| Author | Message | ||
     Garrett2 |
What is the Tq/Hp differences between the two bikes? For those that have a 9, why did you get it? FOr those against the 9, why do you not like them? | ||
| Cixyx_pilot |
XB9 92hp - XB12 102hp. I like my 9, more than enough power for me .My reason for getting my 06 City X over a 12? Well the cheaper list price, I did't really need what little extra power the 12 gives. Here in Canada the cost of insurance on a 9 is much better than the 12.Here the 12 is classed as a sport bike, the 12 a sport touring bike so the cost is alot more. | ||
| Urbansurfking |
For me the power difference is negligible and can be enhanced with a K&N upgrade, race ECM and pipe change. I prefer the higher redline of the 9 over the 12. | ||
| Billybob |
less money sometimes i wish i had got a lighting long I want to see the new 1200tt | ||
| Panhead_dan |
I had a hard time when I went from a 9 to a 12 due to the lack of top end power. (9 had a race kit). Now that I've lived with a 12 for a while I have come to like the low end torque. It's very addictive. You can't go wrong either way! | ||
| Bake |
I wanted the higher reving 9. | ||
| Stangallmotor |
I wanted the 12 but didnt have enough cash for the down payment so I settled for the 9. Its a cool little bike cant go wrong with either of them. With a race kit on it dynoed at 83 whp, not bad I guess for a 9. | ||
| Bads1 |
Lack of top end power of a 12 ??? There both great bikes. The 9 just is smoother,but the 12 just kick's its but everywhere. | ||
| Aj06bolt12r |
Got the 12 cuz it makes more power everywhere and seems to lack the mid range dip in the torque curve that plagues the 9's with aftermarket pipes. I love it but never rode a 9 so really cant comment on the seat of the pants feel vs the 12. But as far as the higher revs, neither of these engines rev high at all, if you want top end/ high rpm power oriented engine get an i-4. You want an american v- twin with lots of torque and power were you can use it get the 12. Just my .02 But then again if you spend alot of time in stop and go traffic or in a big city you might have more fun on a city x with its shorter gearing. It all comes down to what type of riding you will doing but i doubt that you would be dissapointed by any of Erics offerings. Wow didnt mean for that to be 10 pages long, oh well  | ||
| Tleighbell |
I had a 9 now have a 12. Definitely more grunt throughout the range on the 12 but it is not as smooth. To me the vibration only makes a difference in town. My 9 had the race kit which seemed to make the engine come alive and it did have a lively sweet feel. I never felt the need for a 12 until I got one, now that I have the 12 I appreciate the extra torque, but I would be just as happy with the 9 as long as it had a race kit (or similar set up). Mine bikes are both S models. I suspect that the power output might be more important to me if I had an R. Bear in mind that the cost of the aftermarket muffler, ecm and filter would make up a big part of the difference in cost between a 9 and a 12. You can't go wrong either way. | ||
| Krassh |
I bought mine in 2003 they only had 9's then. Then the 12's came out. I personally liked the higher reving 9 with the race kit. I then decided the Uly was going to be my next bike. I like the 12 but miss the powerband of the 9. | ||
| Etennuly |
My first Buell was a City-X. I never would have let it go if it hadn't been for the Uly coming out. Ulys ergonomics were made for me. If Buell made the Uly with the 9 engine in the same platform for $1500 less I probably would have had that instead of the 12, simply because of the price difference and insurance was $16 a month less. With the race kit on the 9, the power was so close you could only notice the difference on a timed 1/4 mile drag strip. I must say though, I really like the BIG torque of the 12 to the Medium big torque of the 9. | ||
| Xl1200r |
I originally really wanted a 9 because I just have a thing for shorter stroke engines, and the higher redline. But then I learned that 9's had smaller exhaust headers and smaller throttle bodies, and the different gearing. Something I didn't want to mess with down the road when the engine work comes in. I know none of these things are a big deal, but it was just my feeling on the matter. When it comes time to yank the motor open in a few years for some extra inches and a head job, I may still try to track down a crank and rods from a 9. But until then, I'll live with the out-of-the-box advantage of the 12. But to be honest, the biggest seller for me was the colors. I saw the black/red treatment on the 2007 XB12R and I had to have one. Had that color been availible on the 9R, I probably would have gotten that instead. Again, not a big deal, but more an excuse to get the 12 I guess. | ||
| Swordsman |
I'm not a very aggressive rider, so a 9 probably would have been fine for me, but at 6" tall I felt kinda' awkward on the shorter wheelbase bikes. Hence, I wound up with the Ss Long, which looks much better on me (  ), and is only available in 1200 for some odd reason.(?) ~SM | ||
| Bébèrt |
I enjoyed and abused the rubber burning power of a yamaha 1300 cc - 135 Bhp bike the last 5 years and while stoplight sprints are extremely addictive, the fast revving and ease of a usable power-curve drove me to the XB9SX. Slower at them stoplights but much faster when there is a bent in the road. Just honest, safe enjoyable bike to blast from A to B and back. So, when your ride will be just a strait highway, buy a 12, otherwise go for the 9.   | ||
| Spatten1 |
Yeah, if you are used to a faster reving Japanese or Euro engine, go with the 9. I wish I had a 12 now that I live in the mountains and the altitude has robbed so much power, but at sea level the 9 was perfect. | ||
| Bads1 |
I feel a big difference between the two. | ||
| Aj06bolt12r |
"so when your ride will just be a straightaway buy a 12" Who buys any buell to ride straightaways and what makes you think that the 9 is better for the twisties? You lost me there bro. If you are going to ride only straight roads, first off good luck with that not getting old in five minutes and second dont get an xb anything, get a fatboy or a goldwing.  | ||
| Aj06bolt12r |
I do like the picture you got there tho bebert. Id love to have a huge one of those hangin in my garage!  | ||
| Panhead_dan |
I should have been more specific about my previous post. My 9 was a race kitted "S" and my 12 is a stock "X". Due to larger frontal area, more weight and other factors, my 12X will not hit the rev limiter in top gear. I have not been able to get her past 120 mph. The 9S would happily kiss the rev limiter any time I wanted at 131 mph. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Panhead... something is not right with that picture. At the speeds we're talking about, the aerodynamic differences between the two bikes would be almost negligible. I used to have a 2004 Sportster 1200 - a bike that is no more aerodynamic than either of the Buells, and also less power (I was making something like 78hp at the wheel). The fastest I went on that bike was 115mph, and she was pulling hard all the way up and surely could have topped out. Your X not getting past 120mph baffles me a bit. My Sportster weighed 570lbs - a good bit more than the X - and had a 20hp deficit. Maybe I'm missing something? (Message edited by xl1200r on December 27, 2006) | ||
| Spatten1 |
XL: if you were making 78HP at the rear wheel, you were doing better than an XB9. They are in the low 70's on realistic dynos. | ||
| Mesafirebolt |
I'm on a 12 because I have a cubic inch problem...I cant get enough of them! I have made the mistake in the past of comprimising on power and decided that IF I have a choice, I will Always opt for the bigger displacement/more horsepower. I Like the low end grunt of a big block. It feels like a 454 vs a 350. You can make the 350 as fast but in my opinion its having to work harder to do it. | ||
| Xl1200r |
XL: if you were making 78HP at the rear wheel, you were doing better than an XB9. They are in the low 70's on realistic dynos. Then that only proves my point further... | ||
| Djkaplan |
I could hit the rev limiter in top gear on my M2 in totally stock form. It can't be that much more aerodynamic than an XB12x. | ||
| Blackxb9 |
I have both, and I love them both. The 12R has more lower end torque but my 9S is a higher reving louder bike, some due to minor mods. I ride the 9S to commute mostly to work and the 12R on the weekend twisties. Form meets function in my opinion. The 12R handles a hair better and serves my more aggressive riding style, but the 9S is great for the street holligan. Doesn't matter both turn heads and draw stares of admiration or confusion which is just as good sometimes. Bottom line is you can't go wrong with either. Damn it's cold here...come on Spring. | ||
| Mesafirebolt |
I've hit the rev limiter on several occasions (when ever intended) on my 12R (stock), its about 142 indicated. Boys and Girls, THATS FAST, at least on 2 wheels. I've gone over 160 GPS indicated in my old Mustang GT (Practicaly full race) | ||
| Stangallmotor |
spatten1 is that true that 9s usually run in the 70s. | ||
| Bads1 |
yep | ||
| Spatten1 |
I'm going off of what the magazine tests said. I saw between 73hp and 76hp at the rear wheel. Motorcyclist is the one I normally use for apples to apples comparisons because they test nearly everything, and it was 73hp. I believe the factory claims 92hp at the crank, which would be in line with what I've read. The exhaust shootout put the 9's with aftermarket pipes anywhere from 85hp to 95hp, and stock at about 80hp, with rpm's cutting out before redline and peak power (looks like it would have hit 84 or so). While these results are great for comparrison with each other, the bikes are obviously not making as much hp at the rear wheel with a new muffler as they would at the crank in the factory tests. Optimistic, but compeletely valid for the purpose of the test. Some dynos are much more optimistic than others, even though the SAE definition of horsepower measurement should keep them in line. That is why I try to pick one source for comparisons between bikes. |
