All power to the eccentrics of this world. But, this one I really scratch my head at.
Strengths of a stock bullet include miserly fuel consumption and evocative engine note. Weaknesses, performance is adequate, but othing to write home about. Instead of improving the weakness, let's make that even worse...
My opinion is that it's not very productive to judge products developed for radically different markets, in terms of what we want for our own use.
I don't know where you live, but consider that:
- India has national and local speed limits that restrict motorcycles to less than 50 kph on most roads. That's 31 mph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_India - The Royal Enfield 350 is considered to be a large, high powered motorcycle in India, where the average bike is closer to 150cc.
- The average gasoline price in the USA is currently around $3.20. In India it's around $5.50. Diesel is about 10% cheaper.
- The average income in the USA is currently around $51,000 yearly. In India, it's equivalent to around $1,600. That's less than 1/30th as much. Twenty years ago, when the Taurus was being made, the income contrast was even greater.
It's not hard to see why economy of operation is now and was then important in a market that considers motorcycles to be transportation, and not just recreation. The Taurus was reported to have a top speed around 65 kph, and could get 90 km/liter. That's better than twice the fuel economy of a Bullet 350 UCE.
In my opinion, it wasn't a lack of buyers that killed the Taurus. It was India's increasingly stringent emissions requirements.