Victory Motorcycle Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm looking to trade in my 99 Valkyrie on a 2011 XR. I took a short test ride on the XR. I noticed some differences. To those of you that had a Valkyrie before you got the XR, what are your experiences about the switch? Thanks
__________________
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Was the proud owner of a 2000 Valkyrie Interstate, purchased new, and kept for 5 years. I'm now the owner of a 2011 Cross Country.
Pros of the CC:
lighter weight
better handling
as smooth at 70 as the valk
better suspension
greater carry capacity for us heavyweights
wife really loves the pass. seat and vic backrest
narrower width at the engine-better for my short legs
love the 6 speed

Pros of the valk:
love the looks
good sound system
wife loves the rear seat & tourpak
good handling
love the flat six engine
good wind management
Did I say LOVE that flat six engine

Winner goes to the CC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,084 Posts
Interstate to XCT

Slight variation here: XCT, not XR; sorry about that, i.e., some of this is irrelevant, but you might be interested in it (if you're not 100% sold on the XR vs. XC vs. XCT). And you didn't mention what model Valkyrie you have, so I don't know if we're talking the same thing.

I owned a Valkyrie Interstate, bought new in 2000 and sold in 2007. I put 45,000+ miles on it; my Valk gallery is here: http://www.billanddot.com/valkyrie/ .

I took delivery of a new XCT this March. I now have 3,000+ miles on it; my XCT gallery is here: http://www.billanddot.com/victory-xct/ .

Advantages of XCT:

- Much lower seat and CofG; one of the main reasons I sold the Valk was that I was having trouble keeping it upright at stops, backing up, parking lots, etc. I dropped it a couple times (foot on a pebble, foot slipped, etc.), and replaced a crashbar before selling it. With a 30" inseam, flat-footing the XCT is a pleasure.

- Much more flexible leg-placement, let-stretching, options. If you've added highway pegs to your Valk, you have two positions; on the XCT, you don't need these (unless you have exceptionally long legs), and can move your feet around.

[Those two were the biggies for me. I'm old enough that I'm collecting Social Security, and do a few multi-day two-up trips each year. I need a bike I can confidently hold up, one that I can stretch out on, one that my wife can be comfortable on, and one that can hold her clothes.]

- Low maintenance: no carbs to sync (for the rest of you, note that the Valk has six of them) or hydro-lock or float-bowls, etc., to replace; no coolant to change; no valves to adjust; no final-drive gear oil to change.

- The XCT - XR, too, I believe - has cruise-control built-in. Hey, that's important to me; I never got around to adding it to the Valk - it's a kludge, and a lot of work - but I did add it to my 650 Burgman (2007- 2012), and it was a lot of work and expensive.

- The XCT has slightly better air-management built in; if you're just talking about the XR, well, ignore this.

- The XCT has a better passenger backrest (I bought an Ultimate backrest - not seat, just backrest - for the I/S) and adjustable passenger floorboards (I bought aftermarket adjustable passenger mini-boards for the I/S).

Advantages of Valk:

- Much cooler engine, i.e., less heat on the rider. Been in a few traffic jams in hot weather on the XCT, and, man, if you're not moving, those low-maintenance, air-cooled, cylinders put out a lot of heat.

- World's smoothest bike engine (at least until the new Beemer straight six)?

Close Counts:

- Both bikes have plenty of get-up-and-go.

- Both are smooth at highway speeds; at idle, the Vic 106 is absolutely not an H-D-like paint-shaker, but it's no Valk, either.

- Both allow easy oil-and-filter changes.

- Both the I/S and XCT have plenty of storage for two-up trips.

- Both have pretty good clearance for lean-angles for twisties.

- Both have a touring range of around 200 miles; the I/S has about a gallon bigger tank, but the XCT gets better mileage (but takes premium, to the Valk's regular).

- Both require you to get the tank out of the way to change the air filter, fercryinoutloud. Boo.

- Both the I/S and XCT are - IMHO - fine looking bikes. Nice lines, you can see through them in the engine area.

This help?

EDIT: mtworks mentioned the suspension, above, but I didn't. The suspension on the XCT is probably better than on the I/S; it's certainly more adjustable, with the analog air amount. However, on my I/S I had Progressive shocks out back and Progressive fork springs in front, so I don't really remember how good or bad the stock components were. They were, obviously, not great, or I wouldn't have replaced all the suspension components. I do remember that the fork springs upgrade was a significant improvement - better bump compliance and less brake dive - and for very little money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Thanks for the input. I'm still on the fence. I just don't want to give up something I love for something I may regret. I will keep the Victory at the top of my list. Thanks, again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
I had a 98 Valk Tourer, then a Yamaha Raider, and now the 2011 Cross Country. I loved my Valk and when I bought the Cross Country I was looking for a new bike that was as close to a Valkyrie as possible. I could have just bought another Valkyrie but there were a few things on the Valk that I didn't want again.

First of all, the Valk is a phenominal bike. Way ahead of its time. Nothing from its day comes close to matching the Valk. But the Cross Roads will do everything the Valk does and many things better. The only area where the Valkyrie beats a Cross Roads will be acceleration. The Valk is a little faster and more powerful than the Victory 106, but it's not by much.

The reason why I didn't buy another Valk is because it really needs a 6th gear. Anything over 70mph on a Valk and I would be wanting another gear badly. And it got terrible fuel economy that when combined with the smaller tank size of the Valkyrie Touring models made for a shorter fuel range. The Cross Roads will have a much higher fuel range. I also wanted a belt drive motorcycle because I didn't like the shaft drive jacking of the Valkyrie.

If you're really wanting a new motorcycle then you won't be disappointed in the Victory. But if you have a paid for Valkyrie that does everything that you need it to do I'm not sure you would be completely happy getting rid of it for a Cross Roads.

I guess it boils down to how much you love you Valkyrie. If it works well for you, why change? If there is a few things that you would like to change or just simply upgrade motorcycles then the Cross Roads would be an excellent choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Thanks for the input. I'm still on the fence. I just don't want to give up something I love for something I may regret. I will keep the Victory at the top of my list. Thanks, again.
If you can, get the X and keep the Valk. For what you'll get on a trade, it's not worth getting rid of. That's what I did. I am going to strip down my Valk to a solo naked ride.

The problem I'm having is that I'm having too good of a time riding the XC and can't find the time to do much of anything else.:cool:
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top