Their review of the Fury just plain stinks. The only bikes they like are sport bikes. They hold a disdain for cruisers of all types, and it seems, especially for choppers.
They compare the Fury to a $35k Big Dog, "(admittedly an unfair comparison for the Fury)".
They actually hated both bikes for different reasons. The Big Dog is described as loud, vibrating, unwieldy and hard on the tailbone and back. In fact Catterson (the one riding the Big Dog) was the one who suggested the cut their trip short. He said "every expansion joint sends a jolt straight up your spine". He also said there were heat management issues with temperatures in the mid 90s.
They didn't like the Fury because it looked small next to the Big Dog, had more plastic parts and a smaller engine and rear tire. They also claimed the ride was uncomfortable, but did admit it was infinitely more maneuverable than the Big Dog. The better handling inspired them to nick name the Fury "'The Furby' -the softer, cuddlier chopper". They complain that the Fury is under-powered. Under-powered for what? They also complain that the engine is governed at 99 mph. Where do you drive a motorcycle over a hundred miles an hour? Tell me where that is, so I can stay away form there.
In general the article is unflattering to both bikes.
After reading the article, (and resisting the temptation to set fire to the mag), I managed to read between the lines to see that the Fury delivers everything I'd want in a chopper (fuel injection, liquid cooled and shaft driven) and still get a comfortable ride. At 1/3 the cost.
thanks junkie - i'm already convinced on the fury, was the first second i saw it on the cover of a magazine and it said 'honda' - that's about all the convincing i need. and i had been looking at choppers for a year when the fury was officially announced.
and i agree with all your points.
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.