Wilsons Sandbox

I think the question is is 7 years worth $1100. If you go to sell it in a couple years you'll get most of that $1100 back. To me having a 7 year newer bike is worth it. newer seals, rubber thingies in the carbs,bearing less likely to be corroded. i think there is an analogy to women in here somewhere...... --- eclipsed_thought wrote:

> Hi all, > > I'm considering the purchase of a KLR650. I've been > looking around > for a used bike, and I'm debating whether I should > go for a late model > (say 99 and up), or an earlier one. > > I found a nearby 92 model with 9100 miles in great > cond for $1900. > On the other hand, I also found a 99 with 14000 > miles with an asking > price of 3 grand. The 92 is in slightly better > condition > cosmetically. > > Is there any practical reason I should go for the > late model vs. the > 92? I read somewhere that these bikes have changed > very little since > their inception in 87. Aside from, what in my > opinion is a nicer > color scheme on the 99, I think I'm leaning toward > the 92, but I > thought I'd see what you experts have to say. > > Thanks, > mikko > > > Checkout Dual Sport News at > http://www.dualsportnews.com > Be part of the Adventure! > > Visit the KLR650 archives at > http://www.listquest.com/lq/search.html?ln=klr650 > > Post message: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com > Subscribe: DSN_klr650-subscribe@yahoogroups.com > Unsubscribe: DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > List owner: DSN_klr650-owner@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com

>At 9:55 PM +0000 1/3/02, eclipsed_thought wrote: >I found a nearby 92 model with 9100 miles in great cond for $1900. >On the other hand, I also found a 99 with 14000 miles with an asking >price of 3 grand. The 92 is in slightly better condition >cosmetically. > >Is there any practical reason I should go for the late model vs. the >92? I read somewhere that these bikes have changed very little since >their inception in 87. Aside from, what in my opinion is a nicer >color scheme on the 99, I think I'm leaning toward the 92, but I >thought I'd see what you experts have to say.

Get the '92. Mark B2 A2 A3

I'd buy the '92. You'll save a wad of cash that you can spend on accessories, tires, and travel. I had an A1 that went 40K trouble- free miles (except for a rectifier replacement) before I sold it. I like the slightly easier clutch pull of my A11, but preferred the heavier flywheel of the A1 for torqueing around. I don't think any of the 'updates' are worth $1100. For me, it comes down to the condition of the bike, the miles on the clock, and the price. Arden Kysely

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., "eclipsed_thought" wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm considering the purchase of a KLR650. I've been looking around > for a used bike, and I'm debating whether I should go for a late model > (say 99 and up), or an earlier one. > > I found a nearby 92 model with 9100 miles in great cond for $1900. > On the other hand, I also found a 99 with 14000 miles with an asking > price of 3 grand. The 92 is in slightly better condition > cosmetically. > > Is there any practical reason I should go for the late model vs. the > 92? I read somewhere that these bikes have changed very little since > their inception in 87. Aside from, what in my opinion is a nicer > color scheme on the 99, I think I'm leaning toward the 92, but I > thought I'd see what you experts have to say. > > Thanks, > mikko

My first KLR was an '87 and largely trouble free to 40k miles, when I sold it because I got a great deal on a used '97. The regulator/rectifier burned out and the gas tank got a pin hole rust- thru leak on the lower left lobe when it was 8 or 9 years old. I had it soldered at a radiator shop and all was well. My '97 is going strong at 32k miles. Don't think there were any changes between '97 and '99. If it were me, I'd buy the '87 as it's the best looking KLR every made 8~) How much are they? __Arden

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "jguarfn28" wrote: > > Being older and broker, what's the general concensus on older KLR's. > Say 1999's and 1987 versions. Are there any problems particular to > those year versions? I remember that somewhere in the 90's the > kickstarter disappeared and the # of final drive bolts changed > somehow. The bikes in question have 15k and 17k on the smiles meter. > I realize that if the bikes are fairly good looking,that goes a long > way toward demonstrating if they were well taken care of. Radiator and > gas tank problems to watch for? Thanks for the advice in advance. > > Rick Foley > Rio Rancho, NM >

I remember last fall there was some talk about ways to use the space where the muffler "isn't" on the left of the Happy Trails SU racks. There's a nice mounting tab there from the smog stuff and I know a lot of us have wondered about mounting a toolkit or something there... I ended up picking up two of those water bottle racks for bicycles from K-Mart and mounting them in there with some angle iron type stuff. They fit beautifully, and I kept a small bottle of lube and a can of WD40 on them for 11k miles with no problems. I really wanted to keep a thing of lube and some oil, but I didn't come across a bottle that wouldn't develop a leak from bouncing around... need something thicker than the coke bottles etc I was trying. Anyway, I posted the pics up on the homepage if anyone cares: http://autos.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/DSN_KLR650/photos/browse/1e03 -Luke Brooklyn NY 92 CB750 nighthawk--naked simpleton 03 KLR650--fat girl with a dirty mind ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather