"Too much bike" or nostalgia? 100hp 4cyl vs <50hp twin for leisurely back road riding

[LAB3]

The old XS1100, just from memory, clunky trans, heavy, and their shaft drive was the worst about lifting up real bad under hard take-offs. But really bullet proof as long as 2nd. gear didn't go out.... I ain't seen one for yrs.

I've had mine for a little over a year now and have run a bit over 20k miles. have never once experience what people refer to as "jacking". Granted, I don't ride it "hard"

As to the shifting, no doubt it reminds you of a Russian tractor but if you run the revs up over 6k it's smooth as silk, at least on mine.

[Suzukian]

My bad, I lost track of who started this thread. In any event, we are on the same page. I still have a 1975 CB400F I purchased new, I still have a 1983 GS750ES I purchased new. I now have a Kawasaki 1200 I purchased a year ago with only 3875 miles on it ( for only $2200 bucks!). I have all my bases covered. In new England, because of the density, I would never go on the road on anything less than 750 cc's. I don't like the 600's 4 cylinders because they are too peaky.

The Suzuki 650 twin is a very torque biased bike. You may find you like it a lot. I was going to get one, and still may, for my son, but out here, they cost a fortune.

[GS1150Pilot]

My bad, I lost track of who started this thread. In any event, we are on the same page. I still have a 1975 CB400F I purchased new, I still have a 1983 GS750ES I purchased new. I now have a Kawasaki 1200 I purchased a year ago with only 3875 miles on it ( for only $2200 bucks!). I have all my bases covered. In new England, because of the density, I would never go on the road on anything less than 750 cc's. I don't like the 600's 4 cylinders because they are too peaky.

The Suzuki 650 twin is a very torque biased bike. You may find you like it a lot. I was going to get one, and still may, for my son, but out here, they cost a fortune.

70 hp, 50 lb ft, redline 9,000: A pretty balanced powerband.

[GS1150Pilot]

I've had mine for a little over a year now and have run a bit over 20k miles. have never once experience what people refer to as "jacking". Granted, I don't ride it "hard"

As to the shifting, no doubt it reminds you of a Russian tractor but if you run the revs up over 6k it's smooth as silk, at least on mine.

I had an '80 XS11 and really enjoyed it for three years. Mine had had the 2nd gear replaced with the slightly uprated part.

[Rob S.]

70 hp, 50 lb ft, redline 9,000: A pretty balanced powerband.

70 horsepower? Sounds like a 'manufacturer's claim' or 'at the crank,' not rear wheel or dyno.

[GS1150Pilot]

70 horsepower? Sounds like a 'manufacturer's claim' or 'at the crank,' not rear wheel or dyno.

That would be the way specs are generally presented, sir.

[Suzukian]

That would be a BHP (at the engine) spec. A lot like a 550 Suzuki horsepower, but more torque. You especially notice it going around 4 th gear for a long time, not need 5th, as the bike has no problem working. When I worked at a Yamaha dealership, the Yamaha XV920 came out. It had a big whopping 9" round headlight. I was on a Yamaha XS750, and my buddy was next to me, he rolled the throttle on the highway, no shifting, and I had to drop two gears to catch up to him. That's what torque can do for you. Most bikes are rated that way. My ZZR1200 has a dyno'd 145 h.p. at the rear wheel, but they were known for that.

We had a mechanic who used to grind the dogs on the XS1100's to get them to shift better. He was excellent at it. I'd seen people do this same procedure, and the bike would drop out of gear.

[GS1150Pilot]

That would be a BHP (at the engine) spec. A lot like a 550 Suzuki horsepower, but more torque. You especially notice it going around 4 th gear for a long time, not need 5th, as the bike has no problem working. When I worked at a Yamaha dealership, the Yamaha XV920 came out. It had a big whopping 9" round headlight. I was on a Yamaha XS750, and my buddy was next to me, he rolled the throttle on the highway, no shifting, and I had to drop to gears to catch up to him. That's what torque can do for you. Most bikes are rated that way. My ZZR1200 has a dyno'd 145 h.p. at the rear wheel, but they were known for that.

We had a mechanic who used to grind the dogs on the XS1100's to get them to shift better. He was excellent at it. I'd seen people do this same procedure, and the bike would drop out of gear.

Correct, which is what I love about twins in general. The (very modified) Sportster I own kills bikes off the line and in roll-ons, and the BMW is very pleasant during passing.

Rob, those little SVs will embarrass much larger bikes in many places-and they are no slouch in the quarter.

[Brendan W]

My bad, I lost track of who started this thread. In any event, we are on the same page. I still have a 1975 CB400F I purchased new, I still have a 1983 GS750ES I purchased new. I now have a Kawasaki 1200 I purchased a year ago with only 3875 miles on it ( for only $2200 bucks!). I have all my bases covered. In new England, because of the density, I would never go on the road on anything less than 750 cc's. I don't like the 600's 4 cylinders because they are too peaky.

The Suzuki 650 twin is a very torque biased bike. You may find you like it a lot. I was going to get one, and still may, for my son, but out here, they cost a fortune.

Amen. We toyed with the idea of a small capacity putta putta but the reality of traffic means you need the get up and go to stay clear of the cages.
Unfortunately, holding back an 80hp 1100cc twin does not have the same feel as working a 40hp 500cc twin on the leafy lanes.

[RichDesmond]

May I submit for the committee's consideration the Suzuki SV650/Gladius?

- Suzuki. I mean, we're on a Suzuki fan website...

- Cheap. Heck, they're fairly inexpensive brand-new -- only $7,849 for a brand-new SV650 with ABS.

- Relatively plentiful.

- Lots of aftermarket support.

- Easy to work on. Valve checks on ABS models are an especial asspain, but there are ways to get it done.

- Light, small, plenty of power for whatever you want to do. Obviously, it's a small bike so not great for 2-up touring with luggage, but that's obvious, and not the mission we're discussing here.

- Relatively simple, well-understood, and overall stone axe reliable.

- Here's the neato part: this is a long-running model, in production since 1999. You can, to a large extent, choose your own adventure here. Want carbs for some demented reason? Buy an older one. Want fuel injection and ABS? Buy a later model. Want a track or race bike? Look for one already set up for track duty. There were many detail changes over the years, so research the upgrades that are important to you when deciding the year range to target.

There really aren't any "gotchas" with the machines. The biggest issue, as with any used motorcycle, is the incompetence and frugality of the previous owner(s). On the minus side, some tend to have been owned by less experienced and somewhat, shall we say, "frugal" people, so crash damage, neglected maintenance, brainless modifications, etc. are unfortunately common. And you can pretty much count on the fact that the tires, chain and sprockets will be worn out, and the valve check overdue.

Suspension and brakes are fairly basic but plenty good enough, and of course there's plenty of aftermarket help. It is possible to get more power out of the engine, but it is expensive, limited in effectiveness, and stupidity is rampant. You definitely want to get as close to stock as possible. As I understand it, the carbureted models are more sought after for track use and modification.

Sometimes you can catch one with some well-chosen farkles, and/or one with few owners who were more experienced and had an appreciation for the bike's charms and tended not to crash...

Or, just skip all the crap and buy a new one.

Agree 1000%. I've owned 40+ bikes, including some pretty special ones, but if I could only have one bike, forever, it'd be an SV650.

[gtem]

That's quite an endorsement Rich! I'm definitely keeping an eye out.

[gtem]

Coming back to this thread, I'm still trying to scratch this itch, though the scope has expanded/changed a bit perhaps. This is coming off the heels of taking my Bandit 1200 out for an awesome weekend ride out in the NC/GA mountains, and then taking my 600lb XS1100 out to the Finger Lakes in NY. My old XS500 rounds out the three bike fleet currently.

Bandit- love the immediate torque and overall '80s sportbike sound and feel of that big air/oil cooled motor, love the looks and relative simplicity. Dislike- always seems to motivate me to ride more aggressively than I'd like. Not a good bike to "mosey" or "cruise" down the road on. As about 5 miles of rutted forest road riding showed, it's also a bit of a marginal bike offroad. Mostly in regard to the vulnerability of the header pipes but also the inherent steeper rake and wider/smaller 17" front wheel compared to the typical UJM 19"er. Finally, seat comfort is not great. 200ish miles is okay, more than that starts to not be so fun.

XS1100- supremely comfortable (classic upright UJM seating position is my favorite), very stable at higher speeds, also excellent roll-on passing power. I think it looks like a million bucks. Dislikes- HEAVY. Not only is it about 40ish lbs heavier than say a shaft drive GS, but the amount of steering rake the XS1100s have make it notably slower steering feeling than a GS. Also bordering "old bike exhaustion" of doing all the work it takes to get one of these back on the road properly especially in regard to some very fiddly carb tuning issues I've been chasing on the Mikuni BS34s (a carb I'm well acquainted with at this point).

I suspect a lot of this right now is driven purely by my frustration with getting the fueling on the XS1100 dialed in 100% but my mind has been wandering yet again for the "Goldilocks" bike: 450-500ish lbs, standard riding position (Bandit and stuff like SV650s get into that sport/standard realm), good looking (not a adventure bike or insectoid modern naked/sports bike), "enough" power and especially low-mid range torque to have fun blasting out of corners but not something that I feel compelled to ride like a nut all the time (see Bandit). Call it 80-90ish hp? Bonus for an interesting/fun exhaust note/character.

One bike that's come onto my radar with the above in mind is the late 90s-early 00s Triumph Thunderbird 900 Sport. Kind of a proto-neo-Bonneville with the liquid cooled 855cc triple motor from their other sportier bikes. I think they look neat, sound neat, and seem pretty affordable when they pop up for sale.

Another "stalwart" would be the plain jane 91-03 CB750 Nighthawk. Very common, nails the "UJM-but-isn't-40 years old" factor. If I can be a bit picky I'd say I really don't like the styling of the rear ends of those bikes. Weird thing to get hung up on maybe but it is what it is.

90s Kawasaki Zephyr 750? Most of the good aspects of what I like about the CB750 NH but with much improved styling and apparently better suspension bits.

There's a bunch of bikes in the ADV type realm that nail the ergonomics and have excellent gravel-worthiness but I really simply don't care for the looks of any of those things whatsoever.

anyways thanks for entertaining my moto-ADD once more!

[Rich82GS750TZ]

That brings my mind back to the Triumph Scrambler models.
1200XC & XE check all my boxes, but have Too much tech for my liking, including the key fob thingy that I've read a lot of complaints about. High exhaust does not let you hug the tank with your knees, thought still a very comfortable straight-up riding position.

Scrambler 900 (formerly Street Scramble) might fit the bill, with a lower seat than the 1200 models but still enough suspensions travel to handle most things I'd want to do. A bit more analog, still has some tech, and an actual key. Tubed tires are a turn-off.

Newly unveiled Triumph Scrambler 400X available next year, low price point. new single cylinder engine. Plenty of HP and Torque for a bike in this segment. Been watching the early review. This could be the bike that gets me on a Triumph.

One of the Tiger models would be great, I just can't get past the styling, same for the Suzuki V-Strom. Hate the beaks.

[gtem]

Yup I came right back to your initial post about a 1200 Scrambler. I *love* the idea of a big torquey twin, standard riding position. But I'm with you, the amount of tech is just not for me. I've made my peace with the idea of buying a fuel injected bike (again, driven perhaps by my current carb-exhaustion), but there's a big leap from having EFI to all the crazy stuff they have on these new bikes now. I owned a '01 Bonneville briefly in college and at the time I was less than impressed, but I suspect a fair amount of my qualms centered around the super quiet stock exhaust and very lean state of tune that they come in stock. The general form factor is just about spot on for what I'm looking for. I've seen some late 90s-early 00s Harley Sportster 1200 "Sports" around: twin plug higher compression heads, hotter cam, twin front disc brakes and upgraded suspension with mid controls, sounds and looks awesome, priced right too a lot of Harley guys don't really appreciate them. But I think the mid-control Sportster ergos are just too cramped for my 5'11" for any sort of longer day rides.

Taking a look over the fence so to speak at some of the ADV bikes, Triumphs Tiger 800 seems to nail what I'm looking for but I simply can't make peace with the looks of the adv bikes, nor too the excessive (in my mind) tech.

One aspect of motorcycling that I think I under-appreciated until recently is that I really am picky and do prioritize looks. If I don't love how I bike looks I just never gel with it no matter how good it is to ride. The sole exception to that was probably my KLR650 in college, a 99 with the dark green with yellow and purple/pink graphics that I finally came around to.