What about the KLE500, it looks like a dual sport and is a twin... not
sure if it is imported to the US/Canada
Brent
Tengai rider, Fergus, Canada
----------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From:
DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of transalp eddie
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 5:08 PM
To: KLR650 list
Subject: Re: [DSN_KLR650] KLR vs. Transalp
We got them for two model years here in the US: 1989 & 1990. The 89's
were
the postal truck white with red/blue stripes.
In 90', the color choices were red and a metallic bronze-ish color.
They were all priced near what a new CBR600 sold for. Not good in this
market at all. How bad of a sales dog were they?
Example: I bought a zero mile 89' new in 1993. It'd sat on the showroom
that long.
eddie
> [Original Message]
> From: Chris Norloff
>
> Cc: KLR650 list DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com
>
> Date: 6/1/2009 4:46:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [DSN_KLR650] KLR vs. Transalp
>
> Is the Honda Transalp available in the US? New? Used but less than 10
> years old?
>
> I thought that was one of the great bikes that don't make it into the
US.
>
> I sure would like a 2-cylinder DualSport bike. I'm getting thumped a
lot
> with that single cylinder.
>
> thx
> Chris
>
>
> transalp eddie wrote:
> > After clocking well over 100km total on two 89' XL600V Transalps,
here's my
> > early comparison with the roughly 500km I've got total on the KLR so
far:
> > Weight: The Hondas are heavier and felt it. I took them off road a
good
bit
> > at times and had to be careful.
> > Height: I'm short. Even with a Corbin seat, a Transalp is a tall
beastie.
> > The KLR is even taller.
> > But, my philosophy is simple> It's the bike's job to hold me
> > up, not the other way a round. I'm just there to provide balance.
> >
> > Brakes: With two discs vs. the Honda single disc/drum set up , the
nod
goes
> > to the KLR. The later Transalps have better brakes, however.
> > Durability: I'd say it's a tie. These are tough machines. Maintain
'em
and
> > they go a LONG way.
> > Range: The KLR has a bigger fuel tank with comparable mpg to the
Honda.
> >
> > Maint. Chores: That's split area. The valves on the Honda are screw
&
> > locknut adjustment.
> > It was really easy once you got the tank & plastic bodywork off.
> > It used to take me about 3 hours to change the oil, filter, plugs,
set the
> > valves and synch the carbs.
> > The KLR has but one cylinder, 1 spark plug (to the Hondas 4 - two
per
cyl.)
> > & 1 carb. But, it has shim valve adjustment.
> > Engine: You gotta love that old 52 degree Honda V-twin. Tuned up and
> > synchronized, it's a really smooth ride.
> > The tranny shifted well and I never replaced a clutch. KLR? It a
> > counterbalanced thumper. It has character.
> > That is to say it shakes. But, not a bad kind of shake. LOL
> >
> > eddie
> >
> >
> >>> [Original Message]
> >>> From: Tumu Rock
>
> >>> To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com
>
> >>> Date: 5/31/2009 1:10:31 PM
> >>> Subject: [DSN_KLR650] Re: New member / KLR vs. Transalp
> >>>
> >>> --- In
DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com
, "transalp eddie"
> >>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>> Hello all!
> >>>>
> >>>> I've been a KLR650 owner only since last Saturday and already I'm
> >>>>
> >> hooked!
> >>
> >>>> Previous bikes include two 1989 Honda Transalps
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> How's the KLR compare to the Transalp? The Transalp is the bike
that
I
> >>>
> >> originally wanted but ended up with a KLR. They look mighty similar
in
http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650Yahoo> ! Groups Links
http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650Yahoo> ! Groups Links
http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650Yahoo> ! Groups Links
>
>
>