82 or 83 which is best?

[treedragon]

As a result of reading various posts I am curious to know what everyone feels is the best carb the 82 model or the 83, assuming the stumble is sorted.

I ask because bigger is not always better.............. apparently it is how you use it that counts.

[Walt_M.]

The '83s are probably less finicky but are harder to find parts for, especially if you break something. Properly jetted, synched with no air leaks they run about the same.

[Lucky]

oranges, without a doubt...

[Re-Vision]

Are 82's apples?    BDC   

[QBS]

Areas of obvious/primary functional difference on stock unmodified V's:  Some of these areas are objectively better on the '83. Some are open to subjectivity.

Ergonomics:  Some riders may prefer the '82 positioning over the '83, or not.  It's a personal subjective concern.

Front braking: Objectively, the 2 disc set up of the '83 provides more braking power.

Wind protection: Objectively, the '83 provides excellent wind protection with heat management capabilities, the '82 provides no wind protection.  How much value a rider attaches to this protection is personally subjective.

Carburation:  A subjective bag of worms.

Front suspension:  '83's make a provision for spring rate variability via more or less air in the fork legs.  '82s' make no such, or any other, provision for spring rate variability.

Rear suspension:  Objectively, '83s' provide for 5 levels of shock rebound dampening.  '82's make no provision for adjusting shock rebound dampening.  Both years offer provision for spring preloading.

Tire sizes:  Objectively '83's have slightly larger tire sizes at each end than do '82's.  The benefits, or not, of these differences is largely subjective depending on rider talent.

[Lucky]

does it matter?

Are 82's apples?    BDC   

[The Prophet of Doom]

Are 82's apples?    BDC   

I thought they were watermelons.  I can't keep up.

[Rikugun]

As long as it's not a lemon you'll be ok... :D :D

[Re-Vision]

You can't compare apples and oranges can you?    BDC

[jasonm.]

I am going to speak about the carbs only. Having owned both an 82 and 83 at the same time. The '83 has more potenetial. 1st the differences were to cure issues that the '82s all had due to engineering errors. EX: the front head pipes were are too big on the '82's resulting in the low speed screws set richer and the mains  leaner. The FIX> In '83 they went with smaller front header pipes. This made for higher exhaust velocity.Which allowed MORE balanced running and better efficiency. AKA- same jetting on larger carbs now with smaller pilot gas jets and larger main jets. So the idea of bigger is better does not always apply to exhaust design. I had both of mine on dynamometers. My '82 w/7k and the '83 w/20k on the odometers. All valves adjusted and carbs set up. The '83 beats the 82 by a significant amount anywhere past 6000rpm. I will say my '82 had better low end power. This is simply a result of the '82 needed to be set richer at low speed as stated before. My '83 always likes to go to and past redline 1st thru 4th gears. My '82 was never like this. Now, many of you may have a better running '82 than I had. I hope so. Maybe MACS help the '82. I don't know. But my '83 with stock exhaust gets 50+mpg and cranks over 51hp at the rear with lousy ethanol corn fuel. I have yet to EGA it. So there is more to do to fine tune it now at ~35K. So for a North American Vision...the second year is better. Make your '82 into and '83...you need '83 original front head pipes, carbs and air box. Want the cheap way. Find original '83 front pipes and slightly rejet your '82 carbs.

[Lucky]

you'll also need the rear upper engine mount plate, or grind yours out to clear the return castings on the carbs.
also, the 83 tank with metal cap & dual outlet petcock. will simplify plumbing the fuel lines, if your going to go with an 83 tank, then you might as well find an 83 guage set-up with the fuel guage, run a sensor wire & enjoy the 140mph speedo..

83 rearsets, dual disks and low risers while your at it. oh & shorter cables, euro switch pods too, along with the 83 full fairing.

Oh wait, that's my bike... :D

[jasonm.]

Like I said... I was speaking only about the carbs and engine perf.. I forgot about the plate. But 83 tank is NOT needed. You can get an electric fuel pump or put your 82 pump on your '83 carbs.

[Rikugun]

That's interesting. I know it's been discussed before about the header pipe difference between the two but I don't recall the MAC system being thrown into the mix. How does the MAC header ID compare to the 82/83? Does adding a MAC have a greater effect on one over the other?

[jasonm.]

That's interesting. I know it's been discussed before about the header pipe difference between the two but I don't recall the MAC system being thrown into the mix. How does the MAC header ID compare to the 82/83? Does adding a MAC have a greater effect on one over the other?

seems only a dyno can confirm. AND my Visions have always been stock...OEM exhaust...in  perfect condition.

[YellowJacket!]

As long as it's not a lemon you'll be ok... :D :D

Mine kind of looks like a lemon....   ;)

David

[treedragon]

Many thanks jasonm, that was useful info.

[Rikugun]

Mine kind of looks like a lemon....

No worries mate. Looking like a lemon does not a lemon make!  :D

[Cdnlouie]

I would speculate that the smaller throttle venturi on the 82 definitely contributes to the better bottom end performance, and equally so the larger venturi on the 83 carbs will provide the better top end performance as suggested by Jason (also contributing to higher end dyno results). However, where you use the power according to your shifting pattern can yield interesting results. Most of the time we probaby use the bottom end shifting around the 6000 rpm mark which no doubt makes the 82 carb set great all around performers.  As someone has said, how you use it does make the greatest difference.

Funny, I always find that the rear carb on the 82's uses richer mixture settings than the front. This is rarely on stock bikes though, as most of my experience has been with the MAC systems. Good points on the different pipe sizes Jason.  I have equally found that modifying the MAC system to smaller diameter openings also increases the mid-range performance and gas mileage.  The straight through MAC is definitely not better because it is louder. Again, if you want top end performance (wide open throttle most of the time) go with the stock MAC setup, but most regular driving will benefit from reducing the output baffle opening size. I brought mine down to about 3/4 of an inch which is slightly larger than the original exhaust opening.

Interesting bits and pieces that all add up to a few differences here and there.