Wilsons Sandbox
http://www.frenchandlogan.com/phpBB3/
http://www.frenchandlogan.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=253424
----- Original Message ----- From: "pzzldpnthr" To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:05 PM Subject: [DSN_KLR650] Review of '05 XT660R > > > http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcyossef/05_XT660R/ > > I'd take the KLR over this bike any day. Those pipes are just asking > to be smashed and a dry weight of 380? What were they thinking? I > thought the KLR was heavy! Can you imaging picking up an additional > 50lbs of bike on a narrow trail? I'm so thankful I chose the KLR > when I did. I've never been disappointed with my choice! > > > > > > Archive Quicksearch at: > http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com > List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Parece" To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [DSN_KLR650] Review of '05 XT660R Is this bike coming to America???? Gary Parece 98 concours 102K, ,01 KLR650 9K 04 WR250F ,04 H-D Road King ----- Original Message ----- From: "pzzldpnthr" To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:05 PM Subject: [DSN_KLR650] Review of '05 XT660R > > > http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcyossef/05_XT660R/ > > I'd take the KLR over this bike any day. Those pipes are just asking > to be smashed and a dry weight of 380? What were they thinking? I > thought the KLR was heavy! Can you imaging picking up an additional > 50lbs of bike on a narrow trail? I'm so thankful I chose the KLR > when I did. I've never been disappointed with my choice!
It is worth noting that the MZ bikes, in both dual-sport and motard configurations (or, if you go to the right dealer, with both sets of wheels for an "as you like it" configuration) have used the 660cc Yamaha engine for some time. Reputedly the ergos aren't quite up the KLR standards but aside from that they are almost the do-it-all super-KLR we often wish for, AFAICT. Thor> > It's interesting to note that Yamaha hasn't had a large cc dual sport. Now > they jump in with a Supermotard wannabe.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Streetfighters" Subject: Re: [DSN_KLR650] Review of '05 XT660R > > Actually - I think this is a good thing. Maybe it will get Kawasaki and > Honda and Suzuki to get up off their duff and deliver us something a little > better than the current KLR. I like the KLR a lot - but if Kawasaki or any > other mfgr for that matter, updated the large cc dual sports the way they do > their CBR's and R1's - we'd all be riding better KLR's on steroids. Much > like the KTM Adventure without any of the shortcomings including the price. > Like a KTM A for half the price. Would be a nice thing, but it'd be a hell of a lot closer in price to the KTMs and the F650 than what there is now. Really looking at it, the KLR (except for some small details, like the doohickey) is about as refined a thumper as you;re gonna find for under a high tech $9K. This may sound stoopid, but really look at the bike. I did. What other street-worthy machine can hold itz own on a long on-road tour weighs in at 338 lbs (no liquids) - nothing. What other street-worthy machine can really go off-road successfully, not a handful. Certainly not the BMW GSs or other large-ass DS's. They're nice on dirt roads, but I can tell you they're a nightmare on the ridgeline trails up here in SB county. I watched 2 guys struggle to keep from tossing them down the hillsides, while the rest on DRZ400s, Hondas and 2 KLRs had a grand olde tyme. What other real off-road capable (maybe not optimum) machine can haul big gear for days on end? What other off-road capable and on-road capable machine can run for well over 200 miles between fuels stops? What appears low tech is really refinement. The reason we have an under 40 hp motor is cause torque is everything under a load. It's also why the motor will last for an ungodly number of miles if given regular attention. Trying to add more muscle would only add weight, and if not weight then a 'tender' nature rather than what the US Military realizes, it being a total workhorse. Its a light bike because its a thumper, it doesn;t have huge power cause its a thumper. It can do almost anything, except breach the ton, because it's a thumper. As light as some the new V-twins are, they're all still a lot heavier than a thumper. FI and some motor refinement might give it a 10% power boost, but at what cost? Less ability for home grown mechs to work on their own machines. Less ease of service if you're in a pinch in some BFE place. It has a REAL luggage rack. The stock saddle is pretty comfortable (my take). The instruments are worthless, but very light. The fairing (now that I have one) is awesomely good for wind protection, considering itz size. The headlamp is really quite good for a single lamp setup and is easy to setup with multiple lights. 'Assuming the position' is way comfortable for us olde pharts. 5.5 to 6 gals is awesome! Huge selection of rubber to fit any taste/desire/need. It comes in one 'flavor' - ugly as sin. The plastics are floppy, soft and there are very few, so they're really hard to completely break and when they get really ugly and old, you almost don't need them. You'll have a hard time getting a ticket. If you live in Kansas, life can be real tedious on a KLR, unless you go off-road. Poppin a mono is child's play. It'll keep up with most anything til you hit 75, then you break out the left-over pizza from the lunchstop and take the edge off that mid-afternoon hunger pang as you make steady progress wherever the group is heading. You can have a good laugh and finger point at all the SuperHawk riders, cause they blow you away on the straight, but youre laughin in your helmet knowing they're sweatin to make it to the next possible gas stop. A KLR saves you from having a Big-ass PU, with ramps, tiedowns, trucker mudflaps, and stoopid-ass bumperstickers to haul it around for riding. A KLR saves you from having to wear those MTV Gen moto-rags with the disfunctional graphics. And even though you might like to use the word 'Dooodddeee', you're not, like, required to, like, use it as every fourth word, like, doooooddddeeee. > > Somebody's got to up the ante now. I don't care if it's a bigger DR or KLR > or an even comfier XR. But something's got to give. Oh, they will. But so far, they're all a lot less in total than a KLR - DRZ, XR, Bagheira no rack, less range, not any more power to speak of, more expensive, if they are as roadworthy, they're much heavier. If they're better off-road, they're a nightmare on the Frwy. > > I hope, and think, it will give in our favor. It behooves Kawasaki to > significantly update the KLR now. And Honda, and Suzuki, Aprilia, and > everyone else for that matter. > Geoff- > www.oldrice.com Happy to let Kawi throw an additonal 'nuevo' MTV gen bike at the market.. But let the KLR linger as long as it may. Is there ANY other REAL bike you can buy for $5k or less? Itz not 'OLD', its a freekin wonder. js rode a couple models of MZ thumpers - freekin boneshakers with cantankerous personalities. And if having children of your own is not a real plan, then bumpstarting an MZ won't be a problem.
Well, a DR650 certainly could.> What other street-worthy machine can hold itz own on a long on-road tour > weighs in at 338 lbs (no liquids) - nothing.
True enough, but the DR650 can.> What other street-worthy machine can really go off-road successfully, not a > handful. Certainly not the BMW GSs or other large-ass DS's. They're nice on
Hmm, Suzuki makes one, called the DR650. Though you'll want to swap out the seat first because it makes the KLR seat look like a plush sofa.> What other real off-road capable (maybe not optimum) machine can haul big > gear for days on end?
And *THAT* is where the DR650 stops being a usable machine, and is the main reason I have a KLR.> What other off-road capable and on-road capable machine can run for well > over 200 miles between fuels stops?
No, what appears low tech is really low tech. A more refined KLR would have a more effective counterbalancer mechanism (heck, the DR vibrates less than a KLR and it only has *one* counterbalancer), a more refined KLR would have a cylinder head that flowed better so that you could get more horsepower and torque out of the beast, a more refined KLR probably would have a dual-spark-plug head so it could meet modern emissions standards (the KLR can't, which is why it is no longer sold in most European countries, it is incapable of meeting their emissions standards).> What appears low tech is really refinement.
If the KLR actually had torque I'd believe this explanation. But it doesn't. Not compared to the big bore dirt bikes I've ridden in the past, anyhow. Heck, even some small bore bikes I've ridden in the past, for that matter. I wheelied a 1984 Honda XL-350 through an intersection once by grabbing a handful. I've never done that on my KLR. Let's face it, the KLR engine is a nice, mild engine that doesn't have gobs of horsepower OR gobs of torque. Its only redeeming quality is a power curve as broad as the Mississippi.> The reason we have an under 40 > hp motor is cause torque is everything under a load.
As will most modern motorcycle engines.> It's also why the motor > will last for an ungodly number of miles if given regular attention.
Better breathing, the thing the KLR lacks most, would add ounces at best.> Trying to add more muscle would only add weight, and if not weight then a > 'tender' nature rather than what the US Military realizes, it being a total
Actually, a dual-plug thumper with a bigger bore and shorter stroke could be as light as the KLR, have more horsepower than the KLR while still having a nice wide torque curve, and could breach the ton (albeit barely). Not that anybody would want to do that on a 350 pound bike!> Its a light bike because its a thumper, it doesn;t have huge power cause its > a thumper. It can do almost anything, except breach the ton, because it's a > thumper.
In the end it doesn't matter. If Kawasaki doesn't refine the KLR motor with a better head and fuel injection, the KLR is dead - the EPA will emissions control it right out existence.> FI and some motor refinement might give it a 10% power boost, but at what > cost? Less ability for home grown mechs to work on their own machines. Less
Certainly. That's why I have my KLR. That and the amazing amount of farkle. I like having a bike I can farkle to my tastes. If I didn't have a KLR, I'd have some other farkle-able bike.> 5.5 to 6 gals is awesome!
As is true of other dual-sport thumpers. Kawasaki doesn't make tires, after all! -E> Huge selection of rubber to fit any taste/desire/need.
If the KLR had been constantly updated over the years, you wouldn't still be able to buy one new for five bills. If it weighed 300 pounds, made 50 hp and had wp suspension, it would cost $8500.> Actually - I think this is a good thing. Maybe it will get Kawasaki and > Honda and Suzuki to get up off their duff and deliver us something a little > better than the current KLR. I like the KLR a lot - but if Kawasaki or any > other mfgr for that matter, updated the large cc dual sports the way they do > their CBR's and R1's - we'd all be riding better KLR's on steroids. Much > like the KTM Adventure without any of the shortcomings including the price. > Like a KTM A for half the price. >