|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> Why did Suzuki make a single? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1202994913 Message started by keithert on 02/14/08 at 05:15:12 |
|
Title: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by keithert on 02/14/08 at 05:15:12 Since the Savage is the only single cylinder cruiser on the market in the last 30 years I was wondering what made Suzuki design it? My guess would be that the engine is half of the engine from the Intruder 1400 so it was inexpensive to design. Any other theories? |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by KwakNut on 02/14/08 at 05:40:20 In some respects, you answered the question yourself - there wasn't another single-cylinder cruiser on the market, so Suzuki had to have thought 'this is a cheap gamble, make a bike with relatively low development and manufacture costs, and see if it plugs a hole in the market'. It did - which is why it's been made for so long. My only surprise is that nobody else made one, but then the Savage didn't get very good press reports in Europe and the UK when it was launched so its success has been the result of a combination of cult following from thumper lovers and being the largest capacity sub-33hp bike on the market. There are a handful of 500cc models but not many 400cc+ bikes with less than 33hp, and that limit is important for licensing young bikers in Europe. So the Savage is the biggest off-the-shelf bike some new riders can buy - that's a pretty strong marketing feature. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Capt._Ron on 02/14/08 at 06:32:11 Actually, it's not the ONLY cruiser single out there. Don't forget the baby sister to the Savage, the GZ250. Suzuki's answer to the Rebel is a fine small caliber cruiser with serious capabilities. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by keithert on 02/14/08 at 07:01:29 0A28393D67161B2627490 wrote:
Forgot about that one. My mistake. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by KwakNut on 02/14/08 at 07:10:54 78767A677B766167130 wrote:
Forgot about that one. My mistake. [/quote]Mind you, it's more of a frigate than a cruiser. Or maybe a patrol boat. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by jk on 02/14/08 at 09:08:44 1C20363C192223570 wrote:
PBR Street Gang... |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Onederer on 02/14/08 at 10:29:59 They did'nt think this design would sell!http://www.jrlcycles.com/i//amber5.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Onederer on 02/14/08 at 10:40:45 This one was already taken.http://www.enfieldmotorcycles.com/models/img/military/Military.jpg This is a new bike that sells aroun $5'200 US. Since I got rid of the 68'CB450, this shall be its replacement. Retro heck! this is the real deal. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 02/14/08 at 13:28:41 Before settling (I think) on buying a Savage, I had thought I wanted a Royal Enfield, until I investigated. Except for just one model, they all have drum brakes, front and rear - really outdated. Don't expect more than about 75 mph top speed, unless you weigh under 100 pounds, have a tailwind, and it's in perfect tune. It's not an interstate highway bike - of course, when it was in its heyday in the late 1950s and into the 60s, there were no interstates here. Motorways in England were beginning, and of course, the Germans had a few autobahnen by then. According to my buddy, a local dealer who dropped RE from his line-up, ( he sells Suzuki, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Polaris, Triumph, Ducati and Aprilia) the quality control is the pits, warranty claims take forever, and the tooling at the factory is the same old stuff that the Brits used 45+ years ago, and is just plain worn out. There are very few dealers nationwide if you need help while on a trip with one of them. Other than all of that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Max_Morley on 02/14/08 at 14:29:21 Lets see, the Engine was used in the early 80's In a bike called the "Tempter", sold in 400 cc versions in the Asian and Australian market, debuted as a Savage in 86 in the USA, then back again in the 95-96 time frame. Seems they have recovered many times over the original R&D costs so it is pretty much gravy at this point. Lets thank them as we have such a great ride. Max |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Paladin. on 02/14/08 at 15:10:24 7E707C617D706761150 wrote:
Marketing. The vast majority is beguiled by horsepower and speed. Only the truely knowledgable know that for a given displacement nothing can match the torque of a single -- and it is torque that accelerates you from the light, not horsepower. Anyone could make a Thumper, but they don't because the market barely supports the one. Savage sales are not such that anyone else has a great yearning to jump in and grab a piece of the action. Our engine is Old Tech, and will soon die from excessive emissions. Suzuki.co.uk does not list the LS650 in it's current lineup. HOPEFULLY Suzuki will slip one of their other singles into the Savage frame rather than drop the line altogether. They have the 398cc liquid cooled mill from the DR-Z400 and the 644cc air/oil cooled from the DR650. Kawasaki has the 651cc liquid cooled single in the KLR650, and Honda has a 644cc air cooled single in the XR650. Lack of a suitable engine is not the reason there are no other Thumping Cruisers. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by sluggo on 02/14/08 at 15:25:16 i rode the savage's uncle, an eighty one gn400, man that was a great bike. got it as a wedding present from the wife rode it as a daily driver for over 20 years and 98,000 miles. finally wore the thing out. i then bought the 04 savage, bobbed it using the chrome fenders off the 400, along with other assorted stuff. a single has been the staple of the industry worldwide so that's why. for the world a 650 is a big bike. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by rigidchop on 02/14/08 at 16:48:24 if they ever put a drz400 engine in one i'm buying me one. talk about torque, woooo hoooo. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by joebothehobo on 02/14/08 at 18:19:37 unfortunately they'd probably have to gear it up so it cruises the freeway instead of climbs walls. id guess it would be a less exciting bike than either the savage or the DRZ400 individually. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by drharveys on 02/14/08 at 22:20:09 3738343E3538333F382F3A382F5D0 wrote:
Up to the point where it put the primary chain through the cases, not bad when it was actually running. 1950's British engineering and design, Indian quality control -- even the export grade Enfields are a reliability disaster, especially if you think a 500cc bike should ride at least as well as an old Honda Super 90! http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/drharveys/DamSite.jpg Yeah, drop-dead gorgeous, but my wife was getting tired of picking me up so I could bring it home on the trailer! (And yes, the shift was on the right, and that's a disk brake up front!) |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by KwakNut on 02/15/08 at 05:34:01 586964696C6166080 wrote:
Well, you’re almost right. Torque counts for nothing until gearing is factored in – it’s the tractive force at the tyre-tarmac interface that accelerates you. Sure, in any two vehicles with the same overall gear ratio, the torquiest motor will accelerate you best, but that’s why we have choices of gear ratios. A higher-revving motor may produce less torque at the flywheel but allows you to use more advantageous gear ratios to actually put more torque through the back wheel than a lower-revving unit with more flywheel torque. That’s why race cars and bikes, whether circuit racers or dragsters, build for power and revs. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by keithert on 02/15/08 at 06:37:02 drharveys, what year is that bike? |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by J Mac on 02/15/08 at 10:48:50 Interesting, Paladin. I didn't realize there were so many singles out there. It looks like they're mostly dual purpose/off road. I used the GZ250 in the MSF class, and I had assumed it had inline twin 125 cylinders for some reason. It's too bad an insider can't tell us the future of the S40 line. You're right, there's no reason not to use DR650 engine, one would think. 13222F22272A2D430 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by keithert on 02/15/08 at 10:52:07 3F342C0A3834363E550 wrote:
I assumed the same thing. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Paladin. on 02/15/08 at 13:49:47 505B4365575B59513A0 wrote:
You'll also notice that the list of multi-cylinder dirt capable bikes is rather short. Why? Because horsepower is not the end all be all of performance. City streets and dirt both favor lightweight and torque -- which is the forte of the Thumper. The past 30-40 years have seen a shift toward high speed performance -- pushed by racers and manufacturers who rather sell a overpriced race replica than something useful. A lot more money in it. Thus, we have pitiful selection of small and mid-sized bikes, and a glut of large, extra large and gigantic bikes -- all capable of speeds well into the triple digits. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by verslagen1 on 02/15/08 at 14:35:13 I can remember when the honda 4's 1st came out and were introduced to the racing sceen a year or 2 before they closed ascot. Dad was nearing the end of his racing career as well. ascot "TT" was one of his favorate races, a dirt oval with a infield jump which was more of a hill. Dad had gotten a road course side hack which wasn't much more than a piece of plywood with a trailer wheel. To power this around the track he had a BSA gold star, 500cc thumper. It must've looked a bit rediculous to the crowd, brand new HiTech screaming 4's, a few odd's and ends triumph's and beaser's and this old thumper. Man all I could think of was look out dad, stay out of these mad men's way. Yeah, they were all rookies as far as I new, never seen 'em before as we didn't really do the road sceen. Well the green flag dropped and 4's wailed into the turn, rooster tails that cleared out the stands in the corners. And there was dad, thumpa-thumpa-thumpa in 1st place? Holy cow while all these guys were spinning their wheels going wide around the corner, dad snuck down low and went right by them. And that's the way it went every lap, dad would leave'm through the twisties and they would just catch up on the one long straight. What a blast! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by bill67 on 02/15/08 at 15:15:41 When the ls650 first came out Suzuki called it a entry-level bike, because it was light weight and had a low seat. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by geo on 02/15/08 at 16:00:27 It has everything to do with emissions. Even motorcycles have constraints on emissions. That is why there are no more 2-stroke machines on the road. There are very few small bore 4-stoke machines left either. It is easier to control emissions in large bore engines. The Suzuki single is a large bore engine, and it exists because a single can be lighter than a twin of equal displacement, and it can be far lighter than a 1300cc twin which is 2 650cc cylinders. Notice that most motorcycles nowdays are large bore twins, say 1000cc or more. Big bore engines is the future for road motorcycles and this is driven by emissions. :'( Imagine if we had to have a catalytic converter on our machines, they would become cost prohibitive. Harley Davidson now has fuel injection. This is driven by reducing emissions also. I loved my 1969 Yamaha 250cc DT-1B Enduro, but this bike is gone forever. Remember the Suzuki 250cc Hustler? |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by drharveys on 02/15/08 at 16:53:08 7B75796478756264100 wrote:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/drharveys/DSC00676-1.jpg It was a 2003. By the time I finally gave up on it, it had many variations from stock: front disc brake, high output oil pump, alloy cylinder with higher compression piston, cylinder head temp gauge, right foot shift restored (eliminated a whole bunch of jack shafts under the bike), spring mounted solo saddle, rear luggage rack with removable sprung pillion saddle, upgraded valves, relocated battery, K & N air cleaner, and, oh yeah, I replaced the stainless steel screws holding the fenders in place with brass bolts and acorn nuts because it looked better with the gold pin striping! Prior to it's throwing the primary chain through the cases, it really did perform well, or at least well enough for what it was. I came to the conclusion that there were only two types of Enfield owners who are happy with the bikes: 1 Those who keep them mechanically stock and never go over 50 mph 2 Those who do performance mods, but consider a weekend spent rebuilding an engine on their own quality motorcycle time Not falling into either group, I will not be getting another one! I do understand that they now have a new, improved lean burn engine, but I'm not willing to invest my money to find out if it represents a real improvement at the practical level. Sure was pretty, though: http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/drharveys/70020sm-R1-017-7.jpg And the bottom photo was taken before I relocated the battery! |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by joebothehobo on 02/15/08 at 17:01:12 We'll, fortunately or unfortunately for us folks in california... A certain unnamed important US government official, with the backing of a certain unnamed government environmental agency, in a move that is certainly unlike the the unnamed political party for which he stands, recently denied states the right to set their own emissions standards which are over and above the national standard. No value judgments being placed on that action. It does however mean that since the United States has been historically very lenient in terms of its emissions policies (it and Kazakhstan being the only 2 signatory countries to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, for example) and for those of us continuing to live here, I would guess that you wont have to worry about emissions too much (at not unless a liberal gets elected). |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by J Mac on 02/15/08 at 22:32:10 Hmm.. I doubt my state would set our standards above Federal. I'm all for cleaner emissions, but I'm tired of the law-abiding people being punished. We're subject to older vehicles driven by landscapers here that appear to burn about 1/4 of the gasoline delivered through their carbs/injectors and release the rest directly through the tailpipe in the form of vapor. Following them makes you feel like you have an open gas can in your cab (or helmet). I guess changing plugs, cleaning the fuel system, or making sure their engine fires on all cylinders never occurred to them. Why does the government pick on us regarding emissions, when we get 45 - 55 mpg and almost always drive far fewer miles per year than cars? >:( |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by YonuhAdisi on 02/16/08 at 09:31:40 656B677A666B7C7A0E0 wrote:
I assumed the same thing.[/quote] That's probably because of the twin headers. I was looking at a brand new GZ250 yesterday while I was waiting on getting my new tires put on. I too thought at first that it was a small twin. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Lazy Old Rider on 02/16/08 at 11:32:47 I looked at the Suzuki UK Site, and they are not offering the 250, If we want a "Suzuki type" 250 we need to go to a Hyosung Agent. However Suzuki do promote two 125 cc Cruisers. 1. A Single Cylinder air cooled "Marauder" 2. A Twin Cylinder Liquid Cooled "Intruder" The next Size up here is 800, and then if you have a limited License (halfway between a Learner License and a Full License) a restrictor kit needs to be fitted to strangle it to 33BHP from its MASSIVE? 51 BHP The 33BHP figure was a change to a previous "rule" where the Limit was 250cc but I think some 250 then were starting to produce more BHP, so the legislators came ans sat on the BHP Fence and allowed restriction kits to be fitted with an important and expensive "Certification". I believe that some people find that these restrictor kits mysteriously "fall off" or "disappear" shortly after the rider gets his certificate and Insurance. It is illegal to Ride a Bike greater than 33BHP without a restrictor unless you have a Full license |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Paladin. on 02/16/08 at 13:21:35 When I started riding there wasn't a separate motorcycle license. When I got my DT175 in California they wanted a motorcycle endorsement, which meant passing the lolipop test at the DMV. Being a dirt biker I couldn't break my dabbing habit so I didn't bother. Rode 12-13 years without license or insurance. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by KwakNut on 02/16/08 at 13:46:28 02333E33363B3C520 wrote:
I guess insurance doesn't matter if you don't care about the little kid you might run over. For somebody who knocks sportbike riders for being adenaline junkie fools, you seem to have some pretty twisted standards of morality. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Mr 650 on 02/16/08 at 15:40:50 Insurance cos, I rate em right up there w/ politicians/lawyers. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by PerrydaSavage on 02/16/08 at 16:03:13 Amen ... Lawyers only invented the spelling of their true profession "LIARS" to make it seem more legit ... |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Paladin. on 02/16/08 at 20:05:06 I don't run over little kids. Last time I ran into anything was 1965. Insurance is you betting against yourself. If you are a horrid driver/rider insurance will pay off. If you are a safe driver/rider you are the one paying for the horrid driver/riders -- as well as paying for the insurance company skyscrapers etc.. Just as with the state lottery or Vegas casinos -- the odds are stacked so that the house never loses. The insurance companys have passed laws (thru their purchased legislators) to have insurance coverage mandatory, or worse, "no fault" where you have to pay for other people hitting you. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by KwakNut on 02/17/08 at 03:09:24 487974797C7176180 wrote:
I don’t know how proactive the Police are in the US these days with insurance, but over here if your vehicle passes a Police car his vehicle automatically scans your plate to check for annual vehicle tax and insurance – and if you don’t insurance, the penalty points on your license put you ¾ the way to being a banned driver. But think of a worse situation. No fault of your own, your front tyre pops, or your motor locks up, or you hit a patch of gravel or spilled oil, and you lose control of the bike – doesn’t matter how competent or sensible any of us are, it can happen. How bad would it be if you end up causing a $100,000 car to be written off, and have to sell your house to pay off the damages? Or even worse, same situation, you’re riding sensibly and safely but something does go wrong, and you critically injure a little kid, leaving them in need of long-term medical care that the family can’t pay – if you’re insured, they’re going to be covered. I don’t like the idea of contemplating the alternative. I don’t insure for my own financial protection – I’d happily run the odds over the balance of a lifetime. I insure in case I need to pay for injury I may cause to somebody else. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 02/17/08 at 10:57:15 I almost didn't jump into this one, because I'm sure I'll raise the ire of someone. I am an insurance defense lawyer - that means we represent people who are BEING SUED, and are assigned those cases by, and our fees are paid by, the insurance companies from whom our client purchased his insurance. So many people fail to realize that your insurance policy (liability insurance, that is) provides two main benefits: 1. It pays the claimant's damages, up to the limit of coverage that you bought, if you are found liable; and 2. It pays for your defense if and when you are sued. To me, the second benefit, being the obligation of the company to defend you against even meritless lawsuits is just as important, if not more so, than the indemnity benefit to pay the plaintiff (the one suing you) if you're found liable. Any of us can be sued, and then, unless we just roll over and default, we've got to defend ourselves. That defense can cost more than most folks would ever realize. Now, let's forget about the attacks on lawyers and insurance companies (that might be good bar room stuff when we're half in the bag), but intelligent folks protect themselves against the realities of our world, rather than just rail against those realities. And, even though I'm on the defense side, there are legitimate injuries of all kinds, caused by good people who just happen to make a mistake. Why else do they put an eraser on every pencil they make? |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by drharveys on 02/18/08 at 06:07:27 +1 Jerry -- yes, there are times we really need insurance co's &/or lawyers. Of course it's fun to pregnant dog about them the rest of the time! |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by sunny on 02/18/08 at 07:10:07 58565A475B564147330 wrote:
because thumpers ROCK! |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by verslagen1 on 02/18/08 at 08:27:58 0B05091408051214600 wrote:
I looked up 1986... (as far as 4 strokes go) Suzuki had 2 550's (inline4), 3 750's (inline4), 3 1400's (v4 water cooled) and our beloved 650. Yamaha had all inline4's and a parralell twin Kawasaki also inline4's and an inline6 Honda had a real nice mix, inline4's, vtwins, v4's, flat 4's and... a 500 single. We know the engine came from the tempter and a scrambler before that. The engine doesn't seem to be a stepping stone for another model. Rather it seems to be how can we keep up with the Jones today. Most of the market didn't want to step on harley. I think Zuki went after the low end cruiser market with something that had the best of both worlds, didn't step on harley vtwin, straight up cylinder reminescent of brit bikes |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by bill67 on 02/18/08 at 08:42:51 At one time suzuki was going to buy out triumph motorcycles, thats when they built the gr650 that looks like a triumph,that was in 1983 so i supposed they built the s40 because it was like other British bikes. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Polar_Pilot on 02/18/08 at 17:28:46 I am a bit surprised that no one mentioned the Buell Blast - a 500cc single There is a review of the Blast at http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/buell/buell-blast-13968.html |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by Paladin. on 02/18/08 at 18:19:17 The blast is not a cruiser. Neither are the Enfield, Honda's SR500, or AFAIK any other single. |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by verslagen1 on 02/18/08 at 18:55:11 013E3D30230E01383D3E25510 wrote:
I think that's putting the cart in front of the horse. The earliest the blast came out was 2000, our single came out in 86. And the question was why did suzuki make a single, so it doesn't limit the answer to cruisers. I think in part the answer is there is a low end market. We're not cheap bastard's we just like to buy beer too. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Why did Suzuki make a single? Post by bill67 on 02/18/08 at 19:08:45 Suzuki GN 400 was a cruiser,and a very good cruiser. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |