rmrc51
Member
Posts: 1087
Freyja. Queen of the Valkyries
Palmyra, Virginia
|
 |
« on: March 27, 2009, 06:00:45 AM » |
|
I'm a bit curious. I've seen mentioned in some other posts that the 97 Valk was a bit more powerful than the model years that followed. If so, why? Yeah, I do have a 97 and I'd just like to know as much about it as possible. And no,,,,, I have no intentions of using any of this supposed extra power. Hell,, I'll never even use half of its' full potential. I'm a feather foot.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
VRCC # 30041
|
|
|
MP
Member
Posts: 5532
1997 Std Valkyrie and 2001 red/blk I/S w/sidecar
North Dakota
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2009, 08:51:02 AM » |
|
The 97's have a different carb. Also, a different cam in them. Sometime late in the model year, the cam switched to the one all have had since. No one seems to know the switch date. It was a little hotter cam.
Does no good to go to parts, as the only replacement is the later cam.
MP
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 "Ridin' with Cycho" |
|
|
|
Master Blaster
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2009, 09:59:22 AM » |
|
Actually though different part numbers there is really not enough difference to notice. I have had 2 97s, a 98, and a 2K. For a nice reliable performance boost you will notice, put in an Interstate ICU and Interstate carb springs. Some exhaust mods also free up a little power also
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Nothing screams bad craftsmanship like wrinkles in your duct tape."
Gun controll is not about guns, its about CONTROLL.
|
|
|
MP
Member
Posts: 5532
1997 Std Valkyrie and 2001 red/blk I/S w/sidecar
North Dakota
|
|
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2009, 03:59:32 PM » |
|
97's seem to eat more fuel! Every time I ride with a group, we all go the same distance, same roads, same speed. When we stop to fill, I check what people are putting in. The 97's get the poorest mileage consistantly. I have a 97.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Ridin' with Cycho" |
|
|
|
JerryH
|
 |
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2009, 04:38:46 PM » |
|
I agree with that one - the best mileage I have ever gotten was 34 mpg. and I thought that was great. But the bumble bee sure stings when I let it loose.
Yellowdragon
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zorba
|
|
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2009, 06:09:17 PM » |
|
My 97 with a 6 Degree trigger and "Dyno Jet" and K&N seems to be a good one , it out runs all the other Valks in this town and i've had them ride it also and they agree it's faster than their bikes (i ride like a grand pa) so it doesn't do me a lot of good,lol! My friends have the Dyna 3000 , trigger wheels dyna jet kit etc in theirs? Granted i have soft bags not hard , so it's lighter there!
I get great MPG 31 to 38 depending on the wrist?
They ask me why it's faster and i say darn if i know,lol !
Could be the "RED &WHITE" color,lol!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
rmrc51
Member
Posts: 1087
Freyja. Queen of the Valkyries
Palmyra, Virginia
|
|
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2009, 06:54:45 PM » |
|
Well,,,, if the 97's are known for less gas mileage,, I'm glad I'm putting that Interstate tank on mine, especially being that mine is a Trike which I've heard get even less mileage!  But I tell ya,,, I wouldn't trade her for the world! And maybe there is something that set's the Red & White ones apart!!!! lol  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
VRCC # 30041
|
|
|
Tropic traveler
Member
Posts: 3117
Livin' the Valk, er, F6B life in Central Florida.
Silver Springs, Florida
|
|
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2009, 07:49:25 PM » |
|
My Valk is a 10/96 built 1997 Tourer & it "suffers" from the lower mileage/higher power syndrome also. I think that a 10/96 built Valk is within the first 6 months of Valk production, they started in 4/96 didn't they? Cams? Carbs? Probably. My theory is Honda figured out that the '97 Valk had enough power to spare & "detuned" subsequent models. 100 HP was overkill to match the big cruiser competitors of the timeframe 1997-2001. 2001 was about the time Honda lost interest in the Valk & decided to join the V-twink HD copy brigade. The hot rodder & gearhead in me sees a whole bunch of HP that Honda left on the drawing board with the F6 engine in it's stock form. One can only imagine how much power the Valk F6 is capable of if 1/10th as much R&D and $$$ were spent on it as has been spent on the air cooled V-twin design. I have spent enough saddle time on Kim's '98 {10/97 d.o.b.} to notice that my 1997 will easily out run it. Her '98 consistently uses 1/2 gallon less fuel at fill up time riding the exact same miles & route. ??? Maybe it's me!  90K miles on my '97. 17K on Kim's '98.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'13 F6B black-the real new Valkyrie Tourer
'13 F6B red for Kim
'97 Valkyrie Tourer r&w, OLDFRT's ride now!
'98 Valkyrie Tourer burgundy & cream traded for Kim's F6B
'05 SS 750 traded for Kim's F6B
'99 Valkyrie black & silver Tourer, traded in on my F6B
'05 Triumph R3 gone but not forgotten!
|
|
|
MP
Member
Posts: 5532
1997 Std Valkyrie and 2001 red/blk I/S w/sidecar
North Dakota
|
|
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2009, 04:57:20 AM » |
|
Tropic Traveler:
Your experiences are just what I have experienced. A little more power, less mpg.
MP
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Ridin' with Cycho" |
|
|
|
|
|
woody
|
|
« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2009, 06:35:11 PM » |
|
I live down under and I ride a 97, some time ago I had some acceleration problems and have found, through this forum, that we have smaller jets (78 instead of 100) and a restrictor in the airbox to make the mixture richer. Even with all this the bike goes great, and I can get up to 42 MPG if I take it easy. However when I get silly, I have had that down to 25 MPG. Keeping up with some of my mates sports bikes is possible but it sure takes a bit of throttle twisting and hard braking.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
