|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Norton? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1201979983 Message started by Gort on 02/02/08 at 11:19:43 |
|
Title: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Norton? Post by Gort on 02/02/08 at 11:19:43 An earlier post questioned the reliability of the Savage, but it did not say reliable compared to what. Does anyone have the experience to compare it to the 1960s-1970s single cylinder bikes it was modeled after, like the Triumph, Norton & BSAs? How does it compare to them in handling and reliability? |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/02/08 at 12:43:51 There would be something horribly wrong with it if it wasn't a whole lot better - you can hardly compare 1980s technology with 1960s. Compared to most other modern Japanese bikes the LS is flawed - it's unbelievably slow, handles like a croc, doesn't stop, has a major problem with the cam chain tensioner falling out before the chain reaches service limit, and has typically dubious Suzuki quality issues on surface finish. However, it does have character, it's unique in its layout and style, and it has its very own charm. If people want a high performance bike, they buy one, if they one a quirky little single cylinder custom bike, it has to be the Savage. Anybody who wants performance, handling, brakes or power and buys a Savage has the wrong bike. Compared to the sixties stuff, the Savage's electrics are going to be in another league for reliability, and it doesn't throw oil all over your jeans like most old British bikes do. The motor will run a lot longer without rebuild than an old brit machine as well. However, a few of them would out-turn it because their steering geometry is more practical, and maybe out-power it too. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by T Mack 1 on 02/02/08 at 13:14:10 023E2822073C3D490 wrote:
Can't compare it to the old thumpers, ........ BUT it out did a '03 Honda 750 Shadow Spirit (VT750DC) my friend has.... that is until about 70 mph. It stops about the same.... we both almost ran into the back side of an old pick-up with no functioning taillights.... about 3 feet to spare (1 meter) It will never out do a sport bike, or a racer. At approx 11 1/3 lbs per HP (stock) it's just a laid back cruiser (but that ratio beats most Harley's ;D ) |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by SavageDude on 02/02/08 at 17:24:18 281402082D1617630 wrote:
It's no brainer here ::) Savage is a cruiser and is not meant to go so darn fast that you can't stop it. Any fool that ride this thing so fast and cannot stop the beast deserve to die. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Polar_Pilot on 02/02/08 at 18:26:13 I agree with everything that has been said so far except one thing. The basic design issues of the British Thumpers you are referring to in all cases reaches back into the 40's post war and in some cases - Ariel Red Hunter back pre war. So the comparison is over 40-50 years and that makes it meaningless. Examples - well counter rotating balance shafts, solenoid controlled decompresser sterring geometry - the list just goes on and on. Once upon a time I owned a 1939 Ariel Red Hunter -500cc single- girder forks -magneto for electrics - it was a teror to start and control was questioable at all speeds :) |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Gort on 02/02/08 at 18:37:13 75495F55704B4A3E0 wrote:
Are modern day electrics really preferable? What are you going to do when the Savage's solid state electronic ignition dies? You roll to a stop and hope you are not in the middle of nowhere on a cold night, and hope that you have the $ to buy the very expensive components, towing fees and motel room costs if your not near home. And all this is assuming you can diagnose the failed solid state computerized components yourself. I wish I could replace all this with a simple set of breaker points, condensor and simple coil. I can easily carry spares of these on the bike and they almost always give warning signs before they die. With this kind of system, I can get home! |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Polar_Pilot on 02/02/08 at 18:53:48 Quote:
Yep you can do that stuff - but there is little question of the superiority of modern day electrics and your "what if" scenarios are so far apart and so infrequent as to me non issues. I have been an owner and rider of a 1989 Savage since 1999- I am an avid internet reader on this motorcycle and I do not remember a single posting about trouble with the ignition systems |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Holodeck on 02/02/08 at 18:58:52 I owned 53 BSA Goldstar and a 61 Velocette. Parts would fall off and go rolling down the street all the time. I ended up only riding on the hill above my house so I could coast it home when it broke. Turned me off motor bikes for a long time untill I bought my Savage. 100 miles into my 1st ride it sputered to a stop. I thought --here we go again. I checked the reserve and it started right up. 12 k later and all the Savage has done is start right up exactly the same way every time and run. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by verslagen1 on 02/02/08 at 21:20:04 4576706C7176040 wrote:
I guess you'd perfer a guarranteed failure against a maybe? Sure, solder joints will fail... after 20 to 30 years. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/02/08 at 21:48:50 65594F45605B5A2E0 wrote:
Quote:
People, if they are intelligent, buy the motocycle that best suits them and how and where they ride. If they follow motorcycle racing and want something to take out on weekends to play racer with -- yeah, they should buy a highly engineered (AKA quirky) high performance motorcycle. On the other hand, if they want a lightweight easy to handle bike with a nice fat powerband they'll be looking for a Thumper. If they have the height to handle it, a dirt bike based motocycle; otherwise a few choices of street bikes. Quote:
I do not want race track performance and handling. I am not riding on a race track, nor am I pretending to be a racer. I am not riding the twisties seeing how much over the legal speed limit I can go. The performance I want is a fat torque band; the ability to pull top gear smoothly from 30 mph -OR- merge onto the freeway in second. This equates to a single cylinder engine; your 'high performance' engines have far too narrow of a usable powerband for my riding. The handling I need is not knee scraping but flickability -- the ability to change direction in a heartbeat as threats approach from left right or center. For this, light weight is a plus, again a characteristic of a single cylinder bike. But the question is not "does the performance of the Savage fit my motorcycling needs." The question is reliability. I got thumper with a hair over 5000 miles. Over three years I've added 18,000 miles to that. I've mostly kept up on oil changes. But that's all I've done. I have not done the valves. I have not touched the carb. I have never even seen my sparkplug. Bike starts quickly, runs strong, has never stranded me. Pretty darn reliable in my opinion. But then, I merely ride this thing 320+ days a year -- what do I know! |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by PerrydaSavage on 02/03/08 at 03:19:17 Well said Paladin! 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/03/08 at 03:30:56 201315091413610 wrote:
You're quite right that you can carry spares for old-fashioned points ignition and the like. I've done so plenty, and fixed stuff on the side of the road, many times, had the odd bike that I knew I'd always have to repair before I got where I was going. I've also been unable to fix old stuff a few times at the side of the road, and maybe I've been lucky because I've never once suffered the total solid state failure that can sometimes happen with modern stuff, in 25 years of riding dozens of modern bikes adding up several hundred thousand miles of two-wheeled riding. I'd take the risk of one total failure every few years if it means I can just twist and go inbetween and not worry about carrying spares or tool kits. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/03/08 at 07:21:14 Jees Paladin, I expressed an opinion on the bike, I was mistakenly under the illusion that we all had the right to an opinion without somebody taking insult from the Savage being described as ‘quirky’ – which it is, but in a nice way. I didn’t think somebody would react to such a harmless opinion like having his grandmother assaulted. Then in the same breath you say “Your opinion, in my opinion, blows” with startling hypocrisy – at what point did I direct insult at you? What’s your problem buddy – wife not giving you any? I like the Savage. I like its quirkiness, its unique place in the market. I wasn’t knocking it, I was being honest. It has no power – 30hp is a joke from a 650, and there’s not even much torque. Even most small Jap twins have engines with more grunt. Most of the Jap fours deliver smooth useable power from 1500 to 10000 or 12000+rpm; I’ve had 1000, 1100 and 1200cc Jap fours which deliver way over 150bhp and do so smoothly, reliably, and with plenty of torque. Don’t think just because they have a bit of top end power that they don’t drive like a pussycat round town – they do. The poor old Savage doesn’t handle – do you honestly think a bike with that steering angle changes direction in a heartbeat? Light or not, the handling is dreadful, no feedback from the front tyre and unwieldy handling compared to something that’s designed to handle. It’s designed for looks – and hey, I LIKE that, I like the bike, and I didn’t get one for performance, I got it for bobbing around my city at low speeds, chugging through traffic, which it’s really comfortable for. If it’s not flawed, how come so many people need cam chains or tensioner mods? How come the exhausts manifold and header need sorting? How come most people over 5’10” need extended forward controls? How come lots of people have to change the bars? Bigger fuel tanks? Over-rated headlamp bulbs to compensate for the poor lamp? Carb mods to compensate for the poor factory carburetion? It’s all relative, I guy near me owns a Honda C70. He thinks it’s the perfect bike and won’t buy a C90 because he thinks they’re over-powered. He’s 45, lives with his mother and licks windows. The Savage is a nice little bike. I bought one because I’ve always liked the look of them, and don’t mind that most of my friends think they’re a ladies’ bike – I think the bike’s cute and I’m looking forward to adding a personal touch to this one. I won’t try to kid myself that it’s perfect though. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Onederer on 02/03/08 at 08:18:51 Wow, I thought Gort ask for a comparison of the Savage to earlyier Brit's, not Savage. Yes, manufacturing techniques, and equipment have come a long way, to produce volume, with consitent results. But I think a person could tune the older singles easier for racing, because 1.straight from the factory, the Savage is like every other new bike as far as the things that are engineered to pass stricter EPA standards. 2. Although the counter balancer smoothes the engine, it takes power to turn that thing. 3.Yes, this thing has cruiser geometry, not street bike geometry. 4. None of this really matters if you have the $$$ for a Seely Condor with a Matchless G50, or a Manx Norton, either one would not be a question of reliability, but history. I like thumpers, and I researched all I could about this bike, mostly on this site, so the few problems it has, were not a suprise after purchaseing the new 06' for $3,600. I think just about everything that has, or can go wrong with this bike, has been discussed on this site. I think this bike is reliable, and easier to find parts for than a piece of history. Thank You to everyone who takes the time to post thier problems with this bike, and how it was fixed, it was a big help in the decision to purchase my bike, and hopefully for others as well. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/03/08 at 10:49:57 45796F65407B7A0E0 wrote:
First, you did not state that it was your opinion. You wrote as if what you stated was factual. You insulted me when you wrote: Quote:
First of all, I do NOT want a quirky little single cylinder custom bike. That is NOT why I picked the Savage. I DO want performance, handling, braking, and power and I have been quite happy on the Savage for over three years. YOU say I have the "wrong bike" -- basically claiming that I am a bloody know-nothing idiot. That you do notice you are insulting people doesn't mean you are not highly insultive. The Savage is not perfect. No one has ever said it was perfect. If fits MY requirements: I'm 61 (started riding in '64) with a 30" inseam and a bum knee. Throwing a leg over a 28" high seat hurts mildly. At 30" the pain is such that I would rather not ride. I cannot get onto a saddle that is over 32" off the ground. I ride a four mile commute to/from work, five days a week, 46 weeks a year (six weeks vacation.) City streets, speeds to 45 mph. I also use it for shopping, longer distances, faster streets (up to 60 in some places.) I get on the freeways about once a month. I'm a cheapskate. Thumper cost $2325 plus about $700 for add-ons for carry capacity, light and sound. 3 years / 18,000 mile cost $100/year registration/insurance, a few oil changes w/filter, a front and two rear tires. No "tune-ups" have been required. Biggest expense has been about $1100 in gasoline (Runs jes' fine on cheap regular.) From prior experience I knew that a 250 would give me all the performance/power I need. The 650 is 'way overkill. But the extra cost I write off as "fun" money. Handling is not a quick as a lighter dirt bike, but better than something far heavier. Brakes are far more powerful than I ever use. The Savage exceeds my requirements performance, handling, brakes and power. Yet you claim that I have "the wrong bike." What bike should I be riding? |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Gort on 02/03/08 at 11:20:31 I had no idea my simple question would turn into such a controversy. Solid State electronics usually give no warning before they fail, and when they do, you stop and get towed. Furthermore, once the manufacturer decides not to make these components anymore, it can be impossible to find replacement units. I have a '95 Jaguar (52,000 miles) whose ECU failed. The ECU has been out of production for years and only used ones are available, IF you can find one. Good luck! My '96 Savage (3000 miles) is like new and I will never sell it. Years from now when the computerized solid state components fail, will Suzuki still be making them? Who knows? Furthermore, I ride in remote mountain areas and am considering a cross country trip through long stretches of remote areas. What am I going to do if some rectifier or amplifier dies, with the usual NO warning? Yes, I know that many people get lots of miles out of these components, but not everyone and you will see cars stopped along the road due to failed S.S. components. My solution to all this is that I am going to buy all the solid state components involved with this motorcycle's engine and keep them as spares, and carry them with me on long or remote rides. I have a '91 Volvo which I drove into remote mountains at night in the freezing cold, and the car stopped. The ignition amplifier module died, according to the on-board diagnostics. I was out of cellphone reception. But you know what? I got home because I had a spare amplifier module with me ($200.00) , among other spares. I still say a primitive breaker point system with routine maintenance is more reliable than solid state electronics, gives plenty of imminent failure warnings and is way, way cheaper. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/03/08 at 12:09:33 467A6C664378790D0 wrote:
Cam chain/tensioner -- high mileage only. Consider that that average motorcycle clocks 1800 miles a year -- that includes long range touring machines. For a little cruiser, 500 miles a year is closer to average usage. An you're looking at 40 years minimum before you need to worry about the cam chain for the vast majority of Savage riders. Those on this site are not average. It is the FEW, not the many, that need bother with the cam chain. Exhausts manifold and header does nor need "sorting" -- the majority stick with the stock exhaust system, those few who do anything mostly just swap out the muffler. MOST people over 5'10 do not need extended controls and don't have them. Most people keep the stock bars. I've crossed the Mojave on the stock tank -- most agree that gas is a good excuse to stop at least every hundred miles. Extremely few have gone with larger tankage. The 'poor' headlamp is a legal halogen, same as in the vast majority of motorcycles. The carb mods are again done by a minority of Savage owners, to adjust away from federal standards. That the Savage does not meet your limited view of what a motorcycle should be/do does not mean it is flawed. --------------------------------------------------------------- This thread is about the reliability of the Savage, versus old Brit bikes. As I said, over three years, eighteen thousand miles, zip maintanance beyond oil, and zip problems. That is pretty darn reliable by any standard I can think of. How many old Brit bikes could do the same? |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/03/08 at 13:53:12 1D2C212C2924234D0 wrote:
If you want a combination of performance features, buy a ZRX1200 or something similar. If you want a pretty, unique and highly appealing little bike and are prepared to accept compromise in terms of power, handling and brakes, then buy a Savage because it’s a nice little thing but is pretty crap in terms of all performance measurements. And, if you’re going to do so, remove the corn cob from wherever it might be stuck. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/03/08 at 15:17:32 467A6C664378790D0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/03/08 at 16:27:00 4C7D707D7875721C0 wrote:
[/quote]10/10 on that reply - made me laugh. Come on man, we both love bikes, all I did was suggest the Savage isn't an athlete amongst bikes - it isn't, but it's still a lovely bike. That's all I'm saying. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/03/08 at 16:29:33 784944494C4146280 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Gort on 02/03/08 at 16:46:41 477B6D674279780C0 wrote:
[/quote] What happened to the days when your motorcycle ran well because YOU had the ability to keep it running, and the guts to control it? Whats wrong with the smell of hot metal burning the oil that was leaking onto it? Which gives you more pride and satisfaction, an old British bike which exists because of your guts and mechanical ability, or a maintenance free, smooth Japanese bike which anyone can own and ride? |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Dynobob on 02/03/08 at 16:49:31 70096945474F15240 wrote:
Apples and oranges. The Honda weighs 550 lbs. The Suzuki weighs 350 lbs. It's about power to weight ratio. A tuned Suzuki will walk away from a Honda v-twin and most cruisers (Harleys included). My LS650 has plenty of power and tons of torque. It handles GREAT and is very flickable. It's a very capable bike. KwakNut - if your Savage runs so horribly, it's either stock or hasn't been tuned properly. If you're comparing modern sportbikes and crotch rockets to the Savage 650, why bother ::) The Savage is a proven design based on 1980s technology. Brit bikes are notoriously unreliable. Their Lucas electrics were poor and rather unreliable. The Savage with it's solid state electrics and belt drive are quite troublefree. I don't do much to mine but change the oil and ride the wheels off it. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Holodeck on 02/03/08 at 17:48:09 Sort things out? Well I guess I did. Lets see--- $8 for jets, $50 for a fish tail straight pipe ( very old school ), A $5 baffel, $13 air filter and some wieght loss. Now I have a great sounding bike that wipes Harleys in stop light drags. Reminds me of the old Ford flathead days when with some carb work, dual exhaust and by taking off some junk you could beat any stock car on the road. It was fun to do and cheap. Try that with a car today, or most bikes for that matter. And besides, this thread is a lot more fun than getting pissy about politics. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by jjn on 02/03/08 at 18:31:39 I don't have a Savage/S40, but have admired them for a long time as a relatively simple thumper-and I am a thumper fa n and have owned a bunch-mostly dual sports. I will probably own an S40 sometime. What I like about them is: 1.they are a thumper 2.They are a simple , basic motorcycle. 3.They are light in weight 4.I really like what can be done with one as far as mods.Looking at photos of Savages/S40s that have been modified has given me all kinds of ideas..I would love an S40 that looked more like the old Yamaha SR500 basic roadster style.I have saved lots of Savage photos of "bobbers" to my computer. 5.Good, not great, gas mileage. 6.Air cooled for simplicity and easy maintenance. 7.Nice torquey engine. What I don't like: 1.Gas tank is pretty small. 2.Don't like the "buckhorn" or pull back bars on the older Savage (do like the drag bars on the newer S40). 3.Would prefer standard foot controls/footpegs over the forward mounts. 4.Cam chain tensioner problem.Every motorcycles has a weakness-like the Kawasaki KLR650 "doohickey" or counterbalancer tensioner. ioer. 5.Wish the overall size was just a little bit larger physically. I own three thumpers right now. A 2005 KLR650.A 2007 Yamaha XT225.And a 2007 Royal Enfield Bullet. I have to smile when I read about the Savage/S40 being an old design and such.Try riding an Enfield Bullet! That bike wears its 60 year old design like a badge of honor.In straight line acceleration your Savage will smoke a Bullet all day long.Yet I am having a riot riding this bike. Of course I'm old enough to have ridden the old British bikes back when they ruled the motorcycle scene and when the were the performance king.My Bullet even comes with something called a "kickstarter" should the electric start system fail. Jon |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/03/08 at 19:50:06 1625233F2225570 wrote:
I'm not riding to stroke my ego/pride. I'm not out to prove how good or skillful I am. I'm not out to see how fast I can go. I use the Savage for my primary transportion. If it breaks either someone has to drive me to work or they lose the use of their car for that day. I need a reliable motorcycle. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Gort on 02/03/08 at 20:06:28 73424F42474A4D230 wrote:
I'm not riding to stroke my ego/pride. I'm not out to prove how good or skillful I am. I'm not out to see how fast I can go. I use the Savage for my primary transportion. If it breaks either someone has to drive me to work or they lose the use of their car for that day. o I need a reliable motorcycle. [/quote] It is exactly this attitude that has resulted in the majority of cars on the road being gray, black or white generic econoboxes bought by all the mindless office drones and robots who want to conform and obey. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by txsizzler on 02/03/08 at 20:52:46 0E3D3B273A3D4F0 wrote:
I'm not riding to stroke my ego/pride. I'm not out to prove how good or skillful I am. I'm not out to see how fast I can go. I use the Savage for my primary transportion. If it breaks either someone has to drive me to work or they lose the use of their car for that day. o I need a reliable motorcycle. [/quote] It is exactly this attitude that has resulted in the majority of cars on the road being gray, black or white generic econoboxes bought by all the mindless office drones and robots who want to conform and obey.[/quote] What a terrible comparison.. comparing someone who rides the Savage as their primary transportation, versus some "mindless office drones" who drive their "gray, black, or white generic econoboxes"... just curious.. how many Savages do YOU see out on the road these days?? How often do you find a bike this UNIQUE anywhere??? Save your comarison for a book of useless witticisims. Even those "mindless office drones" that drive their econoboxes, still take pride in their rides. I surely hope you do. Ian |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Gort on 02/03/08 at 22:23:12 2A262D372424323B2C5E0 wrote:
I'm not riding to stroke my ego/pride. I'm not out to prove how good or skillful I am. I'm not out to see how fast I can go. I use the Savage for my primary transportion. If it breaks either someone has to drive me to work or they lose the use of their car for that day. o I need a reliable motorcycle. [/quote] It is exactly this attitude that has resulted in the majority of cars on the road being gray, black or white generic econoboxes bought by all the mindless office drones and robots who want to conform and obey.[/quote] What a terrible comparison.. comparing someone who rides the Savage as their primary transportation, versus some "mindless office drones" who drive their "gray, black, or white generic econoboxes"... just curious.. how many Savages do YOU see out on the road these days?? How often do you find a bike this UNIQUE anywhere??? Save your comarison for a book of useless witticisims. Even those "mindless office drones" that drive their econoboxes, still take pride in their rides. I surely hope you do. I did not compare a Savage rider to an econobox drone. I was responding to a suggestion that to choose a vehicle with no thought of "pride, ego or skill", is the very reason we see so many boring generic cars on the road. Too many people settle for what is easiest. It is too hard to keep a British bike operational, and its too difficult to control, so lets not do it at all and take the easier route? As for taking pride in my Savage, I do not take pride in someone elses creation. All I did was spend $1700.00 to buy it. It requires no effort to maintain or control. What is there for me to be proud of? However, if I owned an old British bike, it would continue exist only because of my ability to continually overcome its myriad of mechanical problems, and my ability to control its primitive and physically demanding ride characteristics. I COULD take pride and satisfaction in that. Ian [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by firsts40 on 02/03/08 at 23:57:27 I have been reading all these comments about the Savage/LS650/S40, and do not see that they are under powered and have bad handling. My 06 S40 may only have around 9000 miles on it, but 3/4th of those miles are highway miles with the large cruises. I run 65-70+ all day with the HD Dyna Glides, Softails, dressers, Goldwings, etc, and it will hang with them, within reason of course. I can run 450 miles a day at 70 and get 62 MPG, and A LOT of respect from the big boys. As far as range goes, I have a longer range than some Harleys. We stop every 80-110 miles anyways to pick up more riders, and get gas if needed. OH, one more thing........My S40 is 100% stock ;D 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/04/08 at 06:19:47 5E6D6B776A6D1F0 wrote:
It is exactly this attitude that has resulted in the majority of cars on the road being gray, black or white generic econoboxes bought by all the mindless office drones and robots who want to conform and obey.[/quote] First, the majority of vehicles on the road are not black-gray-white econboxes. In case you didn't notice, econoboxes are a thing of the past -- the days of ordering a car with the options of a radio and heater are long gone. Find me an econobox. The cheapest Ford is the Focus - standard CD/MP2 player, satelite radio, and it listens to you. I've had a 1 liter sports car. The Focus comes wtih a 2 liter 16 valve aluminum engine pumping out 130-140 hp. Theyr'e ashamed of the weight and refuse to put it up on the web. It costs nearly $15K. Second, what is wrong with wanting to not be stranded by a broken down vehicle? I've had unreliable. Trust me! Reliable is Much More Fun. Being able to get to where you want to go is a Good Thing! (Even better, being able to get back home!) Lastly, the mindless drones don't drive econoboxes. As mindless drones they heed the advertizing and get Volvos and BMWs and Mustangs and all the other over-hyped over-priced technotoys. They read the magazines and go gah-gah over the multicylinder super powered killer bikes and mock the 650 single as having no performance. Ignore that I rode the Ortega Highway west to east and was not passed by anything. Ignore my 1300+ miles on the superslab last September. Ignore the lass here who was mocked by a sportbike at a traffic signal and left him behind on the green. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Gort on 02/04/08 at 06:29:31 6D5C515C5954533D0 wrote:
It is exactly this attitude that has resulted in the majority of cars on the road being gray, black or white generic econoboxes bought by all the mindless office drones and robots who want to conform and obey.[/quote] First, the majority of vehicles on the road are not black-gray-white econboxes. In case you didn't notice, econoboxes are a thing of the past -- the days of ordering a car with the options of a radio and heater are long gone. Find me an econobox. The cheapest Ford is the Focus - standard CD/MP2 player, satelite radio, and it listens to you. I've had a 1 liter sports car. The Focus comes wtih a 2 liter 16 valve aluminum engine pumping out 130-140 hp. Theyr'e ashamed of the weight and refuse to put it up on the web. It costs nearly $15K. Second, what is wrong with wanting to not be stranded by a broken down vehicle? I've had unreliable. Trust me! Reliable is Much More Fun. Being able to get to where you want to go is a Good Thing! (Even better, being able to get back home!) Lastly, the mindless drones don't drive econoboxes. As mindless drones they heed the advertizing and get Volvos and BMWs and Mustangs and all the other over-hyped over-priced technotoys. They read the magazines and go gah-gah over the multicylinder super powered killer bikes and mock the 650 single as having no performance. Ignore that I rode the Ortega Highway west to east and was not passed by anything. Ignore my 1300+ miles on the superslab last September. Ignore the lass here who was mocked by a sportbike at a traffic signal and left him behind on the green. [/quote] Excellent points, Paladin. I hadn't though about it like this. I'm from the old school. I retract what I said. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/04/08 at 06:39:15 3A363D273434222B3C4E0 wrote:
What I have though, is a growing respect for that "little" bike. Nearly untouchable on the streets. Not easily passed on the twisties. Adaquate on the superslab. Loving the 2-laners. And it just keeps chuffing along. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/04/08 at 06:44:00 7241475B4641330 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/04/08 at 06:58:10 073A2D2C212C21430 wrote:
As for handling, no bike with the kind of rake and trail found on the Savage can have good handling – it’s just not possible. Just because a bike is light and can be ridden around a car park easily doesn’t mean it handles. I don’t compare the Savage to crotch rockets for power and handling, just to ‘ordinary’ mild-tuned all-rounders. The Savage fits a market niche – its buyers go for looks, image and character, mostly the character of the thumper, not performance. For some people, the Savage has enough power. For some people, it handles well enough. I didn’t buy mine for power or handling, I have other bikes that do that – I bought the savage because I think it’s sooo cute and want to restore it and customise it a little. It doesn’t matter as long as we’re happy with our own bikes and get pleasure from them. I came across a guy at a bike meet a few months ago saying how fantastic his GSXR1000 handled. Took a look at his tyres, and he had ¾ of an inch of chicken strips round the edges – he’d never leaned the bike far enough to find out what it could do, but for him, in his mind, he thought he was pushing the bike and knew how it handled. By coincidence I passed him a little later (I was on a cruiser and not riding too hard); he may as well have had a Goldwing for the way he rode that race rep, but I guess he was happy. We all get different pleasures from bike ownership. I do like the Savage, but you’d really have to be in love with it to say it handles well or is powerful. 073A2D2C212C21430 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/04/08 at 07:17:02 IF You go to the trouble & expense of buying replacement electronics, make sure to wrap & protect from any EMP attack losses. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by skrapiron on 02/04/08 at 07:31:00 Opinions are like a$$ holes. Everyone has one... But here's your chance to back up your opinion, KwakNut: You said that the Savage is slow. Ok. Compared to what? You said the Savage is underpowered. Ok, again, compared to what? You said the Savage handles like a school bus. Again, what are you comparing to to? Find me another 650cc single small cruiser motorcycle that is still in production to compare it to and I'll listen to your opinion. Otherwise, you're blowing hot air..... |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/04/08 at 08:20:22 5E465F4C5D445F42432D0 wrote:
Wow – why do some of you guys respond to criticism of a motorcycle as though I’m saying bad things about your mother’s virtue? If you really must get so defensive and pedantic about it, here we go: Slow compared to what? Well, how's about you show me the list of bikes over 600cc that will only make a top speed of 79mph. Even a Virago 250 will do 75. Plenty of 125s will do over 100mph. It’s hard to name a bike over 400cc that is slower. Underpowered. Do I really have to explain that 30hp (or maybe its as as bad as 27) from a 650cc lump is low? Do I really need to list 450, 400, 350 and even 250cc singles that make more power? I know the Savage has a deliberately long-stroked engine to give it its characteristics, but it’s still running at least 10-15 hp below what a low-revving 650 single should be putting out. I can overtake cars more safely on my single cylinder 400cc off-roader than I can on a Savage. Handling. I didn’t say it handles like a school bus – check my post again. I may have said it handles like a crock. It does. Anybody who thinks a bike with that kind of steering head angle handles needs to learn what it’s like to ride a bike with more practical steering geometry. Hey, why not even admit that the world is round and try riding a sports bike on occasion – you’d not be saying the Savage handles much longer. No custom bike with long forks handles well – they just can’t. Think simple - sports cars handle well, limousines don’t. Find you another 650cc single small cruiser still in production. Hmm – is that like, find me another natural satellite of the Earth, apart from the Moon? I don’t recall there having been all that many 650cc single small cruisers – or does my memory fail me? It’s still in production because it’s a cute bike, it luckily fits under European power limits for learner riders, and because it doesn’t have direct competitors. For heavens’ sake. Don’t be so defensive. The Savage is a great little bike, but I’ll repeat what I said before. It has too little power, poor brakes, poor handling and a few design quirks. It’s still a nice thing, and I like it despite its weaknesses. If some people think it handles well, and think it has plenty of power, well good for them, I just don't agree with them. I have a friend who thinks big fat ladies are more attractive than those with a firm 36/24/34 figure. I don't agree with him either. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/04/08 at 08:27:16 1A26303A1F2425510 wrote:
We're complaining because you are posting a deep pile of manure. Someone might believe you, so we have to correct your nonsense. I notice you ignored my offer to help you out. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by skrapiron on 02/04/08 at 08:39:24 Too slow??? Just how muc OVER the speed limit do you want to ride? I ride mine 70-75mph all day long on the interstate and still have power to pass slower traffic. Under powered? Compared to a fuel injected, computer controlled sport bike, the only way you can meet clean air standards with a carbeureted engine is to choke it down. You want to pregnant dog about it being de-tuned, yell at the EPA, not the bike.. Handles like a crock. Again, your apples to horse cart comparison of a cruiser to a sport bike. Dude.... It is a cruiser. It is not designed to lean over at 85* angles through a turn. It's not designed to allow you to take 90* turns at 50mph. It's a cruiser. You sit back and enjoy the ride. You suggested expanding my horizon and trying a sport bike? Been there, didn't like that. The riding position sucks for long distance travel. My wrists hurt, my back hurt and my legs were uselessly cramped from being in the same position for too long, the passenger accomodations are spartan at best and you can't carry anything other than your wallet. SO what's the point? Oh thats right. Go fast.. Satisfy that testosterone urge... No thanks.. I'm too old for that kind of bravado. Why are we so defensive? Hmm. This is a Savage forum. We're all pretty much satisfied with our bikes. Then along you come telling us what a dog it is and how we should expand our horizons... Its comparable to preaching from the Koran in St. Peter's square on Easter... |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/04/08 at 08:50:41 7E4F424F4A47402E0 wrote:
We're complaining because you are posting a deep pile of manure. Someone might believe you, so we have to correct your nonsense. I notice you ignored my offer to help you out. [/quote]Ah - 85mph on the speedo, so maybe doing 75-77 real speed, unless you have a calibrated speedometer? Now you can't really be dumb, I know that. We both know that if you have a little excess power, you can overtake more safely. It's no good saying a 79mph top speed is good enough if it takes you half a day to get from 65 to 79 to pull past something - and the bike is really going to struggle to do that up a hill and into a headwind. I wouldn't expect a small crusier to stand on its back wheel at 120 and push hard through 200 when I twist the throttle like my nitroused ZX12 will, because that's not what they're about, but I would hope for a little more power than the standard Savage has, just for comfortable town riding. As for manure, what have I posted that is factually wrong? Are your sensibilities so narrow-minded that you just can't tolerate somebody having an opinion that differs from your own? Or is it just that you don't like being reminded that you're easily impressed by a small underpowered bike that handles badly? I'm finding some reactions to an open criticism of the Savage's shortcomings to be fascinating. A little like the cries of heresy by the Spanish Inquisition must have been. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/04/08 at 08:59:49 756D7467766F746968060 wrote:
Speed and power: the thing just doesn’t pull hard enough at low or high speed. Even for a long stroke carburetted air-cooled engine, it’s producing way under what we should get. As I’ve said many times, I LIKE the bike. To be honest I just think it’s a shame Suzuki didn’t produce a full power version, with a better head and cam. Fact remains it is under-powered and slow, whatever people say. Handling: yes, I agree, and I wouldn’t expect or want it to keep up with a race replica, but the whole point is that no cruiser handles well, they’re cruisers, and you have to live with awful handling if you want the looks and the riding position. Why deny it? Like I said I LIKE THE SAVAGE. I like it a lot, but that doesn’t mean I will stick my head in the sand if somebody suggests it’s not perfect, or scream heresy if somebody criticises its obvious faults. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/04/08 at 09:22:46 54687E74516A6B1F0 wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously. But you are not stating that you merely disagree. You are claiming that the Savage is pitifully underpowered, handles poorly, can't stop, etc.. You are claiming that as being factual and not just the misinformed opinion of a biased nut. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by verslagen1 on 02/04/08 at 09:28:46 5D61777D586362160 wrote:
Well, what did you expect? You are in the Vatican and you just told the Pope there is no God? What's your purpose here? To enlighten us heathens? For the record, my savage acelerates up hill from 65 to 75 in a blink of an eye (ok I couldn't blink cause of popping eye effect, so it really is a few seconds) and will do 86 up same hill. On the flat I'm well over that, but that was purely accidental [smiley=evil.gif] Also, speedo is nearly deadnuts on. I have a VR1 and occasionaly will check the speedo on neighboring cages. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by skrapiron on 02/04/08 at 09:49:50 64584E44615A5B2F0 wrote:
And again, I ask you to turn your criticisms from the bike to the clean-air nazi's. In order to meet clean air standards, Suzuki had to strangle the engine. There are no pollution controls on the bike. Fuel delivery and timing are all mechanically controlled. Since there is no exhaust catalyst, no fuel injection, no sensor packs to maintain optimal a/f ratios, the only solution is to smother the engine. Adding all the pollution controls would nearly double to cost of the bike and would probably kill future sales. Instead, we get a castrated version of what a Thumper could be. (You didn't have that problem with the '60s and '70s vintage bikes because there was no focus on emissions, only power). That doesn't mean it always has to be like that. A few simple tuning tips that any monkey with a screw driver could do and you're in business, freeing up those trapped ponies. A quick tune of the carb and a less restrictive exhaust and the bike you're spending so much time denograting is now performing up to its potential. Suzuki can't sell an unleashed stroker version of the bike because of clean air rules. Its up to us (the end user) to un-do the restrictions and let the bike breathe.... Now compared to the older English thumpers (Norton, Vincent,Triumph), the last time I checked, I was able to ride across the county line without having a complete tool chest strapped to the back of the bike. If I recall correctly, owning one of those bike either implied you were a mechanic or you were dating one.... |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by jjn on 02/04/08 at 10:53:35 I don't know of any 125cc motorcycle that will do 100mph. Now the Kawasaki 250 Ninja will break 100mph it is said by owners. jjn |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/04/08 at 12:29:38 5151553B0 wrote:
If you compare with modern 250s, there’s no point, because plenty will do 110plus. I know these aren’t cruisers, but the point I made remains valid. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by skrapiron on 02/04/08 at 12:37:57 And my mildly tuned Savage tops out 92mph (GPS measured). Again, just how far beyond the speed limit do you want to go??? |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/04/08 at 13:39:53 7A4B464B4E43442A0 wrote:
What is extraordinary about saying that a 650cc motorcycle only making 30hp is under-powered? My dog can see that, and he’s not much of an engineer. On the whole in the UK, the only people who would have a 30hp bike would be learners or little old ladies; I went for a Savage because I think it’s really cute and I think I can get a few more hp out of it to make it useable on the road. I’ve driven in the States plenty when working over there and on vacation, and can tell you that our roads are very different. We need more power because everybody around you accelerates harder for road position on our crowded little island and you need a machine that will respond to the throttle. Doesn’t a standard Savage take 7 seconds to reach 60? That’s a joke for a bike. We can’t expect all bikes to do it in under 3, but I’ve never had a road bike that would take more than about 4 seconds and I find it hard to believe that a 650 can take so long. Quote:
Why, but why, do you have to go for personal attack every time???? I have plenty of track experience on both 2 and 4 wheels. I’m trained in defensive/evasive driving for some aspects of my military career, I cover 30.000 miles a year with no accidents for a decade, and (if I’m honest about it) can take just about any bike to the limit of its tyres. So why incompetent? Is that because I believe I can overtake a car more safely on a 50hp 250lb enduro bike than I can on a 27hp 354lb cruiser? Or is the ‘incompetent’ slur just another jibe because you’re running out of respectable, credible debate and have to resort to insults again? Quote:
Quote:
If you think the Savage has sufficient power, just think how much you’d enjoy a bike with a strong motor. As for substantiating claims, I don’t need to substantiate my own experience of good brakes then getting onto a Savage. I’d agree it stops a whole lot better than a 50s Harley – let’s celebrate that – but a tiny single front disk and a rear drum is a combination belonging in the Dark Ages. I expect a bike to stand on its nose when I even think about the front lever. Not being passed by sport bikes? Plenty of guys without balls ride sport bikes slowly, or maybe they just hang back when some old guy is weaving all over the tarmac on a little cruiser with a frame and forks that act like they’re made of rubber bands when pushed. Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Dark Savage on 02/04/08 at 13:42:16 3535315F0 wrote:
All of these are 2stroke. The Savage is a 4stroke. There's quite a bit of difference between the two that makes a 2stroke much more powerful at higher RPMs. These differences also give them very dirty emissions and they are therefore no longer in use. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/04/08 at 13:59:35 7E667F6C7D647F62630D0 wrote:
That's fine for me. I'm tuning my Savage but it won't be a long distance machine so 80 or 90mph will be quite enough. I’m building the Savage to be my round-town shopping and errands bike. I do love speed and have had Z900/1000s, GPZ900s. GPZ1000s, ZZr1100s, GSX-R1100s, and various race replicas as well as things like Bandits and XJRs. My trusty (and ever so pretty) old ZL1000 tops out at about 140, my tuned ZX12 will scream pass 190 without the laughing gas and has hit a measured 214 with the button pressed , but I'd never want that sort of use from a Savage. I don’t need the Savage to handle better – it’s actually quite good fun pushing a bad-handling bike to its limits at lower speeds, and you always get plenty of feedback from soft frames and rubbery forks. What I would want is something just a little more exciting power wise at low/medium speed when I twist the throttle, so I can enjoy a bit of a buzz when I pull past traffic. You really can't have too much power, and 30hp is simply inadequate. That doesn’t mean I’m calling the bike no good, or bad-mouthing its owners, I’m just saying the Savage has its weaknesses. Hardly a crime, or so I thought! |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/04/08 at 14:12:50 6C6D6F6D6D7067020 wrote:
All of these are 2stroke. The Savage is a 4stroke. There's quite a bit of difference between the two that makes a 2stroke much more powerful at higher RPMs. These differences also give them very dirty emissions and they are therefore no longer in use.[/quote] Wow, I never knew that - the Savage is a 4-stroke? what does that mean? Sarcasm aside - and I think it may have been called for in this case - would you care to point out which 250 Ninja is a 2-stroke? As far as I knew, it was a 4-stroke. And, for the record, the 2-strokes are still in-use, being made and being sold. You’ll also find that the power advantage of 2-strokes is far less than it used to be over 4-strokes, now that we have 4-stroke road bikes pushing towards 20000 rpm. I wasn’t seeking to compare 2-strokes and screamers with the Savage – they are totally different animals. I was merely clarifying the doubt over whether 125s (and 250s) can exceed 100mph. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Dynobob on 02/04/08 at 15:15:58 55697F75506B6A1E0 wrote:
There's 2 things fundamentally wrong with your argument: 1. You pass judgement on ALL Savage 650s based on your more than likely limited seat time on a bike with substantial engine damage, which is probably in factory tune. The accessment you gave of YOUR Savage's performance may very well be accurate. It is certainly isn't true of ALL Savage 650s. Is your bike stock (jetting, exhaust, intake)? 2. Coming to a Savage message board full of proponents of the bike and bashing it isn't too wise. The Savage you own is YOUR bike. If you aren't satisfied with it's performance or handling, sell it and buy something more satisfying. I find the tuned Savage quite a capable machine and it does EVERYTHING I need it to do (and quite well IMO). Are there other bikes out there that perform better? Sure there are. Do I care? Nope. We all know about opinions. .... everybody has one. Your comment about living on a small island and needing lots of power to drive around traffic is also narrow minded. You certainly don't know EVERYTHING about this country. Come to this side of the pond and drive in LA, DC, Boston, or NYC on a bike. Then you'll be qualified to comment about OUR traffic and/or make comparisons. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Dark Savage on 02/04/08 at 15:26:40 073B2D270239384C0 wrote:
All of these are 2stroke. The Savage is a 4stroke. There's quite a bit of difference between the two that makes a 2stroke much more powerful at higher RPMs. These differences also give them very dirty emissions and they are therefore no longer in use.[/quote] Wow, I never knew that - the Savage is a 4-stroke? what does that mean? Sarcasm aside - and I think it may have been called for in this case - would you care to point out which 250 Ninja is a 2-stroke? As far as I knew, it was a 4-stroke. And, for the record, the 2-strokes are still in-use, being made and being sold. You’ll also find that the power advantage of 2-strokes is far less than it used to be over 4-strokes, now that we have 4-stroke road bikes pushing towards 20000 rpm. I wasn’t seeking to compare 2-strokes and screamers with the Savage – they are totally different animals. I was merely clarifying the doubt over whether 125s (and 250s) can exceed 100mph. [/quote] Fair enough. I guess the post you were replying to did say he doesn't know of any that can do it except the ninja 250. And yes there are some 2 strokes still being made and sold but what I meant was there aren't any street legal ones still in production (at least where I live, correct me if somebody found a loophole through the EPA's net) I have to say there is definite truth to stuff you are saying. Yes there are motorcycles that are faster. Yes there are motorcycles that have better handling and braking. There's always something "better". This world is Hell bent on getting you to buy something "better" too. If you really want somebody to take you seriously then try comparing a motorcycle of the same type (i.e. cruiser) with a similar price. Who cares about engine size when the more powerful bike cost's 25 percent more. Are the brakes about right for the weight of the bike and the HP rating? Yes. Will it stand on it's nose? I would hope that no cruiser would considering the amount of rake. For the price you really do get a lot with the Savage. No it's not the marvel of modern engineering but no one ever claimed that it was. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/04/08 at 15:36:16 05382F2E232E23410 wrote:
There's 2 things fundamentally wrong with your argument: You pass judgement on ALL Savage 650s based on your more than likely limited seat time on a bike with substantial engine damage, which is probably in factory tune. The accessment you gave of YOUR Savage's performance may very well be accurate. It is certainly isn't true of ALL Savage 650s. .[/quote]If you’d seen a few other posts, you’d see that I’ve ridden a few Savages. All this bitching started when I just said that 30hp isn’t enough for a bike (I apply that to any bike, anywhere, any style). Some people might think 30hp is awesome. I think it’s inadequate. Guess it’s down to what you’re used to. I’ve never had a road bike before with less than about 90hp, so I am struggling to get my head around having to wring the throttle’s neck to get anywhere. I’ve ridden and tried low-powered bikes, but not owned one before now. Quote:
Quote:
So many posters are desperate to up the power that they’re spending relatively big money (for a cheap bike) on exhausts, carburettors, cams, head work – is that because it has enough power? Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/04/08 at 15:45:03 33323032322F385D0 wrote:
I’m not saying the Savage needs to be as fast as a Hayabusa, or stop like a GSX-R600, or have the mid range of a muscle bike, or handle like a Ducati. I’m just saying that, while it’s a really, really appealing and pleasant bike, it does need more power, and its brakes and handling aren’t great. Those honest comments resulted in a baying mob, going for my throat – one of whom seemed hell bent on throwing in personal insults whenever he could; hope he feels better for that. The Savage’s faults don’t stop me from liking it, but the problem over the last few pages here is that some of the fans just go ape when somebody has the audacity to suggest that the machine could be better. Time for a reality check guys. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Dynobob on 02/04/08 at 15:48:11 734F5953764D4C380 wrote:
In stock form, it didn't FOR ME. I found it rather anemic until I did a few inexpensive mods. Another PLUS in the Savages favor is it is very simple and easy to work on. How many people don't jet their own twins or 4 cylinder bikes because of the complexity? The Savage is a FUN bike and EASY TO WORK ON. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/04/08 at 16:03:01 536E7978757875170 wrote:
Like I said, I do like the Savage and appreciate its many good points - but I can't get away from finding its performance to be a little limited. That shouldn’t make me some kind of deviant. I can live with the brakes because they're typical of the style of bike, same with the handling, but I must get more power. Hopefully when I've put it back together (head ported, cylinder skimmed a little, better pipe, carb mods, camshaft from Lancer) it will feel like a different engine. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by bill67 on 02/04/08 at 16:14:19 If this bike where faster, braked better, handle better , what would you do with it that you don't do now? |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Oldfeller on 02/04/08 at 17:32:23 Oh my, oh my ...... He's a baiting the entire torch carrying mob and surviving just by insisting that only the righteous and truthful among them can fling the first torch on to his oil soaked woodpile. Truth, a real world kawa ninja 250 4 stroke legal sold pollution certified scoot can do what he said -- 100 mph. He's still standing on his oil soaked bundles of kindling voluntarily chained to his post of position by his own words, only insisting that you be as honest as he is. OK, here's my match -- I agree that our bike isn't modern and isn't rocket fast and can be improved by us and still not be as sporty as some or as nimble as some are right out of the box. I could have figured out how to lower a 250 ninja and I could have had better performance and over 60,000 miles on an engine/camchain just as long as I remembered to use synthetic oil and keep the right oil level inside the little songbird at all times (they use oil, BTW). But I'd have felt silly buzzing around on it all the time working through the 11,000 RPM rev up at each shift. Buzzzzz Buzzzzzzz Buzzzzzzzzzzzz Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... (looks silly, sounds even sillier when you hear it) So I blow out my match and simply say "I thought about everything you've said here even before you said it and I have looked around at other bikes -- and if I find one that suits me better than my Savage I might just buy it. " If I find something that makes me feel better looking at it and riding it. Ain't found one yet that was worth mentioning so far. <g> 'Cept maybe that wee little water cooled 450 South Korean holigan cycle that still needs some help in the narrow/tall butt seating department a'for being considered even somewhat civilized.... SNORT! SNOORRRT! SNOOOOORRRTTT! VRRROOOOOOOOMMMM! ROOOOOOOOOAAAAAAARRRR! Weee(flash)Weeee(flash)Weeee(flash)Weeeee (sounds of fast police pursuit) |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Gort on 02/04/08 at 17:33:49 47585E5944437242724A58541F2D0 wrote:
I will wrap them in tin foil, just like the tin foil cap I wear under my helmet to protect me against aliens. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/04/08 at 18:45:51 04382E24013A3B4F0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/04/08 at 19:04:45 60434B494A43434A5D2F0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by jjn on 02/04/08 at 20:27:28 As pointed out above-The 250 Ninja is a four stroke. I brought up the Royal Enfield Bullet above to illustrate a bike that is quite slow but still sells in the UK where the original Royal Enfield was built. I bought one for myself even though I have ridden for over 45 years and owned a long procession of much faster motorcycles. I also own a 2007 Yamaha XT225 slow motorcycle. But my wife doesn't ride on the back anymre, so I don't need two-up power. My Bullet and XT make fine back road/secondary road bikes that can get me just about wherever I need to go with just a little planning to avoid the US freeways, where cars may be breaking the speed limit and going 70-80 miles per hour. The point is, not everyone-even very experienced bikers-need "fast" motorcycles. I'm beyond that bigger is better/faster is better mentality. And you know what else? I'm very happy to be using highly fuel efficient transportation. I topped off the XT today-88.8 US miles per gallon. And I ride to work rain or shine. I'm sure I would love a Savage/S40. jon j |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Oldfeller on 02/05/08 at 03:19:23 Paladin, you and me together with our crapped out knee joints (my left mostly, but my right ain't so spry) know very well why this is the best bike for us. I can get on and off of it OK and I can still pick it up when I drop it due to my own pure clumsiness in the Hardees parking lot. I'm a crip old fool who still wants to ride. You are in better shape and that's a good thing. Of what I can ride (seat height and overall weight) this is the very best looking best sounding ride I have found -- having looked at everything that's out there. Period. It looks good. It sounds good. It is a respectable THUMPER type bike and it makes a right killing looking wee bagger, sweet and clean. I'd turn mine into a bobber if I didn't need the saddle bags, but I do. That Scandinavian fellow a while back and this one aren't saying anything new -- and face it, what they are saying is true. We are in love with a thumper that likely will go the way of the goose inside 10 years (or else turn blue by being choked to death by the pollution rules). Or else starved to death by lack of liquid petro fuel as the world rapidly runs out of gas. But I'll be in line to buy those last few gallons to go in my wee bagger. Now, if somebody wants to say you can't ride a Savage out to the edge of the tires, then I would say start a new thread and watch out for all them inbound photos of tires and foot pegs. We LIKES our little wee baggers and bobbers for lots of reasons..... |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/05/08 at 03:30:04 7A7174742E2F180 wrote:
But - that's not what I bought the Savage for. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Oldfeller on 02/05/08 at 03:41:51 Mine is a get around town bike, but that doesn't mean it can't cut around an urban corner just dandy or take a short trip within the state. http://suzukisavage.com/yabb2.2/Attachments/DSCF0018_Medium.JPG |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/05/08 at 03:46:13 01222A282B22222B3C4E0 wrote:
I agree with all you said. I wouldn’t want the Savage to be a screamer, or have a sportsbike’s riding position to give it handling, I just think Suzuki got a few things wrong. I don’t look for super-performance from this kind of bike – BUT the engine should have come out of the factory making around 15hp more, and more torque, and it would still have been a low-revving thumper. The frame and forks could have been a little stiffer so the bike wasn’t so dependant on a brace, and the single disk/calliper setup could have been made 25 or 30% stronger - that’s a small disk up front considering its all on its own! That’s all I’ve been saying – that the Savage, like all bikes and cars, has its drawbacks and faults. Doesn’t stop me liking it a whole lot, I think it’s a real gem of a bike, but if saying it’s not powerful and doesn’t handle well is going to get me burned at the stake, I guess I’m gonna burn. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/05/08 at 04:22:00 76474A47424F48260 wrote:
[/quote] Paladin, did you master in hypocrisy? 05343934313C3B550 wrote:
And you accuse me of being insulting?? Come on man, stop throwing your toys out of the crib and at least be honest enough with yourself to admit that the Savage isn't perfect. It's a really nice little bike, but it's got its drawbacks and could have been better. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Trippah on 02/05/08 at 05:17:55 KwakNut- I think you hit nail on the head, the Savage is a20 year old underengineered mildly tuned beastie, designed for relatively easy going putters. (Nowthat I'm in my 60's, I resemble that description also). Some of us wouldn't mind taking the engine and making a BSA goldie oldie replica, but in reality it is simply a comfortable (well NOT in Stock seat form) around towner. The Bonnie in the 60's made its hay on being just as light, amost as narrow, and much more horses than any single available at the time. In my mind, a 650 single is about equivolent toa 550 twin in get up and go; but with inherently more torque which is what makes the savage so much fun around and about; twisting the throttle coming out of a corner without too much gear shifting to spoil the ride. The perfect motorcycle doesn't exist because there are too many varied riding situations; which thankfuly allows us to get more than one ride (Well, if I ever get any money that is). Did I mention that the Vincent isn't perfect, I'm drooling at the thought only due to olde age. :D Well, probaly only two more months of crap weather an we can start riding again, and then perhaps slip into a more relaxed headset, the board has collectively gotten a bit strident this winter. :o |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Dark Savage on 02/05/08 at 07:18:28 102C3A30152E2F5B0 wrote:
It is certainly nice to hear a balanced viewpoint. We are finally starting to hear some. If you had posted a balanced viewpoint to begin with everybody would not have been so riled up. Instead, you posted an exaggerated view without any kind of perspective for people to know you were exaggerating. What's worse is you combined exaggeration with some dead-on truth and that might make some people put some confidence in your exaggerations. You said "Compared to most other modern Japanese bikes the LS is flawed - it's unbelievably slow, handles like a croc, doesn't stop, has a major problem with the cam chain tensioner falling out before the chain reaches service limit, and has typically dubious Suzuki quality issues on surface finish." Lets analyze this. A. Yes all bikes (japanese or other) have design flaws. B. The bike is not unbelievably slow. In fact it accelerates quicker at non-highway speeds than a large portion of cars on the road. Even at highway speeds it can easily do legal speed limits. In fact the previous owner of my Savage is about 300 pounds and once rode 2up with his wife (not a small gal either) while keeping up with his Harley riding buddies. I'm sure they weren't riding hard but it's still a bit of a feat for such a small bike. C. There's much to be said good and bad about the way the Savage handles. I assume from the context that "handles like a croc" is a disapproval of the way the bike handles. You don't say what you are comparing it to so there's not much that can be said about this other than the bike handles well enough to be safe at legal speeds. Bike handling is also highly dependent on personal preference. D. The bike does indeed stop. I stop on it all the time. In fact the stopping distance is within the guidelines of what the DOT says a bike should stop. Some bikes do stop better though. But I bet you there are many people here that can even stop there Savage quicker than the average cager. E. Yes the tensioner has some design issues. It's not a difficult thing to keep an eye on it though. The replacement parts are not terribly expensive (IMO). F. Dubious quality issues with the surface finish? This is just nitpicking. Have you seen the price of this thing? You also said "Anybody who wants performance, handling, brakes or power and buys a Savage has the wrong bike." Your statement here is again an exaggeration. This bike performs, handles, has brakes, and has power. It moves, stops, and turns doesn't it? Perhaps you could have worded this something like: I'm not impressed with this bikes performance. I would prefer it to handle better in the twisties (just an example, we don't know from the statements so far how you want the bike to handle). I ride fast and find the brakes to be inadequate for my riding style. Also I would like a little extra power for passing people on the highway. If you pass off opinions as fact you will get flamed and called names. This will never change. If you want people to like you and trust your opinion, put some thought into what you say and how you say it. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by mornhm on 02/05/08 at 08:53:35 As Dark Savage pointed out a lot depends on how information is presented. I've put forth my opinion several times on the Savage without generating a flame war. My opinion of the Savage isn't a whole lot different from what Kwaknut stated, however when I venture forth on this forum with any thing that could be construed as negative about the Savage I try to make sure that everyone understands this is one persons opinion, and that these "facts" don't make the Savage a bad MC. Just because I chose a different MC for a number of reasons, that doesn't mean everyone should. And I certainly try not to denigrate someone for riding a Savage - after all I commuted on one for quite a while. How people respond also has to do with the current make-up of forums. The behavior of several people on this forum would have them labeled as trolls on other forums and everyone would ignore their posts. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Holodeck on 02/05/08 at 09:20:18 This thread started out being interesting, but now it is just going around in circles. Not much fun. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/05/08 at 09:54:20 0D0C0E0C0C1106630 wrote:
A. All bikes have design flaws, of course – but not many will eat hard metal and wreck the motor at 15000 miles because of a tensioner design fault. B. You actually state that the Savage ‘accelerates quicker at non-highway speeds than a large portion of cars on the road’, from which I have to infer that you agree it also accelerates slower than a portion of cars on the road. That’s just so bad! Except for supercars, no car should be faster accelerating than a full-sized bike - that’s just plain embarrassing!! Like it or not it IS a very slow bike – people counter that statement by saying it can travel at highway speed. Is that supposed to be impressive, being able to hit 75 or 80 on a 650cc bike? A couple of mph faster than an old Panther, made in about 1950 and about the same size single cylinder - and 25mph slower than a Virago 535!! I just find it amazing that anybody can own a 650cc road bike that can only hit maybe 80mph and claim its powerful. On an earlier thread about the Savage’s power on poor soul described it as ‘massively over-powered’ compared to 250cc cruisers. Well,it would be. I guess I could describe my old lady as an awesome cage fighter if I compare her to next door’s 2-year old child. It's all relative. C. The handling is okay if you want woolly, imprecise handling and can't push the bike hard enough to feel flex in the poor frame, forks and shocks. I can live with that kind of setup on a cute little bike like the Savage, because my use for it will be slow town riding, but I would not try to convince myself – or anybody else – that the Savage handles well. It’s very limited bike in terms of handling, unless you compare it to some barge of a big soft-sprung heavy cruiser. D. Yes, it stops and meets build standards for stopping. I would even agree that it stops faster than you could manage by dragging your boots on the ground, or an old vintage bike with tiny drums. Big deal – it still needs better brakes. Guess some people are only used to poor brakes and happy with them. E. ‘Some design issues’!! That’s a great way to describe a problem which prematurely toast the motor. You a politician?? F. As I said perfectly clearly, finish is a Suzuki problem far from unique to the Savage. I’ll stand by the statement that people buy a different bike if what they want is performance – the Savage is a cute little thing but it’s a low-grade performer. Even 500cc budget twins like the Honda CB500, Kawasaki EN500, Suzuki GS500 out-perform the Savage in terms of power, brakes and handling (57bhp/115mph for the CB) – and they’re made for learners to cut their teeth on before they move on to a proper bike. The Virago 535 must be about the closest competitor and runs rings round the Savage for brakes, power and handling. Trippah summed it up nicely with “the Savage is a 20 year old under-engineered mildly tuned beastie, designed for relatively easy going putters”. At least some people on here can make an honest reflection on the market niche that their bike fills. The Savage is a nice little bike and is a pleasure to sit on and tinker with, and fits a market niche. But don’t call it powerful, and don’t delude yourselves that it handles well. That would just be opinion based on limited experience of mainstream bikes, and it would seem that such opinion is a no-no round here! Fact – the Savage makes little power, unless somebody can put forward a case to suggest that under 30hp is good power?? Fact – it has faults, just read the forum. Fact – it’s not a sharp handler – it’s just about okay for a cruiser. Fact – it has weak brakes, they’re just about good enough – for a cruiser. It seems that if you pass off facts you will get flamed and called names when over-sensitive owners feel their pride in their little thumpers is dented – maybe that’s what will never change. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/05/08 at 09:58:37 0423202328292F274C0 wrote:
I still think it's a great little bike, and I've said that right from the start, it's just that people are wrong when they say it's powerful or it handles well. But I'll shut up and leave this thread for a while to cool off. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by verslagen1 on 02/05/08 at 10:09:43 Certainly, when one considers what I've designed to give us a piece of mind regarding the cam chain. It wouldn't have cost 'zuki a dollar (or a hundred yen as the case may be) to fix it in the same maner. By designing in a flaw, do they gaurranty their dealers an income? Certainly a few dollars more and their wouldn't be a problem at all. But this is a low cost bike. You get what you pay for don't you? |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by bill67 on 02/05/08 at 10:38:15 kwaknut I think you like high rpm bikes Maybe thats the in thing in england because their cars are buzzy too. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by bsdnfraje on 02/05/08 at 10:52:03 Howdy Fellas, This has been an eye opening thread. I still want a Savage though. Sounds like it is perfect for city commuting, which is what I need. Plus, I really dig thumpers. But what we are likely to do if you start reading from the Quran in St. Peter's Square during Easter is giggle and move on. As long as you aren't interrupting Benedict. We actually want to hear what he has to say. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by skrapiron on 02/05/08 at 10:53:24 The whole problem, Kwaknut is your attitude and the way you present yourself. You have alot of gall to join a fan-based forum and from the start, verbally run down the bike that we all share and love and treat us as if we're all a bunch of uneducated half-wits.... What you have said over and over is if we're satisfied with our Savages, then we're deluding ourselves. Well sir, there you are wrong. The Savage may not have enough power to suit your needs, but I find it meets mine admirably. You may feel that the Savage handles like an old lady in a wheel chair, yet I am quite satisfied with the way that it rides. You may feel that it brakes like a school bus, which again, is fine for you. I on the otherhand am perfectly satisfied with the braking performance of the bike. That's right, KwakNut. I am VERY HAPPY with the performance handling and braking of my Savage! It meets ALL of my needs and is fun to ride. (Did I actually just say that it's fun???? *Gasp. I'm so deluded!) Not everyone LIKES sport bikes (crotch rockets). Personally, I hate them. I think the people who ride them are testosterone deprived ignorant a$$holes who are trying to make up for the fact that they were born with no peni$....... But hey, that's just my OPINION. I'm stating it AS AN OPINION. Not like you... So, unless you wish to discuss the POSITIVES about the Savage with us, instead of preaching down to us ignorant huddled masses about just how dumb we are, then I invite you to take your OPINIONS elsewhere.... (You are first in line for the Troll label for 2008. Congratulations.!) |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Reelthing on 02/05/08 at 11:14:21 73607776696462606B34050 wrote:
after these number of years the bike is likely cost reduced to the maximum - but I'm sure they're given stretch goals like most in manufact to milk the last penny out of the process and find another penny or two next month |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by YonuhAdisi on 02/05/08 at 11:53:00 KwakNut, it seems to me that you are trying to compare the Savage/S40 with a sport bike and finding the Savage wanting. Of course that will be the case as they are two different animals. The sport bikes are designed for high speed but low torque, while the Savage is designed for moderate speed and high torque. The Savage is a cruiser, the sport bike is a street legal racing machine. Now I have nothing against the sport bike except the riding position and most of the idiots I have seen riding them. But to compare the performance, handling, and braking of a sport bike with that of a cruiser is like comparing a Lamborghini with a Lincoln Town Car. Both machines have there merits and flaws but both perform admirably for what they are designed for. Yes, we all like to tweak are machines to get just that much more out of them, but left alone, the Savage does perform well within it's design specifications. Suzuki must have done something right to be able to build and sell the Savage almost completely unchanged for over twenty years and still make a profit off of this bike. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by sluggo on 02/05/08 at 13:20:51 516D7B71546F6E1A0 wrote:
because you are....... lol ;D for some her the love of our machine is much like the love we have for our mother. people here are really really attached to the machine, quirks and all. it is like you are insulting the mother. i've yet to meet a group of people more loyal to their machines than savage owners. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Dark Savage on 02/05/08 at 13:49:14 54687E74516A6B1F0 wrote:
A. All bikes have design flaws, of course – but not many will eat hard metal and wreck the motor at 15000 miles because of a tensioner design fault. B. You actually state that the Savage ‘accelerates quicker at non-highway speeds than a large portion of cars on the road’, from which I have to infer that you agree it also accelerates slower than a portion of cars on the road. That’s just so bad! Except for supercars, no car should be faster accelerating than a full-sized bike - that’s just plain embarrassing!! Like it or not it IS a very slow bike – people counter that statement by saying it can travel at highway speed. Is that supposed to be impressive, being able to hit 75 or 80 on a 650cc bike? A couple of mph faster than an old Panther, made in about 1950 and about the same size single cylinder - and 25mph slower than a Virago 535!! I just find it amazing that anybody can own a 650cc road bike that can only hit maybe 80mph and claim its powerful. On an earlier thread about the Savage’s power on poor soul described it as ‘massively over-powered’ compared to 250cc cruisers. Well,it would be. I guess I could describe my old lady as an awesome cage fighter if I compare her to next door’s 2-year old child. It's all relative. C. The handling is okay if you want woolly, imprecise handling and can't push the bike hard enough to feel flex in the poor frame, forks and shocks. I can live with that kind of setup on a cute little bike like the Savage, because my use for it will be slow town riding, but I would not try to convince myself – or anybody else – that the Savage handles well. It’s very limited bike in terms of handling, unless you compare it to some barge of a big soft-sprung heavy cruiser. D. Yes, it stops and meets build standards for stopping. I would even agree that it stops faster than you could manage by dragging your boots on the ground, or an old vintage bike with tiny drums. Big deal – it still needs better brakes. Guess some people are only used to poor brakes and happy with them. E. ‘Some design issues’!! That’s a great way to describe a problem which prematurely toast the motor. You a politician?? F. As I said perfectly clearly, finish is a Suzuki problem far from unique to the Savage. I’ll stand by the statement that people buy a different bike if what they want is performance – the Savage is a cute little thing but it’s a low-grade performer. Even 500cc budget twins like the Honda CB500, Kawasaki EN500, Suzuki GS500 out-perform the Savage in terms of power, brakes and handling (57bhp/115mph for the CB) – and they’re made for learners to cut their teeth on before they move on to a proper bike. The Virago 535 must be about the closest competitor and runs rings round the Savage for brakes, power and handling. Trippah summed it up nicely with “the Savage is a 20 year old under-engineered mildly tuned beastie, designed for relatively easy going putters”. At least some people on here can make an honest reflection on the market niche that their bike fills. The Savage is a nice little bike and is a pleasure to sit on and tinker with, and fits a market niche. But don’t call it powerful, and don’t delude yourselves that it handles well. That would just be opinion based on limited experience of mainstream bikes, and it would seem that such opinion is a no-no round here! Fact – the Savage makes little power, unless somebody can put forward a case to suggest that under 30hp is good power?? Fact – it has faults, just read the forum. Fact – it’s not a sharp handler – it’s just about okay for a cruiser. Fact – it has weak brakes, they’re just about good enough – for a cruiser. It seems that if you pass off facts you will get flamed and called names when over-sensitive owners feel their pride in their little thumpers is dented – maybe that’s what will never change. [/quote] Thanks for taking the time to reply with a well thought out post. It makes it much easier for the intelligent and the not so intelligent to see what you are saying. I haven't personally ridden many bikes so I can't argue on handling or braking because I don't have a point of reference. I do know that doing city speeds the Savage has a much quicker feel to the handling than my dad's Honda VLX cruiser. I prefer the handling of the VLX for highway though. I am also fairly proficient at math so let me give a shot at the "little power" opinion. The Savage is 352 pounds and has 31 HP. I would venture to say the average Savage rider is 170 pounds. The combined weight of the rider and the bike is 522 pounds. This gives us 16.8 pounds per HP. A 2002 Honda Shadow VT750 C2 has 43 HP and weighs 505 pounds according to bikez.com. If you put the same rider on this bike you get a combined weight of 675 pounds. This gives us 15.7 pounds per HP. The HP to weight ratio of the Savage looks pretty close to (but slightly under) one of the best selling import cruisers on the market (which is also a bigger bike). You also say the Savage will go "maybe 80 MPH". I can personally attest that a stock Savage will do more. I was 2up on the little Savage last night. I weigh about 160 and I would guess my passenger to weigh about the same. I was cruising at about 85 and didn't have the throttle all the way open. This was not downhill. My speedometer is actually pretty accurate. There's plenty of radar machines around here to compare to. When I read your original post it seemed to me to hint that the Savage was so bad as to be a danger. Doesn't stop, unbelievably slow, and handles like a croc are often taken to be very strong terms and I'm sure you didn't mean for them to come off that way. Regardless, all three of those are an opinion even if those opinions are based on facts like "the Savage doesn't accelerate as fast as XXXX bike". Those opinions were thrown in with facts like the finish has quality issues and the timing chain tensioner often fails prematurely. So people don't misunderstand your intentions, opinions should at the very least be stated separate from facts. They should also probably have strong context clues that they are in fact opinion. If you don't then people might feel that you are abrasive or an @sshole. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Polar_Pilot on 02/05/08 at 14:48:34 Thanks for taking the time to reply with a well thought out post. It makes it much easier for the intelligent and the not so intelligent to see what you are saying. Not sure what this comment about intelligence has to do with a discussion about the Suzuki Savage? I haven't personally ridden many bikes so I can't argue on handling or braking because I don't have a point of reference. I do know that doing city speeds the Savage has a much quicker feel to the handling than my dad's Honda VLX cruiser. I prefer the handling of the VLX for highway though. Comparing the LS650/C40 to the VLX is comparing roller skates to roller blades - same idea but with different technology so the comparison becomes pretty meaningless I am also fairly proficient at math so let me give a shot at the "little power" opinion. The Savage is 352 pounds and has 31 HP. I would venture to say the average Savage rider is 170 pounds. The combined weight of the rider and the bike is 522 pounds. This gives us 16.8 pounds per HP. A 2002 Honda Shadow VT750 C2 has 43 HP and weighs 505 pounds according to bikez.com. If you put the same rider on this bike you get a combined weight of 675 pounds. This gives us 15.7 pounds per HP. The HP to weight ratio of the Savage looks pretty close to (but slightly under) one of the best selling import cruisers on the market (which is also a bigger bike). Math only tells mechanical numbers and these are so variable as to really not mean much in the real world You also say the Savage will go "maybe 80 MPH". I can personally attest that a stock Savage will do more. I was 2up on the little Savage last night. I weigh about 160 and I would guess my passenger to weigh about the same. I was cruising at about 85 and didn't have the throttle all the way open. This was not downhill. My speedometer is actually pretty accurate. There's plenty of radar machines around here to compare to. That is simply to fast. Guess my 48 years of riding have made me very conservative but that is to much speed for a Savage to carry with two up. Have you figured out what you will tell your friends parents after the accident that you are setting up by running that speed? I had to do that once- tell my best friends parents that his face would be scarred for life because I was driving to fast. Think about it - please When I read your original post it seemed to me to hint that the Savage was so bad as to be a danger. Doesn't stop, unbelievably slow, and handles like a croc are often taken to be very strong terms and I'm sure you didn't mean for them to come off that way. Regardless, all three of those are an opinion even if those opinions are based on facts like "the Savage doesn't accelerate as fast as XXXX bike". Those opinions were thrown in with facts like the finish has quality issues and the timing chain tensioner often fails prematurely. So people don't misunderstand your intentions, opinions should at the very least be stated separate from facts. They should also probably have strong context clues that they are in fact opinion. If you don't then people might feel that you are abrasive or an @sshole. Well written until the last sentence. What did you accomplish by swearing? Look - he has an ax to grind with the Savage. Most riders/owners/readers here do not. End of story. There is an old saw - you can argue with me but you cannot argue with logic. I believe his logic is flawed so that is the end of it |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Dark Savage on 02/05/08 at 15:33:51 Thanks for taking the time to reply with a well thought out post. It makes it much easier for the intelligent and the not so intelligent to see what you are saying. Not sure what this comment about intelligence has to do with a discussion about the Suzuki Savage? I guess I could have said "easier for anyone" instead. I just shortened it down from something much longer and that happened to stay in. I haven't personally ridden many bikes so I can't argue on handling or braking because I don't have a point of reference. I do know that doing city speeds the Savage has a much quicker feel to the handling than my dad's Honda VLX cruiser. I prefer the handling of the VLX for highway though. Comparing the LS650/C40 to the VLX is comparing roller skates to roller blades - same idea but with different technology so the comparison becomes pretty meaningless It's what I have experience with. It is at least a cruiser style bike of similar size unlike much of what KwakNut was comparing to. I can't really think of much you can compare the Savage to. It's really a bit unique. I am also fairly proficient at math so let me give a shot at the "little power" opinion. The Savage is 352 pounds and has 31 HP. I would venture to say the average Savage rider is 170 pounds. The combined weight of the rider and the bike is 522 pounds. This gives us 16.8 pounds per HP. A 2002 Honda Shadow VT750 C2 has 43 HP and weighs 505 pounds according to bikez.com. If you put the same rider on this bike you get a combined weight of 675 pounds. This gives us 15.7 pounds per HP. The HP to weight ratio of the Savage looks pretty close to (but slightly under) one of the best selling import cruisers on the market (which is also a bigger bike). Math only tells mechanical numbers and these are so variable as to really not mean much in the real world HP really doesn't mean a whole lot either but I was trying to convince KwakNut who seems pretty stuck on HP meaning a lot. You also say the Savage will go "maybe 80 MPH". I can personally attest that a stock Savage will do more. I was 2up on the little Savage last night. I weigh about 160 and I would guess my passenger to weigh about the same. I was cruising at about 85 and didn't have the throttle all the way open. This was not downhill. My speedometer is actually pretty accurate. There's plenty of radar machines around here to compare to. That is simply to fast. Guess my 48 years of riding have made me very conservative but that is to much speed for a Savage to carry with two up. Have you figured out what you will tell your friends parents after the accident that you are setting up by running that speed? I had to do that once- tell my best friends parents that his face would be scarred for life because I was driving to fast. Think about it - please I was flowing with traffic that was going that speed. It would have been unsafe to be going slower, especially on a bike. When I read your original post it seemed to me to hint that the Savage was so bad as to be a danger. Doesn't stop, unbelievably slow, and handles like a croc are often taken to be very strong terms and I'm sure you didn't mean for them to come off that way. Regardless, all three of those are an opinion even if those opinions are based on facts like "the Savage doesn't accelerate as fast as XXXX bike". Those opinions were thrown in with facts like the finish has quality issues and the timing chain tensioner often fails prematurely. So people don't misunderstand your intentions, opinions should at the very least be stated separate from facts. They should also probably have strong context clues that they are in fact opinion. If you don't then people might feel that you are abrasive or an @sshole. Well written until the last sentence. What did you accomplish by swearing? I guess I was just trying to be frank with him and tell him why people were being so rude. I didn't mean to offend anyone's sensibilities. Look - he has an ax to grind with the Savage. Most riders/owners/readers here do not. End of story. There is an old saw - you can argue with me but you cannot argue with logic. I believe his logic is flawed so that is the end of it [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by LANCER on 02/05/08 at 15:50:59 Well, isn't this the interesting thread ? There are a lot of words but for what ? I like big singles; that is why I have this bike. There are indeed shortcoming and that is why I have been playing with it since I first got the little bugger. I am also a chronic tinkerer so that is a big part of it too. Tweak the engine for a bit more power, forks and shocks for a little better ride, better seat cushion to uncramp the butt muscles. But the main thing is that it is fun to ride for me. I like the torque/power characteristics of of a big single ... it is just fun. :) |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by rigidchop on 02/05/08 at 16:18:29 round and round we go!!! i never liked the savage at all till i got one. why did i get one? it was very cheap. i also own bigger and smaller bikes. the savage is just plain fun to ride(i admit i beat on it occasionally) handles better than my chopper, could probably out run it around town and in the twisties. stops better than my other bikes. gets good milage. it doesnt matter to me what anyone else thinks about it, its mine and i like it. you all make me laugh. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by demin on 02/05/08 at 16:30:22 Where I commute from Frisco,Tx to Dallas on Preston rd. it doesn't matter if you have 10hp or a 100 you are still only going to go the speed of traffic.If you're a lane splitter,try it in Dallas see what happens.I like my Savages(yes two)I can go to school,and work for about $4.00 a day with premium versus $20.00 a day in my truck. Comparing the Savage,and a sport bike is like me challenging you to a tug of war.Your car versus my 4wd truck.Even if you have 400hp car I'm still going to out pull you with my 200hp truck. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/05/08 at 18:40:13 Some people have no concept of really low performance. I spent the summer of '64 in England, staying in Kent. My uncle let me use his moped. Rode it into London. Had to push it up Shooter's Hill. I rode a rented Suzuki 90 on a 160 mile round-trip Biloxi MS - New Orleans. Had my 40 horse 4000 pound camper which I drove from L.A. to 100 Mile House BC (100 pounds/hp!) Had a '54 Dodge pickup in '69 in Warner Robins GA -- flathead six. When I bought it it had the front brake line pinched off and the right rear grabbed -- now THAT was pitiful braking. Almost as bad as when I lost the master cylinder on my VW Beetle in Greece (which I drove a week using the hand brake.) Had a Pinto -- the coupling between steering wheel and the rest of the steering stuff broke, so I had a rather large degree (15?) of slop. Made staying in your own lane interesting. An intake valve broke in the open position so that cylinder fired back into the intake. I continued to work, drove home, pulled the plug wire from the offending cylinder. Running on three cylinders my top speed dropped to about 25 mph. Drove to and from work for a month before driving it to the junkyard. Claiming the Savage has low performance/handling/braking is a joke. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Hell, Billy on 02/05/08 at 18:47:34 Wow, this has got to be one of the dumbest threads I have read on this forum...and I must be even dumber for having read it. I think you guys need to go for a putt and chill out, it ain`t that cold. WB |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Gort on 02/05/08 at 18:53:30 7B4A474A4F42452B0 wrote:
A fine stable of racing vehicles. I envy you. By the way, did you score in England? |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Paladin. on 02/05/08 at 19:27:49 023E2822073C3D490 wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No, it is when you claim your biased opinion is factual. Your posts are extremely short of facts. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Holodeck on 02/05/08 at 19:54:57 The End. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/06/08 at 02:02:30 363D38386263540 wrote:
However, for the Savage, I think a nice long stroke low-revving lump is perfect. However, that lump should be producing more power than it does, and could have been made to do so at zero cost to Suzuki. Bigger header bore, less restrictive exhaust port in the head casting, a little more compression (without becoming fuel sensitive) and a better cam profile would have cost nothing more to manufacture and we’d have a 45hp bike doing the same revs but with more torque and an even nicer ‘thump’. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/06/08 at 02:04:23 7C647D6E7F667D60610F0 wrote:
7C647D6E7F667D60610F0 wrote:
7C647D6E7F667D60610F0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/06/08 at 02:06:32 6D5B5A415C75505D475D340 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/06/08 at 02:07:40 67666466667B6C090 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/06/08 at 02:09:38 4F70737E6D404F7673706B1F0 wrote:
This started with me questioning claims that the bike has plenty of power and handles well – it doesn’t, unless ‘plenty of power’ means enough to pull out of a car park and ‘handles well’ means better than a trike. I still like the bike, a lot, but it’s plain silly to suggest that the Savage is powerful. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/06/08 at 02:11:35 4D7C717C7974731D0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/06/08 at 02:18:49 7E4F424F4A47402E0 wrote:
Reputable comparison? You know I can’t just put my hands on magazine reports, so you’re trying anything you can to discredit what is obviously true. I’ve ridden all of those bikes, have you? If you honestly think the Savage is not out-performed (by a long way) by bikes with almost twice the power, not much more weight, and bigger brakes, you have a lot of learning to do about bikes. As for 0-40, who measures anything less than 0-60?? I’m not an adrenaline junkie, I just say it like it is. And while I REALLY LIKE THE SAVAGE (how many times do I have to say this???), I’m not going to try to convince myself that it’s a powerful high performer. It’s at the low end of the motorcycle performance scale, by any reasonable comparison, but it’s still a darned nice bike. Accept that, and try to be a little less touchy. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by skrapiron on 02/06/08 at 05:04:59 695543496C5756220 wrote:
And AGAIN... Since you failed to read the first TWO explainations: The stock performance you get is NOT the fault of Suzuki, the Savage or anyone involved in the production, distribution or sale of the motorcycle. The reason you recieve a castrated thumper in the first place is due to stringent clean air regulations! The bike has NO pollution contols. In order to meet emissions standards, the engineers had NO CHOICE but to reduce its performance by restricting the engine. Your gripes about the header, cam, exhaust and bore are bogus! yes, the bike would perform MUCH better than it does stock. But it would NOT MEET modern emissions standards. THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE SOLD! If you want that kind of performance, YOU, the end user, will have to make the modifications (and suffer the consequences if ever subject to emissions testing). It's your bike. Do what you want. BUT Don't continue to make broad statements like the bike IS UNDERPOWERED (No matter what we say). It may be underpowered TO YOU. That does not mean that WE find it underpowered. That's the difference between FACT and OPINION.... |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by markrider on 02/06/08 at 06:42:26 Hey, KwakNut, IMO it's all about what makes each and every one of us feel good about ourselves riding in the breeze. All I can tell you is I feel better about me thumping along on the Savage at 50MPH than I used to feel going 90 on my old 750 Nighthawk or blowing the Sportsters off with my H2 500 Kawasaki back in the 70's back in my days of misspent youth. I've been riding since 1965 and I learned to be more tolerant and less judgemental about what works for others. (Bet you never read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Persig) We can all enjoy our rides while being less judgemental of others. Markrider |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/06/08 at 08:52:57 3F332039203B363720520 wrote:
The point I raised was that, nice though it is (full of character, value for money, good looking, easy to work on, fun to ride etc) it is not a powerful, high performance machine. I challenged claims that it’s a powerful bike and a good handler. That’s all, and some people have blown that way out of proportion. I have read the book, by the way! An old friend read it and recommended it. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by bill67 on 02/06/08 at 09:05:55 Kwak maybe to got the 400 |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by KwakNut on 02/06/08 at 09:37:01 736B72617069726F6E000 wrote:
Put it like this. I’m a chartered mechanical engineer, I’ve worked automotive industry, oil industry, been a military engineer the last 16 years, and I’ve built and modified an awful lot of bike and car engines (mostly V8s) over the last 25 years as my hobby/weekend business involves that kind of thing. I’ve had to struggle sometimes to get cars through emissions, and that’s often come down to cam profiles being too radical – you go for a lot of overlap, and you get a lot of hydrocarbons coming out the pipe (which can be harder to deal with than CO). I understand a lot about emissions and regulations (and, as an aside, I’ve known that there are 2 TDC positions for a bike when you’re setting the valves since I was about 12 years old, unlike some of us). What makes you think it Suzuki had to restrict the bike so much to get it through emissions? Wrong I'm afraid. Why isn’t the Virago 535 only 30hp if that’s the case? It costs a little more, but it’s not smothered in emissions kit. You seem to think it would be prohibitively expensive to mod it and get more power while keeping emissions down. Wrong again. Crankcase air recirculation would cost pennies. Ignition re-curve would cost pennies. Producing a different cam profile would cost zero – they’ll have loads of development profiles available to programme into the grinding machine anyway. The compression ration doesn’t need to be that low, and the header diameter could be better. The first big restriction in the exhaust port is due to the spring seats sitting deep in the head and blanking off part of the port – that’s just down to Suzuki engineers concentrating on the engine’s looks and profile more than gas flow. Better valve train design could have removed that obstruction in the casting. There’s also a deliberate cast-in restriction to the exhaust port orifice. That’s a factory restrictor. As well as limiting flow, that will cause some premature scavenger wave reflection which will worsen emissions, guaranteed, not improve them. The only thing that would be emissions-dependent would be jetting, needle and mixture screw setting, just like it is on every other bike. When the Savage was launched emissions weren’t the problem they are now. 2006 EPA standard for a Class 3 motorcycle is 1.4 grams per kilometer of HC + NOx (Hydrocarbon + Oxides of Nitrogen) and 12 grams per kilometer of CO (Carbon Monoxide). Suzuki could easily achieve that at virtually no cost for a Savage to produce another 10 or so hp. The limit from 1980 to 2006 was 5g of hydrocarbons – that’s a piece of cake to achieve, so blows your emissions claim out of the water. There are plenty of other, simple bikes (twins admittedly, but they’re hardly going to cost more to sort than a single) which produce much more specific horsepower than the Savage, and sail through emissions regs with hardly any emissions equipment on the bike. Believe me, that little engine could produce more factory power and pass emissions if Suzuki had wanted it to. So why does it only produce what it does? Remember that the Savage, like many Japanese bikes, is built for the Japanese and European markets as well as the US. Its design and application are very dependant on their markets. What really IS more than coincidence is that there’s a European law for power limits on young riders with less than 2 years of experience which limits them to less than 33bhp. There are similar rules in other European countries. The advertising banners for the Savage in the UK whe it was launched were covered in references to it meeting the learner power limit. That’s why the bike is only 31hp. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Hutch on 02/06/08 at 11:03:54 I haven't been on this forum lately, for the reason of ,I'm tired of argueing. So lets see if I can do this civilized. I have been riding for 43 years and owned over 50 bikes, of a lot of makes and size.First off KwakNut is correct about the Savage being underpowered,thanks to the EPA, but so is a 1340cc Harley at 60hp. I have a 23hp 500cc Royal Enfield, that is a twist and wait bike, very slow but I like it. All bikes are different, even the same model. I hear of people doing over 80mph on a stock Savage. I came up with the chain conversion to get over 70mph out of mine, and it is jetted and piped with a K&N filter. I only weigh 150 and the bike was bought new in 06. It now does 90mph. Handeling depends on what type of riding you want to do. That is why I own 7 different bikes. One for each type I plan on doing. The BSA 441 for trails, the 500 Enfield for trails and backroads,the Enfield 750 Interceptor for fast curves and highway cruising, the 650 Triumph chopper for cool bad handleing ego trips, the 100+hp custom V-Twin for shear power and speed. That leaves my 06Savage and my 2002 Kawasaki W650(Triumph clone). I am going to sell all my bikes but two. The Savage will be used for two lane black top at 60mph, and the Kawasaki for highway and out of state trips. All others are for sale. I do not blame anyone for standing up for their bike. Even though the Savage is underpowered, my 2000 Kawasaki 650 twin runs 50hp, and it doesn't handle as good as the Kawasaki, it is a great looking bike, and handles better than my Triumph chopper or my 100+hp custom. The Savage gets about 60mpg. The Kaw gets 70mpg and weighs more with 20 more hp. Everyone could compare bikes until the next millenium, but what it comes down to is that if YOU like YOUR bike, and it suits your needs, that is all that matters. A few years ago I wouldn't have beed caught dead on a JAP bike. I still wish I could hold up the Harleys I used to own, but that is not the case anymore. Harleys aren't fast with out sinking a ton of money into them either. Because of my physical state and present riding habits the Savage and Kawasaki fit my needs, and that is all that matters. I hope I didn't ruffle any feathers in this post, that was not my intention, and I don't think it was KwakNuts either. Hutch |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by bill67 on 02/06/08 at 12:44:31 Hutch what was the top speed of yours when it was stock? |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Hutch on 02/06/08 at 14:44:39 Bill67, my top speed was 70mph totaly stock. After a 152.5 main, a 55 pilot, K&N drop in filter, Jardine muffler, and the 17/43 chain drive conversion it now will do 90mph after laying on the tank for about 2 miles. The bike now has 3000 miles on it. It will cruise 75-80 all day now. This is what I mean about bikes being the same model and year and not running the same. Others claim almost that stock. I have seen the same thing over the years on different bikes and also cars. Same year, same model, different performance. Sometimes you luck out, sometimes you don't. One other thing to show comparisons is this. My 67 Royal Enfield Interceptor was static and dynamicly balanced from the facory.It revs like an Indy car and has no vibration. It is 60hp stock from a 750cc parallel twin. It only weighs 70 pounds more than the Savage, with 30 extra hp. Not bad for a 41 year old bike. My 68 BSA 441 is 29hp stock,for a comparison to another single. It weighs 25 pounds less than the Savage with about the same hp and is 40 years old. So much for Progress. But as mentioned, you can blame the EPA for that. When they went from 2 stroke dirt bikes to 4 stroke, they had to build a 400cc bike to run as good as a 250cc 2 stroke. Soon we will be riding 1300cc bikes with the performance of a 650cc. You can only choke a motorcycle motor so much and you have to go bigger to get the same output.As I have mentioned before, I plan on keeping my Savage because it is a beautiful looking bike, lends itself to a chopper look and is light. It fits my short ride needs. The 650 Kaw is just light enough for my physical limitations, but has the power, handleling, and that old British look I like so much. I love all bikes, but I could go on for days about where each bike shines and doesn't. There are no perfect bikes for all types of riding, only ones that YOU like for YOUR type of riding.As long as you are satisfied with your bike, that is all that matters. Hutch |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Ed L. on 02/06/08 at 16:24:50 Very well said Hutch, I agree with you and am glad you didn't get pulled into the p1ssing match ;). |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by liltimmy on 02/07/08 at 04:30:29 My stock "05 can do 85mph easily, thats all the fast i need, I weigh 260. I can hit the same speed hauling the ol' lady around, though acceleration suffers, with the whipping post on back. I do regular 120 mile round trips and I am not the slowest thing on the interstate, by a long shot. I have a friend with a custom sportster, with twice the engine displacement and he can not pull ahead of me until we reach 65. Through 3rd gear he is actually playing catch up as I can out accelerate him on the low end. His bike is now up for sale. He wants a boulevard. To top that all of I get twice the gas mileage. Yes we stop for me to get gas, as his 5 gallon tank hold much more, but topping of his tank when we fuel up, cost him almost twice as much as I spend at the pump. I also have no over heating in slow traffic. If someone gave me a Harley, I would own it about as long as it takes to sell it on ebay. I could get a lot blingage for my thumper with cash from selling that over priced over rated piece of junk to some weekend warrior. As for old verses new thumpers no comparison. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by LANCER on 02/07/08 at 04:54:58 Quote:
AMEN |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by TheFid on 02/07/08 at 06:11:31 I`m not an expert biker,but i`ve had a few bikes including a 750 F1 superbike and a Triumph 900 thunderbird. I am now the proud owner of a 2003 Savage,I love this bike,not for its speed or handling but for everything i want in a bike at my age (69).I cannot imagine wanting to ride anything other than the SAVAGE 650. ps. My top speed to date recorded on the Sigma is 90.4. That will do. , |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by firsts40 on 02/07/08 at 06:43:37 My stock 06 S40 will do 70 all day long and still have enough left to pull to 80 with no problem. I have run it at 70 for a total of around 350 miles in a day, and out of the total run that was around 450 miles, there were times when she was around 80. I bought it brand new and it is completely stock. I can run 65-70 on the highway and get around 62 MPG. This is perfect for me, I perfer to cruise around 65 on the highway, and around 50-55 on country roads. You just have to be careful and alert on the highways because of the light wieght. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Hutch on 02/07/08 at 07:19:47 Bill67, Now you see what I mean about some bikes of the same model are faster. About a year ago I decided the bike needed lower rpm at 70mph and decided to come up with a way to convert to chain. A lot of people said there had to be something wrong with it, if I could only do 70 and it was redlined. I have been working on bikes for 40+ years and everything is correctly adjusted. Mine either needs more miles to loosen up, or it is a dog. It out accelerates most every Harley owner around here up to 60mph, but lacks top end. Since it cruises at 70-75mph all day, I don't care about top end. I can ride my used,$3000,now showing 7000 miles, Kawasaki 650 Triumph clone at 75-80 all day and still have 3000 rpm left, with a much more comfortable ride ,better handleing, and don't have to worry about cross winds or semi turbulance due to the extra 70 pounds of weight. It also out accellerates stock Harleys, to 90mph, and will due the 1/4 mile in 13.5seconds at 98mph. If my Savage is a dog, oh well, it is a pretty dog. Hutch |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by bill67 on 02/07/08 at 07:27:10 Mine new and stock,I went up to 80 once I have had about 15 different bikes I know mine would do 85 for sure it was still pulling at 80 I weight 165. |
|
Title: Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Post by Hutch on 02/07/08 at 07:41:19 Bill67 With all the mods on mine it is struggling from 80mph to 90, and on a good day, laying on the tank will do 90. I have been checked by a policeman friend of mine with radar, because the speedo is off with the chain conversion, and it has never went past a 75mph reading, that equates to a 88mph actual speed. Hutch |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |