Joe,
Good discussion. My brother went from a KLR650 to a DR650 (he couldn't
resist "stealing" a slightly used DR). So far, the one that likes the DR
the most over the KLR is my 5'6", 120# daughter. When I have tried the DR,
I'm very impressed with the lower center of gravity. Neither my brother
nor I were ever bothered by the amount of vibration with the KLR. We're
planning on 2 weeks of riding in southern BC starting 6/18, so I imagine
opinions will begin to solidify during that time.
Richard in Tucson
94 KLR650
86 VFR750
> Hi;
> Read your post with great interest. Having owned both a 96 KLR650 and a
99
> DR650 I thought you might be interested in a different perspective.
> I wanted a KLR for a long time. I saw it as a lightweight adventure
> tourer and imagined using it primarily for long day tours of Mt. Hood and
> the Oregon Coastal range. In a way it was many of those things. The fuel
> range is good, the seating position and the seat are relatively
comfortable,
> the mini-fairing does a so so job of breaking up wind. Unfortunately for
me
> I found that the vibration was hand numbing and I did not care for the top
> heavy tippy feeling of the bike on dirt road excursions. I never felt
like
> I had full control of it. I stand at 6' and have a 32" inseam. A taller
> person might easily have felt more in control of the bike and not worried
> about it. I would not have wanted to ride it on anything rougher than a
> graded dirt road myself although I know many people do.
> Enter the DR650. The salesman told you some half-truths. Suzuki did
a
> redesign of the bike in 1996, lightened it, some engine improvements such
as
> a composite material in the cylinder liner for durability improvement and
a
> generally more dirt focused mission than the KLR. Most of the magazines
who
> tested them called it a 50/50 bike, meaning 50 per cent road and 50 per
cent
> dirt. The KLR is often characterized as more 70/30 with a street bias.
In
> my view the DR is infinitely smoother in terms of vibration and due to the
> fact that the weight mass is carried lower and the bike has a smaller
> overall feeling I feel much more comfortable on it if the ground turns
> rough. It simply does not have the top heavy feeling of the KLR. I would
> also say that the suspension as delivered is better on the Suzuki although
> neither is as good as a well set up bike with cartridge forks. (It also
> has the advantage of being able to be lowered further still with a factory
> kit if the stock bike is still too tall.)
> The disadvantage of the Suzuki is that the tank is relatively small, 3.5
gal
> lons I believe, and the seat is not much for extended rides. a larger
> plastic tank is available from IMS, (5 gallons) and I am sure you could
> either get a Corbin seat or have the stocker reconfigured. Suzuki also
> sells a gel seat although it is the same general shape as stock which I
> would have my doubts about the benefits of. (BTW, changing seats on a KLR
> is a common thing, many find they can't live with the stock seat on them).
> It all comes down to preferences and you may find that the vibration of
> theKLR isn't that big a deal to you, many say so or try to find various
> cures. For me I felt that the general feel of the DR and smoothness was
> much preferable. I would far rather change a gas tank and seat than try
to
> overcome basic engineering flaws. Curiously I also found the Suzuki just
> generally more fun to ride. I find it has a more lively feel to the
engine,
> much easier to wheelie and feels quite a bit faster than the KLR. I doubt
> if it really is that much, if any faster, but it just feels like it.
> Either bike has its pros and cons. I suggest you actually ride both
> before forming any decision unless your heart is just set on the KLR. If
so
> buy it and have a ball. If not give them both a try and I think you will
be
> surprised how different their personalities are.