S2 is like 17 or more items.... | ||
| Phillyblast |
Not stock, anyway The S2 also used a 7 pin connector for the ignition module, the S3 the 8(?) pin connector. The S2 feels very much like a "hand built" bike, like Aaron says, which is what it was. Lots of little idiosyncracies, like the side stand, or the carbon fiber rear fender rubbing on the back tire (I still owe you a washer, Aaron). Personally, I think it has more in common with the RS(S) series of bikes than anything that came after. If you're looking for a biased recommendation, go for the S2. | ||
| Court |
>>>(how the hell do they get the tank cover out of the mold?) Box end wrench. Look closely at that tank cover. . . it has something you'll never find on another motorcycle. | ||
| Buelliedan |
I have owned an S3 and currently own an S2(as well as a few others) The S2 is a work of art! As already said it is no race bike but the bike does everything well. And it is absolutely gorgeous just to look at. IMHO it is one of the most beautiful bikes ever made. Britton being #1. | ||
| Buelliedan |
Okay Court, I'll bite. What about my tank cover is so unique?? | ||
| Court |
>>>Okay Court, I'll bite. What about my tank cover is so unique?? I think it's what is known as "negative graph". Note the way the shape cuts back IN as it drops down. Ever seen that on a motorcycle? I think if you have you'll find a seam, usually hidden by a strap or something, down the middle. Get the milk crate out and stare at it...the longer you look the more beautiful it gets. The first year production was just plain slow, like about 4 a day. The next year Erik came up with a way to toss heat into the process to double production to something on the order of 9. Hitting 9 bikes a day, at the time, was simply unbelievable. Court | ||
| Firemanjim |
Philly,the S-2 used both connectors depending on when yours was built as I have had both on my 95's. | ||
| Arbozarth |
With information this group provided and additional information found on the web, here is my technical summary of the S2 and S3. http://www.randybozarth.com/buell/s2vss3.htm Lots of good information (thanks) but also some missing information. Can you fill in the holes? Consider it a Buell Trivia Contest. Can anyone suggest a web page with technical data besides the ones I've listed on my page? So why do all this? It helps me do the research so I can make a good purchase. Any help you can provide is appreciated. Thanks, Randy (Message edited by arbozarth on August 09, 2004) | ||
| Kevyn |
Nice work Randy, One point that will always be missed and not reduce-able to words graphs or charts, true with any motorcyle, is the riders visceral feelings... How the bike feels to YOU when you're out in the country or maneuvering through traffic; how the bike responds to your inputs; how you feel walking out to the bike and how you feel when you look at it; your anticipation for riding the bike; how you feel when the ride is over and you're pulling into the garage or pulling up at the pump or parking anywhere, somewhere other riders and non-riders will see your bike parked(I can recall many comments from folks who ride and non-riders when they set eyes on my Parkway Blue S2T! All complimentary sprinkled with bits of amazement awe and envy) If you're considering an S2 or an S3, breaking it down on paper is a beginning for sure, but you have to get out there and ride them both to know what a BUELL really means to the rider. And that be YOU! GO RIDE!!! | ||
| Lornce |
Randy, If you're still looking for a Thunderbolt and haven't decided to go S2 or S3.... I've got one of each and they're both great bikes. The '98 S3 has the only carburetted (read: hassle free) 100+hp "Thunderstorm" motor with the lightened "Lightning" style flywheels which really help improve and accentuate throttle response. The S3 has more comfortable passenger accommodations, too. The bars are wider and higher and the pegs are a couple of inches lower and more rearward which results in a more neutral riding position similar to a big dirt or dual purpose bike. This is pretty comfy and confidence inspiring, especially on gravel roads and loose surfaces, but it's a little too non-committal for my taste in sustained high speed touring-type use. The lower, narrower bars on the S2 are more to my liking for most situations, though the footpeg location took some getting used to. They're higher and further forward than the S3 and for me the trick to being comfortable was to move forward on the seat as far as I could. Until I figured that out it seemed all wrong, with the pegs too far forward. But sitting forward it seems natural and comfortable, even during long hours in the saddle. The obvious advantage of the S2's higher pegs is additional ground clearance and increased confidence during spirited riding. Dragging your footpegs may be cool to talk about in the parking lot, but it's a bit of an unwanted distraction while riding. The confidence the chassis inspires will surprise you as you become comfortable with it. The S2's WP Roma fork definitely works better than the S3's, far more supple and compliant over road irregularities which adds noticeably to the chassis' competence. Sit in the bike holding the tank with your knees and steer with only the bars and throttle and you'll be amazed at the relaxed, composed ride it delivers on your favourite roads. Very satisfying. I cheated and put my S3's t-storm top end and Lightning cams in the S2, and coupled with the S3's 2.5" header and V&H muffler, it moves along quite nicely. Though I enjoy the smoothness of the heavy Sportster flywheels, I may also switch to the S3's bottom end over the winter. Also plan to adapt a 2.5" collector to the S2's original head pipe so I can resume use of the original angled cf aircleaner which is such a cool signature piece on this model. Okay, that's the technical stuff. IMHO, though the S3 is a handsome motorcycle, my S2 is prettier with it's sculpted red snap bodywork and polished aluminum oil tank contrasting with the white frame.   Either way, you can't go wrong. Oh yea, I'll prolly have a '98 S3 for sale soon. Nice bike, even with a '95 S2 motor....  Lornce | ||
| Crusty |
In 1996, I rode my FLHS to Daytona for bike week. While there, I did a lot of demo rides. I took out an S2, and thought, "yeah, it's nice". Then I took out a Lightning, and told the Demo ride people, "Wow! Next year you'll put that motor in the S2, and you'll sell a Sh-tload of them!" Then, just because I had nowhere else to go, and I had time to kill, I took out an S2-T. I couldn't believe how well that bike fit me. An inch lower on the pegs and an inch higher on the bars and it felt perfect. The question I asked myself was, "Can I do a 500 mile day comfortably?"; and the answer was a definite "YES!" That was when I fell in love with Buells. Two years later, I got an S3-T. It had "that motor", and it was restyled to be the most beautiful bike I'd ever seen. However, it wasn't perfect. Some of the changes were steps in the wrong direction for me. The difficulty in changing rear isolators and drive belts is one and going to 3/4" bars from 1" is another. (Ever wonder why wheelbarrows and Jackhammers have large diameter handles?) All in all, I still prefer the S3 to the S2, but if I didn't love the lines of the S3 so much, I'd be thinking strongly about an S2-T with a Thunderstorm motor. | ||
| Marks3tbillet |
My 2000 S3T fuel injection has also been "hassle free." I must admit I was considering a '98 to go carbureted, but the fuel injection has worked out perfectly. I'm considering fuel injection for my next Harley too. I rode three demos recently, all injected, and they ran flawlessly. |
