(klr650) : good candidate ??

[Vik Banerjee]

Thanks! I'll probably keep the bike for a decent while so I might as well take the 2010 if there is one available when I'm ready to buy. safe riding, Vik Banerjee threeohm@... www.thelazyrando.com

On 2011-05-24, at 10:43 PM, revmaaatin wrote: > > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Vik Banerjee wrote: >> >> The local Kawi dealer is offering me $500-$600 off if I take a new 2010 KLR vs. a new 2011 KLR. Aside for colour options any reason not to go with 2010 bike? >> >> safe riding, >> >> Vik Banerjee >> threeohm@... >> www.thelazyrando.com > > v- > The dealer is offering you the bike at that price becuase [s/he hopes]that is the bikes actual value. > It is the bikes acutal market value only if it sells. > > I have watched (coast to coast = ebay and cycletrader plus other forum-based sales), the KLR market closely for the past 8 years. > It has been my observation that the KLR depreciates about $400-$500/year/ and are consumed at > Many are priced much higher, but don't sell. > Many bikes are more like 1-1.5K miles per year with that same $500 depreciation/year until the bikes stabilize between $2,000 to $2500 depending on chain, tire condition, and farkles. > > At the price you are being offered, it has already reached its normal depreciation schedule and it does not have the first mile on it. > You will have to decide if that is important to you. shrug. > IMO the price offered = the NADA value = will be what you paid for it (maybe). Because, just as soon as 2012 comes, you will lose another $500 book value! > > If what I have postulated is 100% true, then, > IMO: What the dealer is presently offering you is the full book value for the bike and that is not a discount at all. > OTOH, > If you intend to take the bike and flog it to death, shrug, then it is just $500 less you paid for the same bike you were going to flog to death anyway. > > revmaaatin. >

[jimbourg2000]

Of course the '10 will still have a new bike warranty that a used bike would not.

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Vik Banerjee wrote: > > Thanks! I'll probably keep the bike for a decent while so I might as well take the 2010 if there is one available when I'm ready to buy. > > safe riding, > > Vik Banerjee > threeohm@... > www.thelazyrando.com > > On 2011-05-24, at 10:43 PM, revmaaatin wrote: > > > > > > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Vik Banerjee wrote: > >> > >> The local Kawi dealer is offering me $500-$600 off if I take a new 2010 KLR vs. a new 2011 KLR. Aside for colour options any reason not to go with 2010 bike? > >> > >> safe riding, > >> > >> Vik Banerjee > >> threeohm@ > >> www.thelazyrando.com > > > > v- > > The dealer is offering you the bike at that price becuase [s/he hopes]that is the bikes actual value. > > It is the bikes acutal market value only if it sells. > > > > I have watched (coast to coast = ebay and cycletrader plus other forum-based sales), the KLR market closely for the past 8 years. > > It has been my observation that the KLR depreciates about $400-$500/year/ and are consumed at > > > Many are priced much higher, but don't sell. > > Many bikes are more like 1-1.5K miles per year with that same $500 depreciation/year until the bikes stabilize between $2,000 to $2500 depending on chain, tire condition, and farkles. > > > > At the price you are being offered, it has already reached its normal depreciation schedule and it does not have the first mile on it. > > You will have to decide if that is important to you. shrug. > > IMO the price offered = the NADA value = will be what you paid for it (maybe). Because, just as soon as 2012 comes, you will lose another $500 book value! > > > > If what I have postulated is 100% true, then, > > IMO: What the dealer is presently offering you is the full book value for the bike and that is not a discount at all. > > OTOH, > > If you intend to take the bike and flog it to death, shrug, then it is just $500 less you paid for the same bike you were going to flog to death anyway. > > > > revmaaatin. > > >

[Jeff Saline]

On Wed, 25 May 2011 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Luc Legrain writes:

> Gentlemen, Ladies,( wonder how many Ladies we have on this list ??) > > I stumbled upon a "pre-96" (enquired about exact year,no feed back > > yet) complete motor from a wrecked 650, asking price is $325,was > $500 . > Question is : could this motor be a good candidate for a 685 kit? Or > are there > any issues with "pre '96 " i.e. thickness of cylinder wall or else > ?? > > Once done (IF) will it be a take down my '05 and replace ? > Let me know . Thanks

<><><><><><> <><><><><><> Luc, My understanding is the pre 96 cylinders are too thin to bore for a 685 kit. But a 96 or later cylinder will bolt right on. I think used 96 or later cylinders are now usually going for about $150+/- a bit. Other than the cylinder issue if you want to increase the bore the engine should be a direct swap in a KLR up to 2007. The 2008 and later ignition and charging systems are a little different so there are other considerations to swapping earlier year engines in the later year bike. Best, Jeff Saline ABC # 4412 South Dakota Airmarshal Airheads Beemer Club www.airheads.org The Beautiful Black Hills of South Dakota 75 R90/6, 03 KLR650, 79 R100RT . . ____________________________________________________________ Banks Forced to Forgive Credit Card Debt See how much of your debt could be settled! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4ddd2bb9bacbe3e3e0st03vuc