Harley-Davidson XLS1000 Roadster
Harley-Davidson Roadster 1000 | |
Manufacturer | |
---|---|
Also called | XLS1000 Roadster, XLS 1000 Roadster |
Production | 1979 - 85 |
Engine | Four stroke, 45° V-Twin, OHV, 2 valves per cylinder |
Compression ratio | 8.8;1 |
Ignition | Transistorized |
Transmission | 4 Speed |
Frame | Single down tube cradle |
Suspension | Front: Telehydraulic forks Rear: Dual shocks swinging arm fork |
Brakes | Front: 2x 254mm discs Rear: Single 292mm disc |
Front Tire | MJ 90-19 |
Rear Tire | MT90-16 |
Weight | 245 kg / 540 lbs (wet) |
Fuel Capacity | 13.5 Liters / 3.5 US gal |
Manuals | Service Manual |
Engine[edit | edit source]
The engine was a Air cooled cooled Four stroke, 45° V-Twin, OHV, 2 valves per cylinder. The engine featured a 8.8;1 compression ratio.
Chassis[edit | edit source]
It came with a MJ 90-19 front tire and a MT90-16 rear tire. Stopping was achieved via 2x 254mm discs in the front and a Single 292mm disc in the rear. The front suspension was a Telehydraulic forks while the rear was equipped with a Dual shocks swinging arm fork. The XLS1000 Roadster was fitted with a 13.5 Liters / 3.5 US gal fuel tank.
Photos[edit | edit source]
Overview[edit | edit source]
Harley Davidson
XLS 1000 Roadster
For years I've thought that Harley-Davidson just had to be
joking, and the XLS Roadster merely reinforces such a horribly biased opinion.
How anyone could even consider paying £100 more than BMW's top of the range
R100RS for a one-litre machine which has the acceleration of a 250 and top end
performance of a 500, vibrates like an earthquake and is not provided with so
much as a plug spanner, is difficult to understand.
No doubt Harley riders will rush to put pen to paper, using
words like macho, image and torque to justify their purchasing of what can
charitably be described as one of motor cycling's greatest anachronisms. But
before the hot-headed criticism self-ignites, permit me to rationalise.
There is only one way to seriously appraise any Harley. You
can look at the machine, its performance, comfort, handling and braking
capabilities and study its value for money. Then, since Harley-Davidson motor
cycles are responsible for boosting more flagging egos than any other machine,
you must consider its unique esoteric appeal as an entirely separate issue.
Having approached such an emotive machine in such a level
headed fashion you will probably arrive at the conclusion shared by many of my
colleagues. It is that the Harley is a craggy and uncouth contraption as it
stands in the parking bay but its aura and image is such a powerful force that
even the most stoic opponent would enjoy, even admire, these hulking American
motor cycles - once they're in the saddle.
As remarked in previous Harley tests, one of the Milwaukee
giants has about as much to do with normal motor cycling attributes as
Khomeini has to do with genuine religious morals. While the Roadster is an
undeniably awful motor cycle per se, it is easy to understand why a
comparatively small and partisan group of bikers find them so appealing.
You sit low in the bucket-type seat, feet on the additional
forward-mounted highway rests, arms stretched to meet the horizontally-bowed
handlebars, and let the distinctive motor haul you along at 60 mph in fourth
gear with barely 3,500 rpm on the tacho. You keep the speed down so that
wide-eyed pedestrian admirers can confirm that they have indeed seen a real-
live Harley-Davidson that day. There's no need to rush, even though the
Roadster will run a healthy 112 mph; as the rider of a Harley you have nothing
to prove. Whether it's curiosity, disbelief, admiration or disgust which
brings comments from onlookers, you'll never be ignored.
With nonchalant modesty, you'll tell allcomers what it's like
to ride a Harley-Davidson. And you will probably find yourself leaving out all
references to the shocking vibration and dreadful brakes, or glossing over its
many bad faults in a few words.
The Roadster is a descendant of the Harley Sportster which
partially lived up to its name with a one-way speed of 123 mph when tested by
Motor Cycle Weekly in 1978. Both bikes share a virtually identical
45-degree, 997 cc V-twin with a 38 mm Keihin carb, although the Roadster has a
slightly lower first gear ratio.
The important differences between the two engines has been
forced by paranoid emission rulings in the States. Valves close 30 degrees
earlier and duration is shorter to meet noise regulations, whilst the exhaust
system on the Roadster is heavily baffled, which alone slices 3 bhp off the
power output.
The latest machine has a raked steering head angle increasing
the wheelbase by an inch to 5 ft. Handlebars, seating arrangement and a long
overdue Bosch halogen headlight are further differences, along with a 16-in
rear wheel for the Roadster. These are changes which make the Roadster look
more like a Low Rider or Super Glide than a Sportster.
It is difficult to be complimentary about the way the Roadster
feels on the road. Vibration is present; little vibration is hardly worth a
comment, yet the shattering violence of the Roadster's vibration would
register on the Richter scale! Even allowing for the fact that the bike's
footrests are mounted on the engine side casings, it still shudders to excess.
Now while it is possible to concede that a certain level of
vibration is often synonymous with low speed torque and an endemic part of
Harleys, the Roadster's motor feels agricultural and simply underdeveloped. At
standstill it rumbles, shakes and clatters so much that you expect a
mechanical catastrophe any second. As revs increase the pounding becomes more
violent and between 3,500 and 4,000 rpm when the Harley is punching out its
maximum 52 lb-ft of torque, it becomes almost unbearable. A sensitive man
would find it painful to spin the motor to its 6,000 rpm red line.
Gear changing, too, is a noisy process which again has you
wondering whether H-D measure tolerances in thousandths of an inch or feet and
inches. Top gear is too high for townwork, bottom a little too low, and the
Roadster plainly is not made to cope with congestion.
The raked forks and longish wheelbase make it feel heavy and
awkWard at low speeds and it needs careful riding through town. Throttle
response, however, is good, the throttle itself being light and sensitive
while low speed torque is tremendously punchy. But the pulling power tails off
noticeably after 3,800 rpm and you become more aware that the motor is working
harder.
On the open road the Roadster emerges as a mixed package. The
long wheelbase is great for in-line stability and the weight of 520 lb is
about average by today's standards.
The bike cruises at 70 mph with 4,000 rpm on the tacho and
easily slides up to 100 mph and 5,500 rpm. The handlebars are narrow at 28 in
and the bucket seat is too far back for a shorter rider even when the
conventional footrests are in use. So less than 100 miles will be covered
before a pain-relieving walkabout is welcomed.
And surely H-D do not expect any serious passenger to contend
with the agonies of riding on that matchbox-sized hump atop of the mudguard?
Braking has never been a Harley strong point and as far as the
Roadster is concerned things haven't changed. In the 1980s there can be no
excuses for producing motor cycles with below average braking. Obviously the
Harley's amazing flywheel effect, which fails to provide immediate engine
braking once the throttle is shut, may be a factor, but the triple disc set-up
lacks any feel. The initial bite which is so reassuring on most other bikes is
also missing. For comparison we stopped the heavier Suzuki GS1000G in 24 ft
from 30 mph while the Harley stopped in 36 ft.
The Roadster handling is far from bad but those Goodyear Eagle
tires are not entirely trustworthy.
In a straight line, the suspension is fine too, but in a
hurrying ride over uneven surfaces in the wet, both tires and suspension serve
up a cocktail which induces a queasy stomach. In good weather you can indulge
in a little scratching but that is rather inappropriate with the Roadster.
Considering our test machine had completed about 7,000 miles
in the hands of the Press, the Roadster was remarkably well preserved. No
doubt a doting Harley owner would have stemmed the slight rusting which
appeared on cylinder head fins, exhaust system and brake pipes. Some chrome
had also chipped off the foot of the spidery side stand and the steering head
is still left in a rough cast finish. But the new glossy black engine casings
and paintwork had held up remarkably well - so well that the bike would have
benefited from a brighter paint job.
The tinted rectangular mirror was liked (although I wish it
had a partner) and the small Bosch headlight was another good point. Engine
restrictions introduced to beat emission laws seem to have had at least one
beneficial side effect in improved fuel economy. An overall figure of 46-2 and
a best of 61-6 mpg is quite acceptable.
The indicator system also leaves much to be desired. The
indicators only operate while the thumb buttons on each side of the handlebar
are depressed, so anyone with small hands will have great difficulty in
indicating and changing down through the gearbox simultaneously.
The chances are, of course, that anyone considering buying a
Harley is already well acquainted with such numerous shortcomings and has
decided that the Harley image, brash, rugged, raw and mean as it is, far
outweighs the disadvantages. Those who do not already know about Harleys are
not likely to buy one anyway. In fact it is unlikely that anything written in
this test will affect H-Ds sales figures by a single unit.
But it is undeniable that Harley-Davidson have much to gain
and nothing to lose by refining the product. Reducing excessive vibration,
and improving comfort, braking and road holding can greatly improve the
machine without adverse effect on its image. It is to be hoped that it
doesn't take them another 77 years ..
Make Model | Harley Davidson XLS 1000 Roadster |
---|---|
Year | 1979 - 85 |
Engine Type | Four stroke, 45° V-Twin, OHV, 2 valves per cylinder |
Displacement | 998 cc / 60.8 cu-in |
Bore X Stroke | 81 x 96.8 mm |
Cooling System | Air cooled |
Compression | 8.8;1 |
Induction | 38mm Keihin carburetor |
Ignition | Transistorized |
Starting | Electric |
Max Power | 57 hp / 41.7 kW @ 6000 rpm |
Max Torque | 55 ft-lb / 74 Nm @ 4000 rpm |
Transmission | 4 Speed |
Final Drive | Chain |
Frame | Single down tube cradle |
Front Suspension | Telehydraulic forks |
Rear Suspension | Dual shocks swinging arm fork |
Front Brakes | 2x 254mm discs |
Rear Brakes | Single 292mm disc |
Front Tire | MJ 90-19 |
Rear Tire | MT90-16 |
Wet Weight | 245 kg / 540 lbs |
Fuel Capacity | 13.5 Liters / 3.5 US gal |