In-line 4 versus V 4

[1948man]

For use in a motorcycle are there strengths and weakness of V 4's and inline 4's? It seems that, aside from being a little wide, maybe the inline 4's are smoother and more efficient. I sold my C50 Blvd and am considering Voyagers and ventures ( and maybe Cavalcades).

[Dogma]

I think that by brute engineering force, either may be made to work well. Someone might like the sound or feel of one over the other. I think I'd take that on a case by case basis. My own inclination is that the in line 4 should be mechanically simpler and therefore more robust and easy to work on. Still, either may be implemented poorly.

I say, if you like one or the other, look for a bike with a sound mechanical reputation based on that design. If you have no preference, that's just more options to choose from. If I was to look to a heavy touring bike, I'd probably start looking for a GK, just because I'm so familiar with the GS shafties now.

[1948man]

Thanks, I have thought about a GK but just don't seem to see many down here towards Fla. Plus, I like the idea that the Voyagers were made for 15 yrs so there's lots of parts around and I think some years had a 6 speed transmission.

[Steve]

Voyagers were made from 1986 through 2003, so yes, there were a bunch of them made, but realize that it was fewer than 1000 of them every year.

Cavalcades were nice, but limited production and hard to work on.

Ventures were good bikes, the engine was basically a de-tuned V-Max, so they were quick, too. My son has a Venture Royale (see pic in sig) that I am trying to work on. It is rather a pain to work on a V-4 engine (which the Cavalcade shares), so I would look more to the inline-4, if I was looking.

.

[almarconi]

I thought the kawasaki voyager was based on the kz1300 engine, wasn't it an inline six cylinder?

[Nessism]

In line 4's can be buzzy which is why some larger engines have counterbalancers. V4's don't have this same issue because of the way the cylinders are laid out.

Back in the day I owned a first generation VFR and that engine was truly fantastic. Dead smooth almost all the time and made great power. Not cheap to produce, a little heavier than an in line 4, but a very sweet ride.

[67fire]

I used to have an '84 V-65 Honda Sabre.
Smooth as glass to 135+ and that was just in the first 4 of 6 gears!
The long wheel-base and the front fork rake to clear the radiator made it hard to handle at low speed.
Fantastic on the highway though.
Torque curve was non existent. Absolutely flat from 2-11,000 rpm.

Eric

[Steve]

I thought the kawasaki voyager was based on the kz1300 engine, wasn't it an inline six cylinder?

The Voyager actually came in two "flavors".

Yes, the '83-'88 Voyager 1300 was based on the KZ 1300 and was an inline-six. I had one of the first KZ 1300s with a license plate in the Los Angeles area, back in April, 1979. Later (2000), I got an '84 Voyager 1300 and enjoyed it for about five years before getting my Wing.

Kawasaki was rather disappointed with the sales of the Voyager 1300, so they introduced its "little brother", the Voyager 1200 in 1986. It was powered by a slightly de-tuned 1200 cc version of the Ninja engine and wrapped with some decent-quality bodywork (fairing, saddlebags, trunk). Except for a problem with the ignitor in the '86 and very early '87 models, they had very few problems and continued production through the 2003 model year.

The 1200 Voyager was about 100 pounds lighter than the 1300, and had 16" front and 15" rear tires, so felt very nimble. Ridden responsibly, it could even top 50 mpg on a regular basis. Quite a following, and many of us in the American Voyager Association were eagerly looking forward to Kawasaki coming out with an updated bike. Our then-president (of the Association) was in contact with Kawasaki and gave them some feedback from the members, concerning what we liked about the current Voyager, what we would like to change and other things that would be nice. They announced in 2005 that they were not going to do a 'new' Voyager, and some of us started looking elsewhere for a new bike. That is why I ended up with a Wing. A couple of years ago, Kawasaki announced a new Voyager, but it was based on a 1700 cc V-twin, which is one thing that the AVA members were most adamant against. I have not kept in contact with the AVA to see what the reaction has been.

.

[mighty13d]

A couple of years ago, Kawasaki announced a new Voyager, but it was based on a 1700 cc V-twin, which is one thing that the AVA members were most adamant against. I have not kept in contact with the AVA to see what the reaction has been.

.

why would they ruin a perfectly good bike by doing something foolish like that? V-twins are nice, but after you've ridden inline 4s or v4s, who would want to go back? Not me. I don't mine borrowing my friend's Intruder, but I wouldn't buy one.

[Larry D]

What kind of issues should I look for with this one ? I'm going to go look at it in the next couple days. I'm taking the multimeter and a nice flashlight. I've been looking for a nice two-up tourer for the wife and I.

Does it have charging issues similiar to our beloved GS's ? The seller said the rectifier has been replaced.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270474647718&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

[BigLou]

right off the bat, given that its an 83.... 2nd gear. They were bad about loosing 2nd gear.

[Steve]

Yep, I will second that warning on second gear.

My son had one that looked a lot like that one. Started having the second gear problem, he got a newer '86 Venture Royale (pic in my sig). A GSR member saw that I had mentioned the '83 was "for sale, needs work", asked about it and we came to terms. He is very happy with it, it does just fine without second gear.

The "second gear problem" is not so much that something breaks in the transmission. What happened is that there is a thrust washer that pushes the gears together, and for a couple of years, those washers were made of sub-standard material and wore out. It simply means that the thrust washer is no longer thick enough to push second gear into place. Nothing is in danger of breaking or falling apart, you just can't engage second gear. If you want to go through the effort, replacement parts are available that will last just about forever. This same arrangement is still used in the V-Max and the Royal Star Venture today (with the better parts). The cost of the parts to fix this is between $600-700. Labor would be several hours, as you have to remove the engine from the frame, turn it over, remove the bottom case and change the parts, then put it all back together. Fortunately, you do not have to bother the top end to do this.

The ad says the "carbs need cleaned". I would rather change a base gasket on a GS than clean the carbs on a Venture.
I had to clean the carbs on my son's '86. Royal pain in the posterior. Nobody makes a kit similar to the one we can get from Robert Barr. Not only did I have to change all the o-rings and gaskets, I had to replace all four diaphragms, due to pinholes. Total cost for carb parts: about $425.

Adjusting the valves is also a bit of an adventure. Four valves per cylinder, absolutely NO way to do it without the special tool.

It's a great price on the bike right now, but be prepared for what might come later.

You asked what to look for. Taking a voltmeter would be good. Ask if second gear has been a problem. If he does not know what you are talking about, be leary. Examine the digital display. Some of them have problems with missing segments. Sometimes they can be repaired by touching up all the solder joints on the circuit board. Insist on taking it for a test ride. No ride, no buy. Once the bike is warmed up, run it hard in second gear. If does not slip, you may have a good one or it may be that it just has not had a problem yet.

They are great handling bikes and have decent fuel economy, but like our GSs, they are old bikes that will need some lovin'.

.