Gs850g vs 650g

[razorbacksrule]

I've owned two Gs650s and thinking of buying another have one in mind . I also know where there's a nice 850 . Anyone owned both and can tell your opinions on the differences ?

 

[Nessism]

The 850 is much larger and heavier. The engine is super smooth, as is the ride. Power to weight ratio in favor of the 650. The 850's are known to regularly run to 100,000 miles with decent care. The 650's are not problematic per say but overall not as durable.

 

[Steve]

We have had the "L" versions of both bikes. Same year, too. You can click on the links in my sig to see them.

As Nessism says, they are both good bikes, but are about as different as night and day. According to published specs, the dry weight on the 650L is 466 pounds. The 850L is 557 pounds. Despite the substantial difference in engine size (673 vs. 843), the 650 engine produces 72 hp, the 850 produces a whopping 78.

As far as size, the 650 has a wheelbase of 57.1", the 850 is 58.7". There is a little more difference in the overall length, the 650 is 85.8", the 850 is 88.0". The numbers aren't all that different, but the 850 really does feel like a much bigger bike.

Which one would interest you would depend a lot on how you plan to use it. If you want a canyon carver, the 650 is great, but is a little 'nervous' when riding straight at freeway speeds. The 850 feels much more solid on the freeway, making it a good touring bike, but is still nimble enough for all but the most-dedicated peg scrapers.

All of this has been assuming that you are looking at a shaft-driven 650. The chain-driven version is a bit lighter at about 450 pounds. It also has the advantage of being able to change final drive ratios easily.

The 850 engine has more torque, and produces its peak at a lower RPM. The 650 is about 42.5 lb-ft @ 8000 RPM, the 850 is almost 48 lb-ft @ 7500 RPM. Doesn't sound like much, but makes for more-relaxed cruising at highway speeds where the engine is turning about 1000 fewer RPM.

The frame is considerably larger on the 850. It is the same frame that is used on the 1000G or 1100G, which makes it easier to work on. The larger frame gives a lot more room if you plan on carrying a passenger.

As I said earlier, it all depends on what you want to do with the bike.

.

 

[razorbacksrule]

I will mainly be riding 2up with my wife . One of the 650's I owned had the full Vetter package . It did fine two up I also just found a 850gl for sale need to go look at them .

 

[jsandidge]

I use my 850gl riding 2up with my wife quite a bit. It does a very good job.

 

[Steve]

If you are planning on 2-up riding, and both of you are large enough to cast a shadow, the 850 will be a better choice. :encouragement:

.

 

[RichDesmond]

...Despite the substantial difference in engine size (673 vs. 843), the 650 engine produces 72 hp, the 850 produces a whopping 78...

The 850 engine has more torque, and produces its peak at a lower RPM. The 650 is about 42.5 lb-ft @ 8000 RPM, the 850 is almost 48 lb-ft @ 7500 RPM. Doesn't sound like much, but makes for more-relaxed cruising at highway speeds where the engine is turning about 1000 fewer RPM...

Steve, I realize that those are the published numbers, but if the 650 actually makes more than 60hp on a dyno I'll eat my hat.
The 850 numbers seem reasonable, but the 650 is way out of line. No way a mildly tuned, stock, 2 valve, air-cooled 650 is making 72@9000 rpm.

To the OP:
First, my bias. I hate the 850. Had one, wouldn't have another on a bet.
That said, "2-up touring" tends to push people, for good reason, to larger bikes. Both for the extra power to deal with the weight, and because they are generally roomier.
However, "touring" isn't the same for all people. If you and your wife aren't large people, and if your idea of touring is meandering on 2-lane roads and not covering big miles, then the 650 may well be the better choice. If none of that applies, then you'll likely be happier on the 850.

 

[wymple]

There is no way I ride any distance 2 up on a GS650. I consider the GS850 adequate, with the 1100 being the ticket. I love my 850, but the top heavy is starting to bug me in my old age.

 

[1948man]

Steve, I realize that those are the published numbers, but if the 650 actually makes more than 60hp on a dyno I'll eat my hat.
The 850 numbers seem reasonable, but the 650 is way out of line. No way a mildly tuned, stock, 2 valve, air-cooled 650 is making 72@9000 rpm.

To the OP:
First, my bias. I hate the 850. Had one, wouldn't have another on a bet.
That said, "2-up touring" tends to push people, for good reason, to larger bikes. Both for the extra power to deal with the weight, and because they are generally roomier.
However, "touring" isn't the same for all people. If you and your wife aren't large people, and if your idea of touring is meandering on 2-lane roads and not covering big miles, then the 650 may well be the better choice. If none of that applies, then you'll likely be happier on the 850.

Weren't quoted HP numbers from that era at the crank rather than the rear wheel?

 

[Rob S.]

Steve, I realize that those are the published numbers, but if the 650 actually makes more than 60hp on a dyno I'll eat my hat.

The manufacturers' hp figures might be best understood as sales propaganda. Cycle World called them "manufacturers' claims." Car numbers used to be called gross, then more realistic figures in later years were called net.

My 11e was advertised as 108 hp. That's perhaps an estimate, but really just a claim of what it makes at the crank, on a workbench, without the stator (etc.) attached. The stock, rear-wheel dyno number is probably in the low 90's.

 

[RichDesmond]

Weren't quoted HP numbers from that era at the crank rather than the rear wheel?

Depends on the source. Factory numbers are generally at the crank, but magazines back then (Cycle in particular, I think) had access to dynos that they could cobble together a connection to. The inertial drum dynos that you see now weren't around. I don't know the original source of either the 850 or 650 numbers that come up on an internet search.
The big thing to me is the disconnect between the 850 and 650 numbers, and how the 650 compares to a modern, water-cooled 650 like the SV or Ninja.
If you put a GS650 on a Dynojet dyno I'm guessing that you'd see something in the 55-58hp range.

None of this is meant to disparage the 650, I think it's a really cool bike, and if a clean "E" model came up for sale near me I'd be sorely tempted to buy it. I just didn't want the OP to think that the 650 had roughly the same power/weight ratio as the 850, it doesn't.

 

[Steve]

Steve, I realize that those are the published numbers, but if the 650 actually makes more than 60hp on a dyno I'll eat my hat.
The 850 numbers seem reasonable, but the 650 is way out of line. No way a mildly tuned, stock, 2 valve, air-cooled 650 is making 72@9000 rpm.

Well, Rich, I have never been near a dyno with either of the bikes, but my "butt dyno" says there is definitely a difference in performance.

Regardless of actual HP numbers, the 91 pound difference in weight (closer to 100, if you include the extra gas capacity of the 850) makes a big difference.

There were times where I had the opportunity to get off one of the bikes and hop onto the other one, so it was a direct comparison. The 650 was definitely quicker, but was small enough that I would have a problem riding it for much more than an hour. The 850 was no slouch, it just doesn't have that 'snap' that the 650 has. Since we tend to ride more than 1/4 mile at a time, and our "lap times" are measured in hours (or days), not minutes and seconds, the 850 suits us a bit better.

I will definitely agree that the 850 is not for everyone, but there certainly are a BUNCH of them out there. :encouragement:

.

 

[razorbacksrule]

Well I had the 650gl with the Vetter package Windjammer , bags and trunk ! I didn't have any problems riding it anywhere . Actually sold it to someone from this Forum several years ago . I had to make a new profile because I hadn't been on in awhile and my profile was gone . I have actually also owned a GS 1100g back in the 80's it was nice from what I remember .

 

[razorbacksrule]

Pics of the bikes

 

[razorbacksrule]

Here's the 650

 

[razorbacksrule]

Both are very clean and low miles the 650 super nice 14,000 miles 2nd owner all service records . The 850 has 21,000 miles and is all original except 4 into 1 Exhaust . Pics must of got resized when I uploaded them they are a lot clearer .

 

[Nessism]

Can't tell condition from those postage stamp photos. A "super nice" 14k 650 sounds like a winner to me, but a 21k 850 might be nice as well. I'd go for the 650 if you are going to riding mostly around town or short trips. The 850 might be the better choice for longer trips but a header throws a red flag to me since the carbs might not be properly jetted, plus the bike will make more noise.

 

[Steve]

... but a header throws a red flag to me since the carbs might not be properly jetted, plus the bike will make more noise.

Generally, I would agree with you, but like everything else, there are exceptions. :-k

I still don't know what brand header is on my bike, all I can say is that it's not much louder than stock (if any), and I have been playing with the jetting, with surprising results.

The header actually came on my son's 850 when we got it many years ago. He got a 1000G and decided he liked it well enough to let the 850 go. With his consent, I swapped exhaust systems and carburetor jets. I finally got it mounted on my bike before the Ozark Rally in 2016, but just mounted the pipe and installed the jets that came out of my son's bike without doing any testing. At the rally, I got a few comments on how rich my bike was running. When I got home, I started testing.

Stock main jets are 115, I had 125s installed, which didn't sound too out of line. I installed 120s, the bike ran better. Installed 117.5s, even better. I don't remember if I still have the 117.5s in there or if I have gone back to 115s, but it seems to be doing quite well.

Jetting requirements are highly dependent on air flow. I still have the stock airbox, there is a K&N filter insert inside it. The baffle in the muffler is the puzzling part, though. While most "competition" baffles have a straight-through perforated core, mine is not straight through. There is a disk in the center of the bore that forces all the exhaust to go through the perforations into the outer area, then back through the perforations at the rear to make it out the exit. Adding fiberglass chokes it down, because it's not just controlling an echo, the exhaust actually has to flow through it. I have very coarse stainless steel wool in the outer chamber. I have all the smooth sound of a 4-into-1 pipe, but a low-enough volume level that I can ride all day with no problems.

I need to attack my base gasket leak sometime soon, I will look into fine-tuning the jetting at that time, as well.

.

 

[razorbacksrule]

I'm not crazy about the header either wanted a bone stock bike .

 

[razorbacksrule]

Tried to upload a better pic