Jump to content
IGNORED

1st. gen. V/S 2nd. gen.

jrsain

By jrsain
in General Tech Talk

 Share

Recommended Posts

jrsain

jrsain

Posted
Posted

I have read many threads that have comments that state their 1st. gen is faster. I thought it was just banter between the two generations, until today, when I read from a fired up member that owns a HD and a first generation. He was tired of a post that he thought was a HD bashing and after he bragged up his HD he closed with a statement that his 1st. gen. would blow the doors off of any 2nd. gen.!!!!! So, are the 1st. generation bikes faster? If so why?

Wizard765

Wizard765

Posted
Posted

Oh BOY... here we go...

 

Both bikes have basically the same engine BUT the 2nd gens have a gear ratio meant more for hwy riding. When the 1st Gens were built the speed limits were lower and so the ratio gets the rpms up quicker. So in short the 1st gen is a little quicker to get up to speed.

Now this is just my opinion and I have no mechanical background... so

 

LET THE GAMES BEGIN :cool10::cool10::doh::rotf:

muffinman

muffinman

Posted
Posted

Jerry you just opened a can of worms here but to answer your question. The first gen is faster on the top end than the second gen out of the box the 83s will do 148mph the fastest second gen I have ridden with tops out at 127 due to the epa bull****. The first gen can be made faster with a little tweaking.The second gen has a chipset mod but it doesnt do away with the top end shutoff.

Jeff

myminpins

myminpins

Posted
Posted

Well, if you're always doing the speed limit or thereabouts, it's irrelevant.

 

If you want to know how fast you can go at MAXIMUM speed, then the debate begins.

 

Are you considering purchasing a Venture and wondering first gen vs. second gen.?

 

I know we own a second gen and it's plenty fast for us but it really depends on where you drive, how you drive, how fast you drive, etc. :)

Sylvester

Sylvester

Posted
Posted

The first gen. are faster as I learned. The second gen. will whip a HD if it is stock as my friend found out. The V-4 develops its power on high rpms, while the vtwin gets torque for quick acceleration. My RSV will struggle to keep up with a HD Ultra until my rpms hit 4,000 and then while the HD is shifting I am in the power curve and never leave it. When I can hit 100 mph in third, the Ultra is in 5th or 6th.

 

Now I have aother friend that has a PCW Racing 1500cc built 2006 RSV with a V-max rear end, he smokes most anything other than sport bikes.

 

:farmer:

Grisolm1

Grisolm1

Posted
Posted

I own both. Totally different rides.

 

1st gen is a typical heavy cruiser with a good lean angle and motor that is happiest between 4 and 8k rpm. Front end needs to have progressive springs and fork brace to eliminate spindly feel.

 

RSV is a luxury tourer with decent handling and enough get up and go to satisfy most as long as you keep it high in the rev range. It is happy putting at low rpm but drop a couple gears if you need to accelerate.

 

RSV is much more comfortable and more enjoyable than 1st gen when ridden at moderate speeds. 1st gen is faster but I still prefer overall the RSV experience. This is just me. Your tastes may be different.

darthandy

darthandy

Posted
Posted (edited)

For what it's worth.

 

From the June 1986 issue of Cycle World:

 

1986 Venture Royale - 1/4 mile 12.95 sec. @ 102.72 mph

top speed on a radar gun 118.00 mph

dry weight 774 lbs

 

From the June 1999 issue of Cycle World:

 

1999 Royal Star Venture - 1/4 mile 13.75 sec. @ 91.14 mph

top speed on a radar gun 105.00 mph

dry weight 850 lbs (Yamaha says 805 lbs dry - must have been a misprint in CW)

 

Let the arguments begin!!

 

Andy

Edited by darthandy
jrsain

jrsain

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No intent to get anybody stirred up it was out of curiosity that I asked. My last bike was a VTX 1800C (a real stump puller) there weren't many that challenged me unlike when I rode a Shadow. I don't say that meaning I was out looking for races, in fact never raced it. I think most people on two wheels knew what is was and how they ran. I'm told in the sport cruiser venue there were many bikes that would rival it, tests showed them running the quarter mile in the 12:40's. That was why when I started looking for a touring bike it was tough, I started by test driving a 1600 Kaw Nomad. Loved the look and the ride but what a pooch compared to the VTX. I was told the only thing close to my VTX would be the Royal Star and I settled on the RSTD and love it. So that is why I asked "what was all the talk about the 1st gen being faster". BTW in the VTX crowd all the owners of black bikes state that "Black is Fastest"

Freebird

Freebird

Posted
Posted
From MC News... for comparison :

 

I find that information to be questionable at best. Comparisons between the RSV and MRSV make absolutely no sense. They even show a 2 HP difference and we all know that these bikes have the exact same engines.

Flyinfool

Flyinfool

Posted
Posted
I find that information to be questionable at best. Comparisons between the RSV and MRSV make absolutely no sense. They even show a 2 HP difference and we all know that these bikes have the exact same engines.

 

There is also a 5 year span in when they were tested.

I can believe that how well the carbs are adjusted could make a 2HP difference.

I would not be surprised to see two identical bikes with consecutive serial numbers have a 2 hp difference.

dingy

dingy

Posted
Posted

But how about the air intake path and exhaust systems on the bikes. Both of these will figure into RWHP ratings.

 

I am surprised at the 1800 Gold Wing numbers, I thought they would be better than that. Have to say I ain't scared anymore.

 

Gary

darthandy

darthandy

Posted
Posted
I find that information to be questionable at best. Comparisons between the RSV and MRSV make absolutely no sense. They even show a 2 HP difference and we all know that these bikes have the exact same engines.

 

I've read the various articles on horsepower measurements in both Cycle World and Cycle Canada. I never realized the number of factors that can affect the readings ... temperature, humidity, even the altitude of the area where the dyno was used. A five horsepower difference is normal when looking at engines putting out this much horsepower, especially when you factor in the length of time between the tests. You can get a 2 to 3 horsepower difference just from different tolerances between two identical machines...and then there is the question of how they were broken in and how many km (Or miles) there are on them.

 

Differences in horsepower at the rear wheel are quite normal given the many variables that can affect the tests, just as there can be marked differences in quarter mile times and top speeds because of the number of variables that can affect those numbers. One fact does come out clear...the Gen 2 is heavier than the Gen 1 so, all else being equal, the Gen 1 will be faster. That being said, my Triumph will blow them both into the weeds, but I prefer to cross the country on my RSV so I can be comfortable...getting old, you know!

 

Andy

buddy

buddy

Posted
Posted

Comment was made First Gen. can blow the doors off the Second Gen. Sorry there's no way in this world that will ever happen!!!

NO doors on a Second Gen.:rotfl:

 

Yammer Dan

Yammer Dan

Posted
Posted
Comment was made First Gen. can blow the doors off the Second Gen. Sorry there's no way in this world that will ever happen!!!

 

NO doors on a Second Gen.:rotfl:

 

 

 

I thought that but wasn't going to mention it....:whistling:

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...