Honda Goldwing Forum banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I know this can be a subject with a lot of opinions and I'd like to read them.

I am kicking around the idea of replacing the mufflers on my 2010 Wing. Not certain I want to do this. I tried some aftermarket pipes on my 1999 1500 and the droning at highway speeds drove me nuts. Ended up selling them and putting the stock mufflers back on. I would like a little more "noise" versus the sewing machine sound from the stock pipes. All I hear now is gear whine which is nice, but I'd like a tad more engine sound. Guess that's the motorhead in me.

I don't do a lot of really long trips, mainly ride to and from work and on the weekends I try to ride when the weather is nice.

What have you guys tried? Likes, dislikes? Did you have to reprogram the fuel injection with something like a Dyno Jet Power Commander?

Anyone live around upstate NY, that has pipes on an 1800 that I could come listen to?

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
This is from a Norton Motorcycle web site. Before anyone changes exhaust you might want to keep an eye on this one, or at very least make sure you keep the one you take off.

I have no idea how valid this post is, but somehow it doesn't surprise me.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "AMA" <[email protected]>
> Date: June 14, 2010 10:38:20 AM PDT
> To: "GEo Kulakowski" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Senate Bil 435 is back!
> Reply-To: "AMA" <[email protected]>
>
>
> Senate Bil 435 is back!
> Senate Bill 435 (motorcycle emissions) has been amended and is now scheduled for a hearing on June 21st.
> Take Action!
> Bill would require stock exhaust on all bikes manufactured after January 1, 1983.
>
> California Senate Bill 435 (Pavley, 23rd District, D) is back. Despite repeated failure to garner support for past versions, Senator Pavley continues to unfairly target motorcycle owners. The latest version of the bill would require only stock exhaust systems on all motorcycles constructed since 1983, and mandates a $300 fine for any owner who is found to be in violation.
>
> Once again riders throughout the state are asked to contact their Senators and let them know that this is simply unacceptable. The newest version of this bill, which previously mandated smog testing, would result in thousands of currently legal motorcycles to be removed from the road, or their owners being forced to spend hundreds (or thousands) of dollars to reinstall OEM exhaust. Also, in the case of older models, many owners would be left in an all but impossible situation, as OEM exhaust systems will simply be no longer available from the manufacturer, therefore rendering the bike both illegal to ride and all but impossible to sell.
>
> Furthermore, the lack of a labeled exhaust system does not mean a motorcycle is out of compliance with the federal law. After-market exhaust systems that comply with RSA 266:59-a are available from a number of manufacturers and often installed by their owners for a number of different reasons:
> 1) after-market exhaust systems are available when OEM exhaust parts are no longer, especially for older motorcycles;
> 2) Exhaust systems can rust out or be damaged in a minor accident, requiring replacement
> 3) after-market exhaust systems cost less than OEM systems, even when they are available; and
> 4) OEM exhausts systems are not available for custom motorcycles and kit motorcycles constructed by individuals from non-OEM components.
>
> Lastly it is simply unfair to expect a motorcycle owner to display a ‘readily visible’ label if one is not delivered that way from the factory. Many EPA stamps are very difficult to locate on new motorcycles. Is it reasonable to expect a motorcycle owner to partialy dismantle his or her motorcycle on the side of the road to prove the exhaust system is labeled?
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top