New Model Reliability

[winfield]

There has been a thread on a new offering from BMW today. A new offering from Yamaha was mentioned in that thread with a link to an article. The Yamaha is a new design for them--a 3 cylinder engine.

My question is: Is it a risk to purchase a new bike with a brand new design. In other words, how often do they get it right in the year it is introduced? Or do they need a year or two to work out the bugs?

I have noticed in Consumer Reports Used Car Buyers Guide, that when a car company introduces a new car, the first year that car is available it often has significant reliability issues. Is this also true of new motorcycle offerings? If so, I would want to "wait and see" before purchasing the new BMW of Yamaha FZ-09. Not that I got the bling to buy one now any way.

[Steve]

The only "first-year" model that I got when it was new was a '79 KZ1300.

The only problems that I could attribute to the "new model syndrome" would be a stuck cam chain tensioner (could happen to any bike, really) and the engineers' lack of planning on the charging system.

The KZ1300 was designed to compete with the GoldWing as a touring bike, but had the same stator capacity as our GSes.
Evidently, the Japanese engineers did not do their research to see what farkles we Americans were adding to our touring bikes.
They did, however, upgrade the system every year. In '79 it was 237 watts. In '80, it was 258 watts. In '81, it was 280 watts. In '82 it was 300 watts.

In '83 they added insult to injury. The KZ1300 was replaced by the ZN1300, which was fully-dressed with fairing, saddlebags and trunk, but also included digital fuel injection, trip computer, AM/FM radio with cassette and a CB radio. To handle all the extra electrical load, they removed the harmonic balancer on the other end of the crankshaft (the ignition triggers were mounted elsewhere) and installed a second stator, giving a total capacity of just over 500 watts.

By the time I was done adding farkles, I had also upgraded to the '81 280 watt stator, and had to be careful what all I had turned on at any given moment.

.

[eil]

I've wondered myself. I followed some newer models awhile back. I'm fairly new to all of this, but what I have observed is that the more modern motorcycles tend to not change too much within the same generation. Most changes are appearance changes (paint and plastic) or very small performance tweaks. More to do with adding bullet points and getting new photos in the popular motorcycle mags. My guess is that the engineers these days are very good at designing a motorcycle that will last a long time without significant problems. (Or at least will last longer than it takes for the average newbie rider to lay it down.) On occasion there have been manufacturing defects due to poor process control at the factory, but this isn't unique to first-year bikes.

So, I don't think a first-year bike is worth avoiding on that basis alone. Assuming you're buying it brand-new, keep in mind that there's a warranty as well.

(Although I'm going to inject my own not-so-humble opinion that buying any vehicle brand-new is tantamount to piling up 25% of the purchase price in dollar bills and setting it on fire in the dealership parking lot. But that's just me.)

[Nessism]

I think there is definitely some risk in buying a first year vehicle. I suspect the risk is less with something like that BMW since the drivetrain is common with other models, but the Yamaha is an all new design. Best to wait a year before purchase, but if you really liked the bike, I'd just buy it and deal with any teething issues while the bike is under warranty.

[850 Combat]

There have been lemons, for sure. The TX750 comes to mind. I've owned lots of first year bikes though. CBX, FT500, XJ750, GS850, GS1000, RD400. The only one I had trouble with was the FT500, and the motor in that wasn't new. Mine overheated and lost the top end on warranty.

People being people, there will always be mistakes. I would buy what I want. New bikes are pretty constantly good these days. You can look at Bandits, and some Kawasakis though. There is no guarantee that a mature design won't have defects at some point in its production runs. Soft cams, soft valve seats, my '75 Commando came with a bad transmission bearing supposedly. Sometimes they wait until later to put defective parts in it.

[tkent02]

There has been a thread on a new offering from BMW today. A new offering from Yamaha was mentioned in that thread with a link to an article. The Yamaha is a new design for them--a 3 cylinder engine.

My question is: Is it a risk to purchase a new bike with a brand new design. In other words, how often do they get it right in the year it is introduced? Or do they need a year or two to work out the bugs?

I have noticed in Consumer Reports Used Car Buyers Guide, that when a car company introduces a new car, the first year that car is available it often has significant reliability issues. Is this also true of new motorcycle offerings? If so, I would want to "wait and see" before purchasing the new BMW of Yamaha FZ-09. Not that I got the bling to buy one now any way.

Yamaha is not new to three cylinder motorctycles.
Three is not a big deal engineering wise. Just different numbers around the crankshaft and cam, no big deal.

I think they overbuild them at first, wait until there are a few years on them and start to go cheaper.

Some risk inherent with a new design, but not much. Motorcyces are a lot simpler than cars, and the stuff that is new with a new model is not the stuff that will leave you stranded somewhere. They are all super reliable anymore.

I wouldn't hesitate.

[derwood]

BMW needs 4 or5 years to work the bugs out.....

[bwringer]

I wouldn't hesitate on the Yamaha, if it really blows yer dress up and you can find one. That's one seriously schweeeeet bike. The one I saw at the dealer a few weeks ago already had a "sold" tag...

With the Japanese manufacturers, very few bikes in the last several years have had any "first year" problems. And bear in mind that this model is not a highly stressed, bleeding edge supersport -- it's more a fresh blend of stuff Yamaha already knows how to do extremely well.

Triumph, BMW, and especially Ducati have also raised their quality game to an unbelievable degree over the last several years -- one of the secrets to surviving (and thriving) for the euro manufacturers during the economic poostorm has been to drastically reduce the rate of defects leaving the factory -- warranty claims are murder on profit and reputation.

The other factor is whether a bike looks to be a one-year model. From all indications, the Yammie triple looks like it'll be a hit, so I wouldn't worry about that either.

[850 Combat]

Yamaha tends to maintain the design of its second tier bikes for 4-5 years. They do make minor adjustments along the way. This has been the case for the FZ1 Gen1 and Gen 2 as well as the FZ8.

The one caution is the resale value is likely to be poor. It's lousy on the three models listed above and it will likely be lousy for the new three cylinder. If resale is important get an R1, they tend to hold their value but contort your spine.

If your lighter in weight and stature the new triple may be right for you. If your American sized and ride two up quite abit, I'd explore a used sorted Gen 1 ($2500) or Gen 2 ($4000)
and save yourself the severe depreciation. I'd buy a used triple a couple years from now after the buzz has worn off.

IMHO, I'd rather own and insure four used bikes instead of one new one, not meant to slight the new triple.

Good advice

[Flaggo60]

I've bought two first year bikes brand new: 1978 Honda CX500 and 1987 BMW K75. The Honda model, of course, had the cam problem but it was discovered and fixed under warranty without any problem for me. There were absolutely no issues with the K75. For a first year model it was as solid as any BMW.

That said, with the technology in design and manufacturing being used today, I don't think I would fear a first year model. The new Yamaha triple would be high on my shopping list if I were in the market for that kind of bike.

[rphillips]

1st year models have got to be more prone to unforseen problems. Back to the KZ 1300, they had problems getting all the fuel out of the tank cause the fuel line went way down to the top of the crankcase,thru an elect. shut-off, then back up to the carbs, mine would only get about 10 mi on res, but there was still appx. 3/4 gal in tank, Many folks installed 2lb. elect. fuel pumps to remedy their fuel problem, & I think Kawasaki fixed it also. The fan wouldn't come on to cool the eng. till the temp gauge hit the red, they fixed that in later yrs. As said earlier, the cam chain tensioners were upgraded in later yrs., cause the earlier ones wouldn't keep the chain tight, & several engines were destroyed when they jumped time & the pistons pounded on the valves. And after the first year they started fixing the charging problem. If you had bought an "82" instead of a 1st year "79", you wouldn't have had any of these problems. But it works both ways, I always loved the self canceling turn signals, gear position indicators & center stands. The only bike I have with self canceling signals & gear indicator is my old "83" GS 1100 E, I can't figure why they stopped something that was such a pleasure to have. And now I have 2 Kawasakis that don't have a center stand, makes it a pain to change tires, not impossible but certainly not near as easy as with the center stand. Pros & cons both ways, but if I liked the first year, I don't think being a first year model would keep me from buying one. Come to think of it, I had a first yr. "77" GS 750, First year "78" GS 1000, First year "80" GS 1000 G, First year "80" GS 1100 E, and haven't regretted any of them.

[tkent02]

That was then, this is now. Everything is reliable now.

[Nessism]

Launch year quality was abysmal for Nissan though the later years when I worked there. Don't assume too much.

[bbjumper]

Very cool bike the FZ-09, not a bad price IMO either. I just don't want to stop and fuel up @ 150mi.