| Author | Message | ||
     Swordsman |
Howdy! Long time no see, fellow Badwebbers. Since parting with my '06 XB12Ss earlier this year, I've been popping in less and less. Most of my forum hopping nowadays goes on over at Soviet Steeds, since I replaced the Lightning with a 2010 Ural T. It's been an interesting change, switching from a 1200cc muscle bike to a 40 hp sidecar rig. It's slow. Oh my GOD, it's SO slow.  It's a lot of fun though. Gets attention like you wouldn't believe. Kinda' fun to wrench on too... like tinkering with a 50 year old tractor. The one thing that's killing me is the fuel economy. 40 horses, over 700 lbs, aerodynamic as a concrete block: I swing between 29 - 33 mpg, depending on my cruising speed (WOT I can wring 65 mph out of it, 70 in a full tuck and a lot of patience). Those mpg numbers aren't much better than my '08 Mustang GT, and the Ural requires much more frequent maintenance than most bikes. It's a cool toy, but certainly not the greatest choice for my 50 mile round trip highway commute. With gas what it is, and my finances being tight-ish, I'm really wishing I had a scooter. However, the size I need (over 200cc for comfortable highway capability) starts hitting around $4k+ new, and it's actually a hard displacement size to come by used. And then it hit me: don't Buell Blasts get really good mpg? I always thought it'd be fun to have a beater Blast to play with. Prices for used ones seems to have fallen through the floor... there's a bunch for sale locally, all under 2 grand. I could probably wrangle that up without much fuss. So, here's the deal. I have a few questions about the wee beastie, and I'm hoping someone could chime in and refresh my memory. 1.) What kind of fuel economy are you guys averaging? 2.) Are there any year models to avoid, or has the Blast remained pretty much the same throughout production? 3.) Known quirks / issues to watch out for when scouting out prospective units? 4.) If ya don't mind, what kind of insurance costs are you guys paying? 5.) Are the Blasts fairly easy to wrench on? I think that's all for now. Thanks a bunch!  ~SM | ||
| Britchri10 |
1) 50-60MPG (45-50 if I thrash it!) 2) Prices being what they are, buy the latest model you can afford. After 2001/2 they are all pretty much the same. 3)Upper engine mount. header studs. 4) Full coverage w/towing $180.00/year. (I am OLD, though) 5)The Blast is the easiest bike I have ever worked on. (& I am not a mechanic) BTW: I just sold my 2006 w/9K on it in the price range you quoted. Buy one cheap & you won't regret it. I'm regretting having to sell mine already & I will buy another when circumstances permit. Chris C | ||
| Indybuell |
+1 on everything Brit just said. You can get close to 70MPG if you have a bone stock Blast. I've got a ProSeries Intake, cams, and exhaust. Jetted at 48/175. I get 55MPG pretty consistently. As for ease to wrench on, I don't think there is a simpler bike out there. I pay $13 a month with AmFam for full coverage. I don't have towing, because the AMA covers that for me. The one gotcha recently seems to be belts. Mine has 10k on it, and it's probably time for another one. | ||
| Jetlee |
1. I'm getting about 35-40mpg out of mine. I'm very modified with a non-optimal tune, though. 2. They're pretty much the same. The 2002+ doesn't have the paper rockerbox gasket. The 2000's have the stainless steel-wrapped brake lines, good or bad depending on you. The 2000's also have an added brace making them handle better but vibrate more, again good or bad depending on you. 3. 2000-2001 has a paper rockerbox gasket that leaks bad. Easy to replace on your own for like $13. The 2000's have a recalled rear pulley. 4. Insurance, Nationwide has screwed me to the sum of $80/mo for crap insurance. 21st Century partner company quoted me $180/yr for better coverages. 5. Easiest bike I've had to work on, next to a Briggs mini-bike. (Message edited by Jetlee on January 05, 2012) | ||
| Swordsman |
Thanks for the feedback. What goes wrong with the the upper engine mount? Is it something obvious? Same question about the header studs. Oh, one more thing: parts availability. Does it share any internals with the Sportster like the older Buells? And is Harley still making the badgeless Blast for the MSF courses (which would indicate parts will still be available for some time). ~SM (Message edited by Swordsman on January 05, 2012) | ||
| Britchri10 |
It's a single. It fires once every two rotations of the crank. It vibrates! Incorrect torquing of the nuts/bolts combined with vibration or simple general wear & tear CAN lead to failure. Not too much to worry about though, the bike doesn't just shed parts every 200 miles. Just make sure you inspect them on a regular basis. Chris C | ||
| Gearheaderiko |
Concur on most everything, more or less! It uses or can use Sportster/XB engine and trans parts. Bone stock, low miles shouldnt be hard to find. Bone stock=less problems, better mpg. Later years are better just cuz they're newer! Though Blasts share 99.99% of parts, 2000/2001 years tend to be sketchier. I'd buy any year, but I know my way around them very well! Bone stock is best (if I didnt already mention it). They can take quite a beating, but are only as good as the last guy that wrenched on it (including dealers). They are low maintenance and if you're riding a Ural, you already know to watch for problems (which would be few-but you're less likely to run it low on oil for miles on end until it makes noise-for example). If the mod bug hits you, do the research first. You can add 7 hp easily (!), but one way will get you 40 mpg, the other 60 mpg! | ||
| Ezblast |
lol - you can usually keep it around 50mpg if your not dogging it constantly on a well modified Blast. Welcome! EZ | ||
| Jetlee |
That's my issue...I'm usually all throttle or no throttle. LMAO A good stock Blast should treat you well. Plenty here that can help you with any mods when you get bit. (Message edited by Jet-Lee on January 08, 2012) | ||
| Swordsman |
If I got one, I'd probably want to rig up a custom exhaust and yank the air box (I like the "hey, there's only one cylinder!" look), but just for aesthetics. IMHO, the Blast is NOT a very handsome bike stock, but has a lot of potential. I'm virtually unconcerned about performance, except in the realm of mpg, and the capability to comfortably cruise at 65 or 70 mph would be nice. | ||
| Rainman |
Stock for me is 60 mpg CITY and 70 mpg @ 65 on the freeway. Hwy MPG drops the closer you get to 80 as you get closer to redline. My only bike for the past five years and it does fine on the highway or in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Not on the highway as often now, thanks to a Kawi Concours, but it's my daily ride. | ||
| Swordsman |
tock for me is 60 mpg CITY and 70 mpg @ 65 That would be PERFECT. Now I just need to wrangle up the ca$h! I'll still be making payments on this Ural for 3 more years...  ~SM | ||
| Zane |
I had a Blast for almost a year and loved the thing. If I had 2 nickels to rub together I'd get another one in a heart beat. Mine was mostly stock. Had the jet's changed out and it had a Vance and Hines exhaust. Not sure who said it but some on on Badweb said it best. "If loud pipes save lives, then on this bike you'll be immortal." I used mine as a daily commuter. Had a 17 mile one way commute of mixed surface roads and 70 mph interstate type road. Seven of those miles were two up when I'd take my then 15 year old to school. I routinely got 62-65 mpg. Without him on the back it would touch 70 mpg. Best ever was 72, worse was 58. Mine was an 04 and in 7k miles nothing broke. Only service was oil changes and tires. Being a single cylinder motor, it eats back tires. Avoid the standard Dunlaps, they're garbage. Anything that will fit is better. | ||
| Gearheaderiko |
"If loud pipes save lives, then on this bike you'll be immortal." LOL! | ||
| Titusand |
Totally stock, "normal" easy riding, 60-65 MPG. $150 a year for insurance. A friend of mine has a high performance Jap bike and maintenance on his is like an aircraft. I just know he cringes when I tell him, "Just air, oil and filter again!" I would characterize the Blast as peppy, but not fast. My Malibu SS is quicker. The Blast is, in my experience, the best combination of price, practical use, costs, insurance, maintenance, and speed (top end about 96 mph stock). | ||
| Swordsman |
Hey. Still thinking, and counting pennies. I just finished reading an article (from 2001) stating the Blast shared almost NO components with the Sportster engine. I could have sworn that was very much NOT the case. So, does it, or does it not? If not, how hard is it going to be to replace broken engine stuff??? ~SM | ||
| Jetlee |
I order parts either for a 2003 XB9 or a 2001 Sportster 1200. I never have issues finding the parts I need. | ||
| Ezblast |
Besides - who buys stock? - lol EZ | ||
| Gearheaderiko |
Its a 'Clinton' lie. Both true and false depending on how you interpret the truth. The Blast is a Sportster engine with one cylinder missing. Many XB, M2, XL (even K model!) parts are interchangeable if not exactly the same. The crankshaft (and connecting rod) is the only thing I can think of that is completely unique to the Blast, but I'm also pretty sure a twin crank will work after shaving some weight off the flywheel (and ditching a rod). How often are you planning on breaking it anyway? Its not easy to do unless you downright abuse it (complete disregard of maintenance and common sense). | ||
| Swordsman |
Heh, it's not ME I'm concerned about. When you buy used, you never really know how the previous owner treated it. Being a beginner's bike, it could have suffered all kinds of abuse due to ignorance, or someone could have outgrown it quickly and reamed the hell out of it. Or, like several I've seen on Craigslist, they're over 10 years old with practically no miles on them, which is also not good. I keep waffling back and forth between a beater Blast and a ~200cc scooter. This purchase (should I ever be able to scrape up the cash) is all about practicality and the almighty MPG. ~SM | ||
| Gearheaderiko |
they're over 10 years old with practically no miles on them, which is also not good. Huh? That would be worse than a 10 year old bike with mileage on it?! I'm not seeing where that logic makes sense. | ||
| Titusand |
Well sitting for years, if unattended, that is not good either. | ||
| Gearheaderiko |
There isnt any difference in a Blast sitting for 10 years and a Blast being ridden for 10 years in 95% of the cases, other than the ridden Blast is more worn and has newer oil and filter (hopefully). Nothing else is different. We're not talking about 60 year old "barn finds" here. Its the extreme rare few that are going to do any other maintenance than oil and filter. | ||
| Swordsman |
There isnt any difference in a Blast sitting for 10 years and a Blast being ridden for 10 years Maybe this is just old shade tree mechanic myth, but everything I've ever heard or read says otherwise. Things that stay wet corrode or gum up, things that are soft harden and dry out. People rarely pack up their machines properly for storage, because no one really intends on storing them... they just don't ever get around to riding. I'm not saying one is worse than the other, but both situations would have their own set of problems to watch out for. ~SM (Message edited by Swordsman on March 06, 2012) | ||
| Gearheaderiko |
Store or park a bike in the same conditions, results in the same bike. I'll take the one with low mileage. I'd also bet that most people dont even 'store' their bikes properly for winter (per the manual). As one who's resurrected many vehicles "left for dead", there are just some things that arent true or arent a rule. |
