digest number 7630

[Bill Watson]

To me, this is the best possible upgrade scenario, I did NOT expect this. I figured they'd either change the graphics yet again, or do a total redo. This is great for us, I believe... 1) they've used much of the existing bike (that we have a great aftermarket for)... PLUS updated (most) of the things that could stand upgrading. 2) Dual-piston front caliper and larger wave rotor, wave rotor in rear. Probably will still be a market for braided-steel brake lines but it's an improvement, not to mention a looks improvement in the brakes department. By using what appears to be the same front hub, we can still bolt on our 320mm rotors once the brackets are fabbed. 3) WAY better styling bringing the bike up 20 years in looks (we all know it is STILL a big Garden Tractor but doesn't look like it anymore...). Took away a bunch of the Paris-to-Dakar look that was over, say, during the Reagan administration. Man, the lows of the existing bike, IMO, have been the fairing and the "German army helmet" rear fender. VERY glad to see those gone. Our very-functional rack looks better now and still functional. The "Handle" now is still useful as a handle but now increases platform area and doubles as a hook. 4) better cylinder head but keeping the rest of the simple powertrain unchanged. Well, I sure would have liked to see a six-speed and bet the doo will still be an issue, but we've got Eagle Mike to solve that! I'd think keeping the carb was a great thing. 5) looks like they finally addressed the rear wheel chain adjustment, sheesh the old setup is straight off a 1967 Honda. Still, looks like they didn't go to the classic open swingarm-ends with adjustment snails that Honda brought out, oh, in 1983? Hope I'm surprised here. What, are there patents that Honda has that keep Kawasaki from updating here? 6) Finally, a larger foot on the kickstand... 7) Dual headlights and a little more electrical reserve... excellent. I rode a buddy's V-Strom at night, WOW I hadn't appreciated how bad our headlight setup was. 8) And an improved cooling system... looks like they opened up the radiator's exit area finally, and insinuate they might have a hotter thermostat as well? The thing it needs the most IMO is a bypass, maybe they added one? If not, we still can. Blake wrote:

>> I wonder how we can get Bill Watson to evaluate the new cooling system...

Just loan me a bike for a few weeks, Blake! As you can tell, I'm pretty happy with the upgrade, I might not wait that long. Bill Watson Phoenix --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger s low PC-to-Phone call rates. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Blake Sobiloff]

On 9/24/06, Bogdan Swider wrote:

> I don't understand why in this day and time they didn't go for fuel > injection. BMW singles - thus fitted - get 70 mpg.

I think Eric summarized BigK's philosophy--change as little as possible. I think that the changes for 2008 are mostly driven by emissions requirements. However, I thought that manufacturers were having to move to FI and at least 1-way (if not 3-way) cats to meet the 2008 requirements. I may be confused between the CA and Federal phase-in dates (CA is usually a couple of years earlier than the rest of the US). [Googles for a whlie] OK, it looks like at the Federal level there are two phases of increased emissions controls required; one that went into effect in 2006 and another that'll come into effect in 2010. CA's implementation of the 2010 rules goes into effect in 2008. http://www.epa.gov/OMS/regs/roadbike/420f03045.pdf> I guess BigK can meet the 2008/2010 emissions requirements without FI or a cat, and they've made those changes for the 2008 MY so that they'll still be able to sell KLRs in CA come 2008. Cool! -- Blake Sobiloff http://sobiloff.typepad.com/> http://sobiloff.typepad.com/klr_adventure/> San Jose, CA (USA)

[E.L. Green]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Bogdan Swider" wrote:

> I don't understand why in this day and time they didn't go for fuel > injection. BMW singles - thus fitted - get 70 mpg.

BMW singles also cost $8000 MSRP vs. $5500 MSRP. And for the first few years after they introduced the fuel-injected BMW singles, they ran like crap, with lots of surging issues and poor throttle response and with strange failure modes, to the point where a lot of BMW owners were clamoring for the return of the reliable ole' carburetors and saying they'd never give up their (carbureted) F650 "classics". If Kawasaki can meet emissions standards with a carburetor rather than with fuel injection, a carburetor meets their corporate goals (a bike that is cheap to build and doesn't require a lot of continuing engineering) better. Fuel injection would take them several model-years to get right and until then the bike would run like crap. I don't know how they're managing to meet the new emissions standards using a carburetor. But if they're doing it, I'm not going to complain. The KLR's carburetor is pretty much a foolproof failure-free device, as long as you store it properly and don't allow it to varnish up. The only common failure mode of the KLR's carburetor is an aging-related one where an older and more brittle diaphragm tears, and that only affects carbs that are 5 years old or older, which KHI doesn't really care about (the new standards says that the bike must meet emissions for the typical lifespan of a new bike of 18,500 miles or 5 years, and after that it's no longer the manufacturer's problem). So while fuel injection would be nice because of the MPG and and power improvements, there's something to be said for foolproof and trouble-free... _E

[Don S]

Well put Eric. I would like to point out however that Kawasaki have a fuel injected atv. Their 750 Brute Force V twin is fuel injected. There are also a number of other brands of atvs that are fuel injected. Arctic Cat and Suzuki both have 700 cc singles that are fuel injected and work well. One would assume that an atv will be subjected to very harsh off road conditions. If the fuel injection survives on the atv, the KLR would likely not have too much of a teething problem adapting to EFI. As you pointed out though, a carb can be repaired and/or adjusted with very little mechanical involvement compared to EFI. If the fuel injection system craps out, it is highly unlikely that there will be a roadside fix. I like EFI and appreciate it's benefits. The thought of a system fiailure is enough to keep my preference for fuel delivery by carburetor for the time being. Don "E.L. Green" wrote:

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Bogdan Swider" wrote: > I don't understand why in this day and time they didn't go for fuel > injection. BMW singles - thus fitted - get 70 mpg. BMW singles also cost $8000 MSRP vs. $5500 MSRP. And for the first few years after they introduced the fuel-injected BMW singles, they ran like crap, with lots of surging issues and poor throttle response and with strange failure modes, to the point where a lot of BMW owners were clamoring for the return of the reliable ole' carburetors and saying they'd never give up their (carbureted) F650 "classics". If Kawasaki can meet emissions standards with a carburetor rather than with fuel injection, a carburetor meets their corporate goals (a bike that is cheap to build and doesn't require a lot of continuing engineering) better. Fuel injection would take them several model-years to get right and until then the bike would run like crap. I don't know how they're managing to meet the new emissions standards using a carburetor. But if they're doing it, I'm not going to complain. The KLR's carburetor is pretty much a foolproof failure-free device, as long as you store it properly and don't allow it to varnish up. The only common failure mode of the KLR's carburetor is an aging-related one where an older and more brittle diaphragm tears, and that only affects carbs that are 5 years old or older, which KHI doesn't really care about (the new standards says that the bike must meet emissions for the typical lifespan of a new bike of 18,500 miles or 5 years, and after that it's no longer the manufacturer's problem). So while fuel injection would be nice because of the MPG and and power improvements, there's something to be said for foolproof and trouble-free... _E --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger s low PC-to-Phone call rates. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dennis Griffin]

I don't believe that KHI has any FI'd ATV's. I know for a fact that my '06 750 Brute Force 4x4i has carbs, and that was a large consideration in choosing it over a few other quads I considered that have EFI. You may have seen 750 or 650 4x4i emblems on the Kawasaki quads, but in this case, the "i" designates Independent Rear Suspension, not EFI. The EFI on my three cylinder Triumph 955 Daytona & Sprint RS works great and I'm happy to have it there, but for an escape machine like my KLR650 is, I'll take a carb, thank you. Just the other day, I had mine off, mod'ed and back on in under an hour. I don't feel that the extra expense and complexity of EFI belongs on a single cylinder machine like the KLR, nor would it improve performance appreciably. Dennis Scottsdale, AZ

On Sep 24, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Don S wrote: > Well put Eric. > > I would like to point out however that Kawasaki have a fuel > injected atv. Their 750 Brute Force V twin is fuel injected. There > are also a number of other brands of atvs that are fuel injected. > Arctic Cat and Suzuki both have 700 cc singles that are fuel > injected and work well. One would assume that an atv will be > subjected to very harsh off road conditions. If the fuel injection > survives on the atv, the KLR would likely not have too much of a > teething problem adapting to EFI. As you pointed out though, a carb > can be repaired and/or adjusted with very little mechanical > involvement compared to EFI. If the fuel injection system craps > out, it is highly unlikely that there will be a roadside fix. I > like EFI and appreciate it's benefits. The thought of a system > fiailure is enough to keep my preference for fuel delivery by > carburetor for the time being. > > Don > > "E.L. Green" wrote: > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Bogdan Swider" > wrote: > > I don't understand why in this day and time they didn't go for fuel > > injection. BMW singles - thus fitted - get 70 mpg. > > BMW singles also cost $8000 MSRP vs. $5500 MSRP. And for the first few > years after they introduced the fuel-injected BMW singles, they ran > like crap, with lots of surging issues and poor throttle response and > with strange failure modes, to the point where a lot of BMW owners > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Don S]

Hi Dennis. Thanks for the correction. You're right. The BF750i isn't fuel injected. Believe it or not, I was recently shopping for a new atv and I was certain that the BF750 had EFI. I looked at the BF and had it in my head that it was. I didn't have any brochures on it to check before sending my message. Too many models to choose from must have muddled my memory I guess. I was about to buy the BF650i but it didn't quite suit my purposes. I needed something that was more utilitarian so I went with the Arctic Cat 500 auto. Power plant is Suzuki. The rest of the machine is AC. No EFI on it either. If the EFI on the atvs proves reliable, it would be a welcome addition on the KLR, im my opinion. Don Dennis Griffin wrote: I don't believe that KHI has any FI'd ATV's. I know for a fact that my '06 750 Brute Force 4x4i has carbs, and that was a large consideration in choosing it over a few other quads I considered that have EFI. You may have seen 750 or 650 4x4i emblems on the Kawasaki quads, but in this case, the "i" designates Independent Rear Suspension, not EFI. The EFI on my three cylinder Triumph 955 Daytona & Sprint RS works great and I'm happy to have it there, but for an escape machine like my KLR650 is, I'll take a carb, thank you. Just the other day, I had mine off, mod'ed and back on in under an hour. I don't feel that the extra expense and complexity of EFI belongs on a single cylinder machine like the KLR, nor would it improve performance appreciably. Dennis Scottsdale, AZ

On Sep 24, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Don S wrote: > Well put Eric. > > I would like to point out however that Kawasaki have a fuel > injected atv. Their 750 Brute Force V twin is fuel injected. There > are also a number of other brands of atvs that are fuel injected. > Arctic Cat and Suzuki both have 700 cc singles that are fuel > injected and work well. One would assume that an atv will be > subjected to very harsh off road conditions. If the fuel injection > survives on the atv, the KLR would likely not have too much of a > teething problem adapting to EFI. As you pointed out though, a carb > can be repaired and/or adjusted with very little mechanical > involvement compared to EFI. If the fuel injection system craps > out, it is highly unlikely that there will be a roadside fix. I > like EFI and appreciate it's benefits. The thought of a system > fiailure is enough to keep my preference for fuel delivery by > carburetor for the time being. > > Don > > "E.L. Green" wrote: > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Bogdan Swider" > wrote: > > I don't understand why in this day and time they didn't go for fuel > > injection. BMW singles - thus fitted - get 70 mpg. > > BMW singles also cost $8000 MSRP vs. $5500 MSRP. And for the first few > years after they introduced the fuel-injected BMW singles, they ran > like crap, with lots of surging issues and poor throttle response and > with strange failure modes, to the point where a lot of BMW owners > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --------------------------------- Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Tengai Mark Van Horn]

At 8:27 PM +0000 9/23/06, E.L. Green wrote:

>--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Sobiloff" wrote: >> >> On 9/23/06, Matt Knowles wrote: >> > Well it sounds like there's a lot to like in the new model. Better >> > alternator, stiffer forks, better brakes, better suspension, better >> > seat. A bit more power, and a nicer fairing. >> >> Don't forget a little larger gas tank, > >Not sure of that. Claimed gas tank capacity is same as Kawasaki has >always claimed for the KLR.

Actually looks like the same old tank, just has different mounting points for the fairing welded onto it.

>> and I doubt the new >> brakes offer much improvement (20 mm isn't that big of a >> difference--probably just enough to keep up with the additional >> weight).

I never got a real close look, but I'm guessing that they're recycling the forks and brakes from the C-model. My Tengai uses an EX500/older Ninja600 brake caliper with a 20mm larger rotor. The braking is a big difference vs the standard KLR650. Mark

[Tengai Mark Van Horn]

At 9:18 PM +0000 9/23/06, E.L. Green wrote:

>Obviously fork springs are going to be an issue. ...

I'll bet the "old" progressive springs (pn 1158?) will work in those forks.

>I think it's ugly faux-BMW myself, but hey, the current KLR isn't >exactly a beauty pageant winner either .

I like the new look and I always felt the KLR just needed a re-skin.

>The interesting thing will >be noting how long it takes the boys at Happy Trail to gin up some new >PD Nerf bars to protect the bigger radiator and plastics...

And if that plastic is ABS, folks won't want to take the bike offroad without Nerfs. Mark

[Tengai Mark Van Horn]

Ooops... my bad... I just read that the forks are 41mm, so scrap the "old Progressive Srping idea." Matk

[cactus_reese]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Sobiloff" wrote:

> I'm not so keen on the reduced suspension travel, and we don't know > what the overall weight is, but I'm guessing that it'll be a bit > lardier than ever. [sigh] >

I'm mostly disapointed in the reduced suspension travel. I just rode up the backside of Mt Lemmon, rutted after the monsoons, and came upon two BMW 650GSs crawling along with their reduced suspension travel. We spoke a bit and then I waved goodbye saying I'd see them at the top. I never saw them again. -Bryan