• Husqvarna Motorcycles Made In Sweden - About 1988 and older

  • Hi everyone,

    As you all know, Coffee (Dean) passed away a couple of years ago. I am Dean's ex-wife's husband and happen to have spent my career in tech. Over the years, I occasionally helped Dean with various tech issues.

    When he passed, I worked with his kids to gather the necessary credentials to keep this site running. Since then (and for however long they worked with Coffee), Woodschick and Dirtdame have been maintaining the site and covering the costs. Without their hard work and financial support, CafeHusky would have been lost.

    Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been working to migrate the site to a free cloud compute instance so that Woodschick and Dirtdame no longer have to fund it. At the same time, I’ve updated the site to a current version of XenForo (the discussion software it runs on). The previous version was outdated and no longer supported.

    Unfortunately, the new software version doesn’t support importing the old site’s styles, so for now, you’ll see the XenForo default style. This may change over time.

    Coffee didn’t document the work he did on the site, so I’ve been digging through the old setup to understand how everything was running. There may still be things I’ve missed. One known issue is that email functionality is not yet working on the new site, but I hope to resolve this over time.

    Thanks for your patience and support!

HUSQVARNA1 CR500

there was a post a few months ago explaining the husky 1 vins...craft disease says I cant remember what it was...search vin
 
i have a few frames that i know for sure were imported straight to ohio/pa..they also have the husqvarna1 on the frame..
 
Not unique to Cali bikes. Was done to all when due to Cali going to a longer Vin. Easy way for Husky to Re-vin with short time due to a USA requirement.

Engine case with no number almost always indicates a replaced part. replacement left engine case did not have the model number not the last of the production serial number on it.

Not Barrret Jackson so no one cares about "matching numbers"
 
2premo, not to hijack your thread, but I trust your judgement and wonder if you'd mind sharing your thoughts on the air cooled 500's. I'm interested in getting an old dual shock 500. I understand that the air cooled engines were made better than the water cooled 500's (I had an '85 500 XC many years ago and it vibrated so badly that my hands went numb in no time when riding it).. Do your 500's vibrate to that extreme? I'm also curious about the XC vs the WR. I understand the XC is more stable at speed and that interests me since I do much of my riding in open hilly terrain. I believe the WR may have had a shorter wheelbase and slight quicker steering? Perhaps the difference isn't significant? Any thoughts or input on the 500's in general would be valued and appreciated!
 
brian bush said:
2premo, not to hijack your thread, but I trust your judgement and wonder if you'd mind sharing your thoughts on the air cooled 500's. I'm interested in getting an old dual shock 500. I understand that the air cooled engines were made better than the water cooled 500's (I had an '85 500 XC many years ago and it vibrated so badly that my hands went numb in no time when riding it).. Do your 500's vibrate to that extreme? I'm also curious about the XC vs the WR. I understand the XC is more stable at speed and that interests me since I do much of my riding in open hilly terrain. I believe the WR may have had a shorter wheelbase and slight quicker steering? Perhaps the difference isn't significant? Any thoughts or input on the 500's in general would be valued and appreciated!
Click to expand...

not an expert on the air cooled, but I do know the air cooled was changed to the liquid cooled using
1 a different head and barrel, 2 using a side case with a water pump, 3 adding radiators
everything else was the same, gears clutch, crank, cases,, save for the clutch cover all the same, the crank has a drive for the water pump on the LC engines
the vibration is just inherent to an unbalanced engine, always check the crank trueness, and there are people that balance them
these engines were COMPETITION based, they are not fuzzy, they were meant to dominate the field, vibration wasn't a key point
now to the chassis, again not knowing anything more tham my experience and reading
the WR and XC share most points of the frame and the major differences that I know of are
WR used shorter shocks and forks, a full loop sub frame, came with lighting
now the stability both use the same steering geometry, these bikes don't mind speed and don't need stabilizers, they share a swing arm
I have had a few of mine over 100 and can tell you they track straight and true
 
ol mate has a wr 500 84 model and it is a fabulous bike to ride. very nice engine, extremely usable and rider friendly.
I rode an 83 xc years ago and I still feel scarred from trying to hang on to the bloody thing. it shook like a bastard, brutal power really needed watching or you were swapping ends.

id go wr and if you feel its unstable at speed, fit cr fork lowers, damper rods and swing arm. pull the spacers out of the shox and your xc suspended..
 
Thanks for the input guys. I'm looking at an '84 WR. I thought I had wanted an XC but I think they're similar enough that ill be plenty happy with the shorter suspended WR..
 
brian bush said:
2premo, not to hijack your thread, but I trust your judgement and wonder if you'd mind sharing your thoughts on the air cooled 500's. I'm interested in getting an old dual shock 500. I understand that the air cooled engines were made better than the water cooled 500's (I had an '85 500 XC many years ago and it vibrated so badly that my hands went numb in no time when riding it).. Do your 500's vibrate to that extreme? I'm also curious about the XC vs the WR. I understand the XC is more stable at speed and that interests me since I do much of my riding in open hilly terrain. I believe the WR may have had a shorter wheelbase and slight quicker steering? Perhaps the difference isn't significant? Any thoughts or input on the 500's in general would be valued and appreciated!
Click to expand...



Brian, looking at your avatar you have both a KTM and Husky 360, how do they compare in a long term as in ownership preference
4 brothers ride, 2 of us on Husky 2 on KTM, I have ridden the KTM 360 a short time and it's nice, but a whole lot more high end power
not that the power is bad
so you have owned them please inform me, by the way you can buy parts and plastic for the KTM but not the Husky goes a long way
 
brian bush said:
Thanks for the input guys. I'm looking at an '84 WR. I thought I had wanted an XC but I think they're similar enough that ill be plenty happy with the shorter suspended WR..
Click to expand...
in my opinion, the lower wr handles much better in the woods and tighter stuff. im a lil over 6 foot tall but love the short wr.
 
2premo, I've chatted with you a few times on ktmtalk. I'm bbqkidd over there. Somehow I messed something up when I created my account here and my handle didn't take..
I love both 360's but for slightly different reasons. I think my pilot jet is a bit lean on my Husky because it is very hard to start and has a slight low end bog. I bought the Husky this summer and still need to sort that out. At present the KTM 360 has a More low-mid power, or at least the sensation of more because it hits a bit harder being a SX, motocross model. My KTM 360 will wheelie going uphill or downhill at will and is great fun! The Husky's character is a bit smoother, but it's a little off on the low end, I think due to the jetting Issue. The power of the Husky is plentiful on the needle and main jets.
On handling, I love stability (hence my questions about stability on the 500 xc vs wr) the Husky is my most stable bike at high speeds and I think it turns as well as the KTM. I also love the 6 speeds. The Ohlins shock and Zokes forks on th KTM 360 are my favorite suspenders of all my bikes but the Showas on my Husky are nearly as good for me. The clutches and shifting is excellent on both machines but the Brembo brakes on the KTM are better. KTM 360's are cheap in the used market because they have a reputation of being unjettable. A squish head mod and an aftermarket pipe with the proper stinger size solves the jetting issue. Mine had this done already when I bought it, so it was pretty turn key for me although the kid I bought it from still had the jetting messed up. Simply dropping the needle a few positions made it GAME ON! Ill try and give you a report once I get the netting sorted on the Husky. As background ill list my current bikes here because this sight doesnt provide enough space for all of my bikes. 1987 ktm250mxc, 1989ktm350exc, 1989ktm500mx project bike, 1990 ktm300exc, 1993 husky360wxe, 1996 ktm360sx, 1998 Honda XR400, 2004 KTM300exc. Plus I'm hoping to add a vintage Husky 500 and perhaps a Bultaco 370 Pursang in the future. Ya, I've got the illness!
 
the 84 has the tighter woods rake c/w the 83. not much but tight 2nd gear tracks are nice and she will tip in to the corners nicely. as stated above, takes little work to convert to xc suspension.
 
I have a nice Uptite pipe on the Husky 360 along with an FMF Turbine core that I was able to locate on eBay.. it is a sweet bike, the pilot jet is just off I think. I hope to find time to tinker with it soon!
 
I'm supposed to pick up the 500WR this weekend if all goes well. I'll report back Monday with what I hope is good news and a new (to me) bike!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top