Quite a few builders have reworked the Harley Davidson Sportster into some form of XR750 look alike, this impressive piece, called the XRTT 1750, was built by American Motorcycle Parts. Starting life as a Sportster, the style is reminiscent of Cal Rayborn’s XR750, but it has an advantage over those originals with an extra 1000cc in the S&S V-Twin, coming in at 1750cc, 100 cubic inches developing 100 horsepower.
Where many builders create a more upright riding position, this bike keeps close to its racer roots and looks all business. The photos don’t show them, but it also comes with the fairings necessary to complete the XRTT look.
The 1991 Sportster frame was sand blasted and powder coated before the build began. The parts list is long, far too much to list here, but it comes together in a gorgeous bike that hits all the right style buttons and even with the S&S 1750, it still manages to come in at 450 pounds.
According to the AMCP website, the current owner is Reeves Callaway, the Corvette builder, and he’s asking $25,000. Considering there’s over $28K in parts alone, this could be a pretty sweet deal.
Link: XRTT 1750 – sale over
B*A*M*F says
I know not everyone loves the café look, this is a nicely executed version of it.
frederick says
build yer own: http://www.storzperf.com/toc.html
B50 Jim says
450 pounds, 100 horsepower and God-knows-how-much torque — riders will need that bum stop!
Nicely executed, and with the fairings it will be a great cafe racer that should stomp most anything it encounters. The only problem might be keeping the front wheel on the ground, with its high C of G.
muzz says
why only 100hp from 1750cc? and where can i buy a seat like that? that is one sweet ride!
JE says
Really? The only part of the bike I am not impressed with is the size of the seat. Shape and color a great but its way to large and does not match or flow with the rest of the bike.
Rest of it is top notch though..
Phoebe says
That was my first thought too, Muzz. Buells get 100+ hp out of 1200cc, an extra 350cc should be worth *something*, no?
EDowling says
Now that is what “The Motor Company” (Harley-D) should be making.
Tim says
This isn’t Harley bashing, OK. I do have a question: 1700+cc and 100hp? Where did the rest of the horsepower go? My Street Triple produces 107bhp from 675cc.
Seriously, what gives?
Bluegrass says
its a stock S&S sb unit, they only put about a 100hp to the wheel, but are a fairly unstressed motor. A little head work, some more rpms, some more compression, and more aggressive cams, the depth of your pocket book is the limit with these things. I’ve heard of some builds with these motors at around 160-180 horsepower, but they may have as much as 20 grand in them.
to put it bluntly, this motor and your motor both put down close to a hundred whp, but yours needs 12,000 rpm to do it. This does it at about 6,000 rpm.
Alex says
Still, 180hp from 1.7l isn’t that impressive, especially for 20k. In stock form it is only making slightly more hp/l than my electronically hobbled LAMs bike. Yes the S&S engine will have lots of torque, but on a 200kg bike do you really need that much? I would prefer something with more power and a higher rev limit.
Also, if you are going to go to all this effort, why not put in a good engine? Just ’cause the styling is from the 60’s doesn’t mean that the engine must be.
(though really, my mother is closer to the target market for this bike than me. So I am going to stop missing the point and go look at some jap-crap sports bikes 😛 )
Bluegrass says
Well, its mostly all about what your into. These motors only rev 6 or 7 thousand rpm, depending on the state of tune. Since they don’t rev high, to make their power they rely upon torque, and it takes displacement to make that torque.
Horsepower per liter really only matters when your comparing two similar engines. When people talk about small displacement engines with high hp/l ratios, all that tells me is that it revs high. In theory you could make a 50cc motor produce a 100 horsepower if you could spin it fast enough.
rohorn says
Familiar with the engine in the Triumph Tiger 800? Explain why the version of your engine with 125 more cc makes 13bhp less and you will find your answer.
Tim says
according to Triumph it is “tuned for torque” or somesuch. But its a longer stroke. So, longer stroke = more travel going up and going down. Meaning you work it harder to rev it higher or you reduce the rev ceiling. (all the whirry bits break if you try and cover more distance in the same time, right?) So, if you can’t rev it as high, even though it has more displacement the power is less? Is that something like it?
rohorn says
Couldn’t say it any better.
I’m too lazy to look up the stroke on this one, but I’m guessing it is longer than stock. Which means that the redline is going to be lower to maintain piston speeds at a reliable level.
Skizick says
Where’s the twin carbs. Stick another front cylinder head on there for that tru XR750 style.
fast eddie says
I’t’s nice, although way to pricey for what your getting. My 1997 buell s3t covers it on every
base and it was 23k cheaper. It is grate to know that some people have money to waste.
ride safe, eddie
Steve says
Huh? Where’d all the amateurs come from?!
OMMAG says
It’s a great build. I’ll leave it at that.
ric says
Almost a nice looking Harley bit alas still powered by a waterpump
Jim says
Eh, it looks heavy. Not my cup of tea.
Rob says
Want to see it with the fairing on!
Yawn says
What overpriced poorly made rubbish. Only the Americans could produce a 1750cc sports bike with a monstrous 100hp. No wonder thay don’t race anymore. I can’t understand why people will pay a premium for 1940s irrigation pump technology.
hoyt says
whatever dude. “Yawn” – that’s original.
How much hp is the EBR making?
Grant says
I don’t care how much horsepower anything else makes. I don’t care if the basic engine design is from the stone age. I like it. I like it a lot. This one is too high $ for me, but before it is all over, I may call up Storz and roll my own. This thing pushes my want button almost as hard as the Sputhe “Aluminum Steamroller”.
B50 Jim says
100 hp might not sound like much (remember when it was a Big Deal to get 100 from a bike motor?) — but horsepower is merely a mathematical expression of torque and rpm; James Watt devised the formula as a means of expressing a steam engine’s power in a form the average person cold understand. For this engine to make 100 hp at 6,000 rpm means it’s making serious torque at that speed. Twist the throttle and you’ll end up in the next county. Big diesel locomotives make “only” about 4,400 hp, but they’re turning 1,500 rpm. Torque numbers are in the stratosphere.
MikeC says
While not my cup of tea, this looks to be very well made. Good job. For those commenting on horsepower, please do a little homework as you are not doing yourselves any favors posting meaningless comparisons. As stated, HP is a CALCULATED number and has little significance in your seat of the pants Dyno. Torque is what presses your a$$ into the seat back and the combination of torque and RPM results in a fast accelerating vehicle to a high speed, not to mention the 2 variables in calculating HP. If you would like to compare engine performance, figure out the BMEP for each, then the calculated HP at what RPM, then look at the mass each engine has to carry (including rider) and then you will be comparing apples to apples with SOME CERTAINTY. Or your can continue to talk dribble…
todd says
wrong.
Horsepower is a calculated expression of what all that torque is doing for you and the bike. Horsepower is what you feel in your a$$. A bike with more horsepower will always accelerate harder than a bike with less whereas it is very reasonable (and often the case) that a bike with less torque can out accelerate a bike with more.
Don’t get carried away with meaningless torque number measured at the crankshaft. If you want to know how much work your bike can do measure the torque at the rear wheel which take into consideration speed and gear reduction.
I’ll say it again, I can crank out more than 130 lb-ft of torque on my bicycle but I can’t out accelerate my Peugeot moped.
-todd
todd says
Sorry Mike, I didn’t mean to imply you were all wrong. I just meant about the statement of HP having little significance. HP is the apple that allows comparison as it is the end-all of all the calculations. More precisely it is HP/weight ratio that allows the most meaningful calculations.
-todd
Scotduke says
Hmm nice, maybe need a bikini fairing. With that massive cube motor it’s probably got enough torque to tow a plough, assuming you could keep the front wheel down. The output probably means you can ride it nice and relaxed in town or crank up the revs a little and take off. I like the idea. It does beg the question of how close HD’s own XR1200 came to being a really good fun bike.
Hogtied says
Nice bike, but for alot less you could build something like this – a Norton Featherbed frame, with HD Sportster power. Very classy, and for a lot less than $25K.
http://www.britainsgotbikingtalent.co.uk/bgbt_gallery.php
todd says
I like the looks of the bike but the saggy “sub frame” tubes really detract from the bike. I guess it’s just intended for short people.
-todd
Tim says
As a short person, all I can say is “at last”
I’ve learned stuff in this thread, which I like. Thanks
steve w says
Some missed the point that the Buell 1200’s were crank hp not rear wheel. Big difference. It is true that the engines are understessed at that Hp, and are considered stock tune from S&S. No it won’t take that big money to make big Hp but then who is going to ride it at the max. I havea friend that used that engine is his bonniville bike and set records of 180.185, 178.387 and 192.199. So now who wants one of the slow american engine powered bikes? Not everyones cup of tea but it would be a full cup for others.
Jay Allen says
after owning a Buell for a full week ; ) I’m with Phoebe and the others on a HD that compares to a 1970s superbike
scott silvers says
Aren’t the pipes on the wrong side? Try sliding round a dirt track with your outside leg parked on those pipe……