Harley Davidson 2022 Fat Bob 114 vs Harley Davidson 2023 Softail Standard

• Home ››
• Bikes ››
• Bike Comparison ››
• Harley Davidson 2022 Fat Bob 114 vs Harley Davidson 2023 Softail Standard

Compare Specifications of Harley Davidson 2022 Fat Bob 114 and Harley Davidson 2023 Softail Standard

Selected Bikes

Harley Davidson 2022 Fat Bob 114 Brand: -- Select Brand -- Model: -- Select Model --

Harley Davidson 2023 Softail Standard Brand: -- Select Brand -- / Model: -- Select Model --

Brand: -- Select Brand -- Model: -- Select Model --

Brand: -- Select Brand -- Model: -- Select Model --

Technical Specifications

Fuel	Petrol	Petrol
Engine Displacement	1868.00 cc	1745.00 cc
Engine	Milwaukee-Eight 114	Milwaukee-Eight™ 107
Fuel System	Electronic Sequential Port Fuel Injection (ESPFI)	Electronic Sequential Port Fuel Injection (ESPFI)
Maximum Power	--	144 Nm @ 3250 RPM
Maximum Torque	160 NM @ 3500 RPM	86 HP @ 5020 rpm
Drivetrain	--	Primary drive: Chain, 34/46 ratio Gear Ratios (Overall) 1st: 9.311 Gear Ratios (Overall) 2nd: 6.454 Gear Ratios (Overall) 3rd: 4.793 Gear Ratios (Overall) 4th: 3.882 Gear Ratios (Overall) 5th: 3.307 Gear Ratios (Overall) 6th:2.79
Display	--	2.14 inch viewable area LCD display with speedometer, gear, odometer, fuel level, clock, trip, range and tachometer indication
Fork	Single cartridge 43 mm inverted with aluminum fork triple clamps; triple rate spring	Front: Dual-bending valve 49 mm telescopic with aluminum fork triple clamps; dual rate spring
Headlamp	LED	All LED, Low Beam, High Beam & Signature Position Lamp, Incandescent Bullets
Taillamp	LED	LED

Fuel Economy

Overall Mileage

--

18 kmpl

Tyres

Front	150/80-16,71H,BW Dunlop Harley-Davidson Series, bias blackwall	100/90B19,57H,BW Dunlop™ Harley-Davidson Series, bias blackwall front and rear
Rear	180/70B16,77H,BW Dunlop Harley-Davidson Series, bias blackwall	150/80B16,77H,BW Dunlop™ Harley-Davidson Series, bias blackwall front and rear
Wheel / RIM	--	Silver, Annihilator cast aluminum

Brakes

Front	4-piston fixed Front and rear black, Split 7-spoke floating rotors	Type: Solid, uniform expansion rotors Caliper: 4-piston fixed front and 2-piston floating rear
Rear	2-piston floating Front and rear black, Split 7-spoke floating rotors	Type: Solid, uniform expansion rotors Caliper: 4-piston fixed front and 2-piston floating rear

Suspension

Front	Denim black, Structure cast aluminum with laser etched graphics	--
Rear	Denim black, Structure cast aluminum with laser etched graphics	Hidden, free piston, coil-over monoshock; 43mm stroke; cam-style preload adjustment

Colors Available

Colors

Vivid Black White Sand Pearl

Vivid Black

Physical Specs

Length	2339 mm	2320 mm
Weight	296 kg	297 kg
Kerb Weight	306	291
Seat Height	704	680
Wheelbase	1615 mm	1630 mm
Ground Clearance	119 mm	125 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity	13 litres	13.2 litres

Overview

Features	- MILWAUKEE-EIGHT BIG TWIN ENGINE - DUAL DISC FRONT BRAKES - 2-1-2 EXHAUST - RACE-STYLE FORK TECHNOLOGY	- Upright riding position - Mid-mount foot controls - A2 compatible - City cruising or light touring with a low-slung stance - Milwaukee-Eight™ 107 V-Twin engine and easy-reach bars
Additional Details	RAKE : 28 TRAIL : 5.2 in. OIL CAPACITY (W/FILTER) : 5 qt. EXHAUST : 2-into-2 shorty dual; catalyst in muffler ENGINE TORQUE TESTING METHOD : J1349 LEAN ANGLE, RIGHT (DEG.) : 31 LEAN ANGLE, LEFT (DEG.) : 32 FUEL ECONOMY TESTING METHOD : Estimated City/Hwy FUEL ECONOMY : 47 mpg PRIMARY DRIVE : Chain, 34/46 ratio GEAR RATIOS (OVERALL) 1ST : 9.311 GEAR RATIOS (OVERALL) 2ND : 6.454 GEAR RATIOS (OVERALL) 3RD : 4.793 GEAR RATIOS (OVERALL) 4TH : 3.882 GEAR RATIOS (OVERALL) 5TH : 3.307 GEAR RATIOS (OVERALL) 6TH: 2.79 REAR SHOCKS : Hidden, free piston, coil-over monoshock; 56mm stroke; toolless hydraulic preload adjustment GAUGES : 4-inch analog tachometer with digital speedometer, gear, odometer, fuel level, clock, trip and range indication	RAKE: 30 TRAIL: 157 mm OIL CAPACITY (W/FILTER): 4.7 l EXHAUST: 2-into-2 shotgun; catalyst in muffler LEAN ANGLE, RIGHT (DEG.): 28.5 LEAN ANGLE, LEFT (DEG.): 28.5 CO2 EMISSIONS: 128 g/km CO2

Which one do you think is better? And why?

Name :

Comment :

1470