03-30-2014, 11:56 PM
Some interesting responses here. I have a love-hate relationship with Harleys. I have owned three plus a Buell since 1985. 85 FXRS, 90 Low Rider Convertible, 2005 Sportster Roadster and Buell S3T. Reliable and nicely finished. None ever gave me any problems and Harley company service is the best. They were just not fun to ride for a performance lover. Harleys deliver about 80% of the performance I wanted. I kept the Convertible 4 years. The Buell had a nice riding position, great seat, nice side cases, nice fairing and could have made a nice sport-tourer. Unfortunately, it had poor performance, awful shifting and was not a fun bike to ride. I traded it in on a Speed Triple which was much more fun to ride. Now, I am approaching 67 years of age and performance is less important to me. I am looking at Harleys again. I rented a 2009 Fatboy in AZ for a week and liked it but not enough to buy one.
The two most unreliable bikes I have owned: 1) A BSA 441 Victor - a real piece of crap. Poor performance, hard starting and really unreliable to boot. 2) Norton Combat Commando. Fun to ride, good looking. Broke it just about every ride. Blown clutch, broken wheel spokes and on and on. To quote the Brits: "a piece of @~*^e".
The two most unreliable bikes I have owned: 1) A BSA 441 Victor - a real piece of crap. Poor performance, hard starting and really unreliable to boot. 2) Norton Combat Commando. Fun to ride, good looking. Broke it just about every ride. Blown clutch, broken wheel spokes and on and on. To quote the Brits: "a piece of @~*^e".