| Author | Message | ||
     Jlnance |
Is it true that the M2 uses a stock sportster engine? I have heard that the sportster engines have been improved by incorporating features from the engines designed for the XB bikes. I was sort of curious if one of these updated sportster engines would fit in a cyclone. | ||
| Phillyblast |
S2 used a stock sportster engine. The M2 uses stock sportster _cams_ but has the lightened flywheels and depending on year T-storm heads, etc. | ||
| Sportyeric |
I think the new Sportsters might use the same heads as XBs. And maybe the rocker cover/breather set-up. But heavier flywheels. For improving an M2, you'd be better off just adding the afore-mentioned to your current engine. | ||
| Captainkirk |
In a word, NO. The stock Sporty engine for 2003 put out somewhere in the neighborhood of 55HP. The stock M2 engine (last year of production)put out 91HP and 85 ft/lb torque...a far cry from a stock Sporty motor. Even the first year production Cyclones produced 70-something HP using non-T/storm heads. I'm not sure of ALL the differences, but the ones mentioned above all apply at the very least. | ||
| Tripp |
i think that only the tranny is the same on m2's and sporties. | ||
| Doughnut |
Don't think the S2 engine is just a stock Sportser, though it is the closest. my S2 puts out something like 76 HP I believe. | ||
| Sportyeric |
Capt.Kirk's number for the Sportster would either be for an 883 at the crank or a 1200 at the rear wheel, while the numbers for the M2 are factory specs at the crank. I think the 1200 is rated at 76HP. The Sport model a few years back used double plugged S1 style heads. Its HP failing are a result of the exhaust and air-filter being designed for style rather than function. And the heavier crank. | ||
| Lornce |
Doughnut, Your S2 was rated for 76hp becuase it's motor breathed fairly well through it's low restriction intake and exhaust system. Apart from those items it's simply a stock Sportster powerplant. Pretty nice results, though, eh? | ||
| Jersey_thunder |
S2...STOCK...YEP T | ||
| Doughnut |
Well, cool. Means it should be easy to replace the motor if ever need be. Making it breathe better makes that big of a difference? How much more is the 96 Buell over the 96 Sportster? | ||
| Captainkirk |
Eric, I saw one of those double-plugged bikes a few weeks ago...sharp! I wasn't aware of the RWHP rating on the 1200. Makes sense tho. | ||
| Tripp |
here's some great reading on the subjecthttp://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/3842/12328.html?1025491774 | ||
| Sportyeric |
Replacing the S2 engine if the time ever comes would be best done by throwing in an S3 engine with the T-Storm heads and cams. Or an M2 if you don't want the cams. Or trade me for mine. As to the difference between rating for the 96 Buell and Sportster, I'll concede the 76 crank HP for the S2 and stick with 72Hp for the Sporty. I'm sure the Sporty was over 70. Though 4hp for the open airfilter and bigger exhaust can seems wrong. The parts guys told me when my Sporty was new that the Screamin' Eagle air filter (S2 style) was the best bang for the buck, performance-wise. At that time, the Moco sold Screamin' Eagle performance heads that we now know as S1 Lightning heads. Funny thing Ironworks magazine did a hop-up on a Lightning engine, using Hemi-Design pistons and heads and got another ten HP. Next year, Buell came out with the T-Storm, which is similar to the Hemi Design except a fifteen degree pop-up instead of thirty. Anyway, the Helmhotz (sp?) air-box on the S1 allowed them to pass noise regulations by reducing the intake noise to make up for the increased noise of the cams (compared to the S2.) So Lightning heads and cams in the S1 produced 15 (crank) HP more than the S2. And flywheels. Wonder how much effect that has/had? Wait a minute! Higher rev limit! The Sporty and S2 were governed to 5200 for noise reasons. Tripp's reference to the dyno charts needs more study. The dual-plugging of the Sport heads was just a marketing gimmic, IMHO. The S1 never needed them. But I'd love a set of those forks and shocks. And, finally, are the cases on a Sporty the same as on a tuber? I thought there was a difference at the back. I may find out soon if I get the Sporty engine together before the chassis. The S2 needs more power! | ||
| Phat_j |
the cases on a sportster and buell are the same untill 04 | ||
| Mmmi_grad |
OK I have wondering about this too. How close is a 99 to present sportster compared to my 2001 X1 engine ??? And if someone can lay down the changes of the sportster engine for 99 that would be extra cool. I know that they did for the big twins. thanks! | ||
| Doughnut |
What about the trans. on my S2? Just a regular old Sporty? | ||
| Buelliedan |
SportyEric, An S2 is not governed to only 5200 rpms. Its more like 6200 when it starts to kick in but you can still take it to right around 6800 before it totally falls off. | ||
| Buelliedan |
all tube frame buells used a standard sportster transmission. No difference between the two except for the final drive pulleys. | ||
| Mikej |
There is a difference in transmission gearing between years, but I don't know of the XL models had the same transitions in gearing as the Buells did. | ||
| 1313 |
2000 Model Year (if I remember correctly) saw the change of 2nd gear. 1313 | ||
| S2pengy |
According to the brochures for the S2 the trany gears were undercut but otherwise stanard sporty.. | ||
| Doughnut |
undercut Sorry, I'm an idiot, what does that mean? | ||
| Mikej |
http://news.motorcycle.com/article.motml?sid=2948 Undercutting improves shifting. | ||
| Djkaplan |
That link doesn't explain what undercutting is, it just states what it tries to achieve. It means the engagement dogs (or ears) on the side of the gears have been undercut (or "back cut" ). The slightest bit of engagement will pull the gears together making missed shifts more unlikely. The actual gear teeth are not modified. This link has a picture of what it means... http://www.aperaceparts.com/transmissions.html | ||
| Mmmi_grad |
I must be getting old I totally forgot about the undercutting, but now I remember when I first heard they did that !!!LOL | ||
| Sportyeric |
Buelliedan, the article that Trip links to above says that the S2 had "a several degree spark retard" at 5200, and thus a peak HP at 5200. Its just after chart 3 in that article. Replacing the stock module in favour of one from a later Buell is recommended for the more aggressive advance. Also for the red-line. I just did mine. That's interesting about the back-cut. I thought my S2 was shifting so much better than the Sporty because of synthetic oil. NO! DON'T START! Maybe I better get the Sporty's back-cut. Mmmi-grad. I don't think the 1999 Sporty went through any great change. I think it still uses the same heads as the S2, except the Sport model. Or maybe they use an S1 Lightning head on all of them but only dual-plug the Sport model. So your X1 has the next generation head/piston combo. And hotter cams. A lightened flywheel. And maybe back-cut gears. (assuming the Sportsters didn't also.) | ||
| Tripp |
i might have these people back cut my dogs http://www.zippersperformance.com/catalogue/showproduct.asp?cat=850&prod=2068 i need to find out what i got going on in that area first, my problem might be something else so i'm just going to take it easy on the tranny for now  |
