using the space "inside" left happy trails su rack

DSN_KLR650
Post Reply
eclipsed_thought
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 3:56 pm

older klr's

Post by eclipsed_thought » Thu Jan 03, 2002 3:56 pm

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

Mark St.Hilaire, Sr

older klr's

Post by Mark St.Hilaire, Sr » Thu Jan 03, 2002 4:15 pm

> 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.
I'm certainly no expert, but I'm pretty sure that 1996 and earlier models were thoughtfully equipped by Kawasaki with a significant badness. I'm sure that someone who DOES know what they're talking about can be more specific... Wise men still seek Him... Mark St.Hilaire, Sr A15 HomePage: http://home.adelphia.net/~msaint/index.html KLR650 Pages: http://klr6500.tripod.com/ Valve Check & Adjustment Guide: http://klr6500.tripod.com/valves.html

Zachariah Mully
Posts: 1897
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 7:50 am

older klr's

Post by Zachariah Mully » Thu Jan 03, 2002 4:25 pm

Nope no badness in the On Thu, 2002-01-03 at 17:15, Mark St.Hilaire, Sr wrote: > > 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. > > I'm certainly no expert, but I'm pretty sure that 1996 and earlier models > were thoughtfully equipped by Kawasaki with a significant badness. I'm > sure that someone who DOES know what they're talking about can be more > specific... > > > Wise men still seek Him... > > Mark St.Hilaire, Sr > A15 >