Suzuki 2-stroke values?

[jabcb]

I wonder how the Titans comare money wise to the GTs, particularly the 750.

There was a Candy Lavender barn find 72 GT 750 for sale locally listed at 5k. Unrestored, but complete.
It's no longer on CL.

T500s & GT750s have the highest values. Top tier prices are about the same from I've noticed.


Which one is more expensive to restore depends on the details. An early T500 might need a new tranny. They use the same pistons. The GT750 has more parts but T500 crank bearings are rather pricey.

[rphillips]

Just a thought, Suzuki GT750 3 cyl., Water Buffalo, 52 HP & 507lbs, vs a Kawasaki H2 750 3 cyl. 74HP & 423lbs. I love any neat old bike, but, for me, old Zuke was pretty much a slug as opposed to the light, agile, quick Kawasaki. I'd think the Kawasaki would be a much better, more fun, easier to eventually sell bike than the Suzuki. The Kawasaki will be harder to find a decent project, but in the long run, These old Kawasaki's sell real good & gosh they were fun to ride. I did see an old GT750, a yr. or so ago & it sure did catch my eye.

[Big T]

H2 is agile? Apparently, you never rode one

You can easily spend $15k restoring one (I have a friend who has 6 of them)

The GT is an entirely different bike.

[rphillips]

Sorry, I didn't mean light, agile, & quick as in today's world. What I meant was compared to the 507 lb. 52 HP GT750 "Water Buffalo", (name meaning heavy as a buffalo & water cooled), the Kawasaki's H2 750 being 84 lb. liter with 22 extra HP, the description should fit. My best friend, who's been gone now for 25 yrs., had a "74" H2 750, at the same time I owned a new Suzuki GS1000G. I loved riding his bike, lite, easy to flip around, & hard to keep the front wheel on the ground, also watch for the frame flex & the front end wobble, (please install a steering dampener). But I can't, honestly, compare it to a GT750, I never rode a GT750, but I do know the Kawasaki is liter, I do know the Kawasaki is quicker, & would be pretty sure the Kawasaki would be more agile than the "Water Buffalo". Parts may cost a little more for the Kawasaki, but in the end, the Kawasaki should be worth a lot more. Remember, this is not a guarantee, it's only an opinion from someone who never has ridden a Suzuki GT750.

[The1970's]

Hi,Rich here known as red1100 reading about your assumed restoration costs.Ive been doing high point car restorations for decades and now (@ 67yrs) am starting to do motorcycles. Definitely not as difficult or as many heavy parts on a motorcycle.My own M.O. is to thoroughly triage through disassembly a car,put together my best estimate, then add 50%. At the end I find out my numbers are very close. Curious about the GT 750 your talking about. I did a light cosmetic only for a friends 74 750 and just the chrome bill was 1300. Without touching anything else.Id like to see how yours comes out.

Funny you mention that, I work for a company part time that restores 60's Ford products. Bikes are definitly much simpler. With popular cars like the Mustangs everything is available and it tends to be cheaper than re-chroming and re-making hard to find parts. If I where to buy the GT750, since it is missing some parts I think I would be more inclined to make it a rider, paint it and maybe do something non-factory with the fenders, gauges, expansion chambers, etc. Enjoy it for a little while and maybe go for a full original resto later on down the road. I quite like the modifications this guy has done to his S-3

https://fortmyers.craigslist.org/col/mcy/d/1975-kawasakivintage-triple/6625655459.html

[The1970's]

Just a thought, Suzuki GT750 3 cyl., Water Buffalo, 52 HP & 507lbs, vs a Kawasaki H2 750 3 cyl. 74HP & 423lbs. I love any neat old bike, but, for me, old Zuke was pretty much a slug as opposed to the light, agile, quick Kawasaki. I'd think the Kawasaki would be a much better, more fun, easier to eventually sell bike than the Suzuki. The Kawasaki will be harder to find a decent project, but in the long run, These old Kawasaki's sell real good & gosh they were fun to ride. I did see an old GT750, a yr. or so ago & it sure did catch my eye.

Not sure where you're quoting the 52 HP number from. Everything I can come up with shows a factory spec of 67-75 HP and 62 lb-ft of torque (seems high to me). I've never ridden a GT750 or a H2 but I assume the GT is comparable to my GS750, maybe slightly slower. They are pretty heavy but the GT was marketed as more of a long distance cruiser while the H2 was built for more performance. I would really like to ride an H2 but they all seem to be beyond what I am willing to pay for a fun toy.

On a side note a friend of mine has a beautiful RD350 that he's let me ride a few times, awesome bike but feels like you're riding an unbalanced blender set on high. The vibration is crazy, definitly not something I would ride for any reasonable distance. I have read that the triples are much smoother, but am looking forward to seeing for myself.

I set up a time to go check out the GT750 tomorrow along with all his other bikes. I haven't promised anything so I'll let you know what happens

[rphillips]

Sorry, I guess I should have known!! Bikez.com GT750 52 HP, Ultimatespecs.com GT750 63 HP, Suzuki.com GT750 67 HP, & Motorcyclespecs.com GT750 70 HP. Please forget I ever said anything, & good luck, I hope you find something that really works well for your needs. No doubt, a GT750 will make a perfectly good riding bike plus get a lot of looks & talk around most any group of bikers, Older folks remembering them & younger folks wondering what the heck they are.

[red1100]

I had a new in 74GT 750 metallic orange. A beaut. I rode all around the s.e.US with it based at Charleston AFB South Carolina,not as fast as my buddies 74 Z1 but riding to Florida was very tough for him,always stopping to stretch. We traded for a while and I could see why. Uncomfortable,twitchy,stiff suspended it wore me out too. Had to wear ear plugs also. The big Suzuki did everything well.His did straight line acceleration well. They are complex to do a complete resto on but cosmetic only isn’t too bad. Don’t have one now but still love em. Get a good one and you won’t regret it.

[jabcb]

Suzuki updated the GT750 in 1975. Gave it more performance & better cornering clearance.
I have two 1975s & agree that they are good long distance bikes, except for the not-so-good gas mileage.


The Suzuki two stroke triple motors are rubber mounted. The GT380 with its tiny pistons is pretty smooth at all rpms. The GT750 is quite smooth at some rpm ranges but has some rpms where the mounting doesn’t working that great.


Two strokes of that era have a lot of personality. Can be a lot of fun owning as part of a collection if that personality matches up with what you want. I wouldn’t worry about future resale for the T500, GT750, H1, H2 or RD350/RD400.

[The1970's]

Well I just got back from checking it out. I haven't promised anything yet but I think I'm going to buy it for $500 and he is going to throw in all the pieces necessary to convert my GS750 to the E model dual disks. I guess that's the perks of me riding my bike to go check it out. He has absolutely everything except the fenders and exhaust. It also comes with a complete spare engine and a bunch of other smaller spare parts like turn signals, etc.

The owner used to race bikes and jet skis back in the 90's. He had 10 acres of cool stuff

[wymple]

The water buffalo was a tick or two slower in the 1/4, but as far as I'm concerned it was superior to the Kaw in every other way, especially rideability. It felt way more stable and solid. Much wider and more usable torque band.

[850 Combat]

[QUOTE= this GT750 was running when it was taken apart. We all know how that could go [/QUOTE]

I always take good running bikes apart. I also pull the spark plugs then lean them against the shed wall for a few years.

[850 Combat]

The water buffalo was a tick or two slower in the 1/4, but as far as I'm concerned it was superior to the Kaw in every other way, especially rideability. It felt way more stable and solid. Much wider and more usable torque band.

GT750 was a lot slower than an H2, not a tic slower. It is a real bike though, and for me, the H2 isn't. 20 mpg and a 4.5 gallon won't reliably get you from town to town. That kind of limitation can't be over come with speed. In 1974, Cycle World didn't even get their test H2 into the 12s.

Performance 1/4 mile performance results from a Cycle Guide comparison. Kawasaki 900 was introduced right after this, and it was a real bike that could really be used for about anything. Most people have misconceptions about what was fast in those days. Of course, the KZ900 came out right after this, and it was all different. Norton, Harley, and triumph were not slouches in those days.

Sportster: 13.355 @ 100.44
Honda CB750: 13.746 @ 98.36
Kawasak1 H2 12.662 @ 106.38
Norton Commando 750: 12.922 @103.21
Suzuki 750: 13.957 @ 94.24
Triumph trident: 12.999 @ 101.46
Yamaha TX-750: 13.779 @ 97.19

I like the Water Buffalo, although I've never been on one. My dad had a GT550. It was utterly forgettable to ride.

[Eli69]

A couple years ago I found a 72 t500 in pretty good shape for 300 bucks us. A little cleaning and maybe 100 bucks of parts and I had it on the road. I knew it was worth something and realized that I probably would only ride it and possibly mess it up so I decided to sell it. I got a call from a guy who said he restored them and sold them all over the world. After much haggling I sold it to him for $1200. He wouldn't go a penny higher.

[jabcb]

Suzuki updated the GT750 in 1975 for more performance. Also increased the cornering clearance.


1/4 mile performance per a touring comparison in the August 1975 issue of Cycle:
Kawasaki Z1: 12.37 @ 107.39
Honda GL1000: 12.92 @ 104.52
Suzuki GT750: 13.29 @ 100.44
Moto Guzzi 850T: 13.6 @ 97.93
BMW R90/6: 13.71 @ 95.84
Suzuki RE5: 13.84 @ 94.63
Norton 850 Interstate: 14.05 @ 93.36
HD FLH-1200: 15.77 @ 79.92


Cycle’s touring rankings:
1) R90/6 & GL1000
3) GT750
4) Z1
5) RE5
6) 850 Interstate
7) 850T
8) FLH-1200