Goldwing fourm

[scoobydoo]

I'm looking for good info on wings, anybody use any good Goldwing boards?
Thanks

[baldo]

www.ngwclub.com

I've been going there for years....

[cookiedough]

I met one winger and he said to get a 2005 on up newer model vs. 2001-2004 had worse electronics and worse radio/speakers/amps.  Anyone know if that is true?

PLus I think 2001-2002 models had aluminum frame cracking issue recall but don't know how widespread of an issue that really was either?

[desertrefugee]

www.ngwclub.com

I've been going there for years....

I hang out over here a lot.  Great site.  It's pretty much exclusively four cylinder stuff - and naked to boot.  Some "dresser" chatter, but mostly...well...naked-centric.

[gordonv]

Www.goldwingdoc.com

I spent more time in the GL1100 & GL1500 sections, not any time in the GL1800.

A lot of nice how-to posted.

[Kep]

www.goldwingowners.com is one I use.

[mike72903]

Having just joined the GWRRA I can't say I would recommend doing that.  Not nearly as helpful about GW's as the VRCC is for Valks.  Found the forums to be lightly used considering their membership numbers as well as kinda lame.

[Mr Whiskey]

I'm looking for good info on wings, anybody use any good Goldwing boards?
Thanks

This is the place...
for all your Goldwing tips, tricks, & tech info
http://gl1800riders.com/

I met one winger and he said to get a 2005 on up newer model vs. 2001-2004 had worse electronics and worse radio/speakers/amps.  Anyone know if that is true?

PLus I think 2001-2002 models had aluminum frame cracking issue recall but don't know how widespread of an issue that really was either?

'06 & up has the better audio system (much better)
& the frame cracking was '01-'04!
We sometimes wish we'd held out for an '06, for the better sound, but....
they really got the '05 right in every other respect. It's reputed to be one of the most reliable, trouble free models & has given me nothing but "miles of smiles" for 2 years now

[vanavyman]

05 is the best of the 01-05 Goldwing's but they still have a few overheating issues. Mine is an 05. 06 they made the radiator larger and seemed to fix this issue. But overall this is a very small issue and only comes up for me in bumper traffic after an hour or so. Like Valkyrie's every Goldwing was great for its time. Some want them to re-invent the current 1800 and add some more current technology. But why change something that isn't broken that would really increase the price.  Several other brands keep their's the same for long periods of time.   I've also found gl1800riders.com to be great for information and their classified ad section. Bought and sold several items on that board.
Dan

[98valk]

http://www.goldwingfacts.com/forums/

http://www.goldwingfacts.com/goldwinghistory.htm

http://www.goldwingfacts.com/used1800.htm

[Reb]

05 is the best of the 01-05 Goldwing's but they still have a few overheating issues. Mine is an 05. 06 they made the radiator larger and seemed to fix this issue. But overall this is a very small issue and only comes up for me in bumper traffic after an hour or so. Like Valkyrie's every Goldwing was great for its time. Some want them to re-invent the current 1800 and add some more current technology. But why change something that isn't broken that would really increase the price.  Several other brands keep their's the same for long periods of time.   I've also found gl1800riders.com to be great for information and their classified ad section. Bought and sold several items on that board.
Dan

Much agree Dan. However from what I've read online it looks as if 2017 is going to introduce an entirely new Goldwing from the ground up. I've read that Honda just released a patent on a tank mounted touch screen LCD display and new front suspension system.

Also rumors of a hybrid engine design.... I hope it's just a rumor.

I've speculated they drop the CC size and go with a turbocharged engine for increased HP and better fuel economy. Although they might go bigger in CC size as well. I'm very anxious to see where they go with it.

http://gearheads.org/honda-goldwing-replacement-set-for-2017/


As far as sites go. GL1800riders.com is by far the best area for information. Guys on the site actually ride instead of discussing how many badges they have on there GWRR vest.  

[baldo]

05 is the best of the 01-05 Goldwing's but they still have a few overheating issues. Mine is an 05. 06 they made the radiator larger and seemed to fix this issue. But overall this is a very small issue and only comes up for me in bumper traffic after an hour or so. Like Valkyrie's every Goldwing was great for its time. Some want them to re-invent the current 1800 and add some more current technology. But why change something that isn't broken that would really increase the price.  Several other brands keep their's the same for long periods of time.   I've also found gl1800riders.com to be great for information and their classified ad section. Bought and sold several items on that board.
Dan

Much agree Dan. However from what I've read online it looks as if 2017 is going to introduce an entirely new Goldwing from the ground up. I've read that Honda just released a patent on a tank mounted touch screen LCD display as well. I'm curious to see what they do. It's suppose to be introduced in October.

I've speculated they drop the CC size and go with a turbocharged engine for increased HP and better fuel economy. Although they might go bigger in CC size as well. I'm very anxious to see where they go with it.

Wow, that sounds intriguing...I'd love to see that.....

[Danny McMillin]

CI_Borg...When you get your monthly mag, you may change your opinion!!

[98valk]

I've speculated they drop the CC size and go with a turbocharged engine for increased HP and better fuel economy.
[/quote]

A turbo Does Not increase fuel economy, they never have and can actually make it worst due to the exhaust restrictions.

[hubcapsc]

I've speculated they drop the CC size and go with a turbocharged engine for increased HP and better fuel economy.

A turbo Does Not increase fuel economy, they never have and can actually make it worst due to the exhaust restrictions.
[/quote]

I'm imagining a 1200 cc Wing that makes 200HP at 11,000 rpm 

-Mike

[Reb]

A turbo Does Not increase fuel economy, they never have and can actually make it worst due to the exhaust restrictions.

[/quote]

Exhaust restrictions?  ???

The power increase from a turbocharger is reflected as more torque available at the crankshaft. If mated with lower gear ratio's, the engine can run at lower cruising RPM's which lowers your charges per minute. Which increases fuel economy. This is a lot more prevalent on smaller engines, hence why they have become so popular in compact vehicle and crossovers today. Off course the manner is which you ride/drive is always constraining whether you are operating a turbocharged or naturally aspirated engine.

Look up a P-V diagram of an N/A motor vs. a turbo motor. You eliminate the pumping losses with a turbo. On the same application you can use a smaller motor and when not under load you will have better fuel economy. If a turbo motor is in boost all the time it might be less efficient than a N/A. It's all about what the best volumetric efficiency area of the engine is when it's operating.

[98valk]

A turbo Does Not increase fuel economy, they never have and can actually make it worst due to the exhaust restrictions.

Exhaust restrictions?  ???

The power increase from a turbocharger is reflected as more torque available at the crankshaft. If mated with lower gear ratio's, the engine can run at lower cruising RPM's which lowers your charges per minute. Which increases fuel economy. This is a lot more prevalent on smaller engines, hence why they have become so popular in compact vehicle and crossovers today. Off course the manner is which you ride/drive is always constraining whether you are operating a turbocharged or naturally aspirated engine.

Look up a P-V diagram of an N/A motor vs. a turbo motor. You eliminate the pumping losses with a turbo. On the same application you can use a smaller motor and when not under load you will have better fuel economy. If a turbo motor is in boost all the time it might be less efficient than a N/A. It's all about what the best volumetric efficiency area of the engine is when it's operating.

[/quote]

The only way a small turbo engine gets better MPG is by not spooling the turbo and then usually less than same engine not turbo'd due to the high exhaust piping including the turbo restriction.
A turbo has always been about making lots and lots of HP and ftlb, never ever was it about MPG.

"Going back to our opening description of a four-cycle engine, it should be noted that only one of the four cycles produces power. The other three cycles consume power. Anything that increases the induction pressure of an engine reduces the pumping losses for that engine on the intake stroke (see Fig.5). But there is no "free lunch". It takes power to drive the compressor that creates this increased induction pressure. For a supercharger, that power comes directly off the engine's crankshaft. In the case of a turbocharger, the turbine creates a restriction in the exhaust path, thus building exhaust backpressure between the cylinder and the turbine, increasing pumping losses on the exhaust cycle."
http://bankspower.com/techarticles/show/36-Airflow---The-Secret-To-Making-Power

Small turbocharged engines are marketed as delivering the power of a large engine, with the fuel economy of a smaller one. That's a tempting proposition, but our testing shows these small-displacement turbos are not delivering on the promises.

By now, we've tested many cars with these engines, and lots of competitors with traditional, naturally-aspirated powerplants, big and small. Generally, the turbocharged cars have slower acceleration and no better fuel economy than the models with bigger, conventional engines. Looking at EPA fuel-economy estimates (calculated based on laboratory tests), some of these cars' turbocharged engines seem to have an advantage. But we found those results don't match the findings from our own fuel-economy tests.

The latest example is the collection of EcoBoost Ford Fusions we tested, which come with small, direct-injection, turbocharged four-cylinder engines. The smallest one—a 1.6-liter producing 173 hp—is a $795 option over the basic conventional 2.5-liter four cylinder on Fusion SE models. But that car's 0-60 mph acceleration time trails most competitors, and its 25 mpg overall places it among the worst of the crop of recently-redesigned family sedans. The Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, and Nissan Altima, all with conventional 2.4- or 2.5-liter four-cylinder engines, get an additional 2, 5, and 6 mpg, respectively. And all accelerate more quickly.
read more
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-don-t-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims/index.htm

more
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1082165_do-small-turbo-engines-really-give-better-gas-mileage

[cookiedough]

I'm with the above long explanation as well.  Everyone is going smaller turbo engines but ME, don't EVER want one.  Reason:
smaller high performance engine revs higher and usually won't last as long as a conventional, bigger engine.  Speaking from experience with our 2014 Hyundai Santa Fe 3.3L V6 direct injection 290hp engine vs. the 2.0L option 4 cylinder turbo.   Our V6 lower rpm engine gets 27 avg mpg being VERY good while the turbo 4 banger gets NO more than that in real world driving due to higher revving and smaller displacement engine.  Plus, our V6 is quieter and snappier in my seat of the feel pants as well.  Plus,  our V6 engine came standard in the LONG wheelbase SUV vs. having to pay extra for the 2.0L turbo 4 banger. 

I sure hope the new goldwing does not go smaller turbo since nothing but issues to come with that.  Why change what has never broke?  One thing the goldwing needs is a power up/down windshield like BMW's, how hard is that to do???  What about adding a 6th gear not for much mpg gain, but for lower rpm's doing over 70 mph?  It seems like Honda and Toyota both do not like to change things up as often as the Big 3 like to do since they go by the old saying, 'if not broke, why change?'