53 KK performance specs?

[thefrenchowl]

Hi John,

Before I sold you the 53 KK, I did went to a dyno shoot out with it for fun...

Big evos in the day with some having readings of 125bhp or so...

So we strapped the KK on the road rollers and we couldn't pull 4th gear at all...

Eventually managed a 3rd gear "run" and that read, wait for it, 11bhp...

It still did around 90mph and I would fight and beat evo Sportsters no sweat...

I have never trusted bhp figures for anything... But what I can compare is all the bikes I've had...

The fastest by a long way was my 1st Sportster, a 76 XLH, on which I could, no kidding, put both tacho and speedo needles on their stops while the bike was still accelerating...

Next was a 66CH fitted in the States with an SU carb, not far behind... It had buckhorns and the leather flapping would hurt your arms after a while.

Next is my 54 KHK, as fast as a "normal" Sportster, but with way more torque and a lack of P cam effect that the X gets around 4000rpm... Just straight endless pulling from the word go.

The way I use engines means I've never noticed lack of humph in the low revs.

The way the 53 KK ran was strange to me, it would go fast and stay there despite the huge bars, but it took a while to get there, hence the desire never to shut down too much!!!

I've enjoyed them all, that's the main thing, innit???

Patrick

[Malte]

Thanks Epinut for posting the flyer, and thanks Erik K and John R for your input.
I suppose H-D never posted the performand specs of the KK, but your vewpoints based on personal experience is very useful!
Malte.

[John R]

I didn't say anything about that other aspect of performance - handling and roadholding.

In designing the K, H-D were trying to take-on the Brit imports of the day, head to head - apart from keeping to the Harley look! To my mind they did a great job with a quality bike in every respect (though it made it a bit porky at about 40lbs heavier than an average Brit). Ks started easy, excellent frame/forks, riding position, good clutch, brakes, electrics, tranny (though early weakness) and a very willing engine that would rev like Brit bikes. On country roads it's so effortlessly quick and neat on bends. A real pleasure. Though if you every carry a passenger, the K/KK doesn't hack it - needs more power, especially on hills. A great solo rider bike.

The only trouble was that though a good match for the Brit 500s, they were moving to 650s. Hence the KH 888. In that move, at a stroke (geddit?) they won the muscle battle but, at the same time they lost the quick and neat handling. To give the KH more high speed stability H-D tweaked frame/fork geometry and made what I call a Gangster Bike - it will go round bends well but you have to put more work in. Flicking from left to right to left is no longer the relaxed pleasure it was. How much of the difference the change from 3.25 to 3.50 tyres makes is hard to say.

So, the KH/KHK doesn't quite tick the box for country roads. A KHK in early frame - best of both worlds?

Why wasn't the K series a sales success? My guesses are that the H-D styling didn't cut-it when the European look was at its height. Also, the early Ks lacked the torque that the Harley faithful were used to (and didn't get the idea of keeping in high revs up and down the gears). Lastly, they cost a lot - about $1000 when a Brit bike was about a third less.