|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> Performance comparison of S40 /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1419295376 Message started by Flint on 12/22/14 at 16:42:56 |
|
Title: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Flint on 12/22/14 at 16:42:56 I was recently looking for a new bike for my son and thought that the Suzuki s40 would be a perfect bike. We went to the dealership and he ended up wanting a Yamaha V-Star 650 instead. Probably an OK bike but 200 pounds heavier than the S40 and I felt it was too heavy for a first bike. He told my son the S40 was not fast enough on the highway. I found that pretty hard to believe, when I started driving bikes a 650 was considered a pretty big bike. Anyway after sitting on the S40 I decided to buy one after Christmas as I really like the bike. Has anyone here owned a XT500 or a Triumph 500? I was wondering how the Suzuki compares with those bikes as I owned them before and found them quite adaquate on the highway. Thanks |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by verslagen1 on 12/22/14 at 17:05:57 In stock form, the s40 is a good beginner bike.!. Light and nimble in the right hands. one of everything so it's easy to maintain. lightly tuned (jets, muff) and you can go uphill accelerating to 85. throw on a performance carb and you'll do 95 up that same hill. 1st is said to be a tad low, but you'll blow anything else off the line. I haven't ridden those other bikes, so I can't compare. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by KennyG on 12/22/14 at 17:32:19 Flint, The Yamaha V-Star 650 twins are very popular and have great resale value. I owned one about 3 years ago and was able to sell it on Craig's List a year later for $350.00 more than I paid for it. I found the V-Star too heavy for the amount of horsepower that it had and it was especially difficult to back up. If you must have a V Twin get a Honda that is liquid cooled and over all a better machine then the V-Star. The V-Star has a terrible clutch for a beginning rider. That being said, and me being at least a half of a century older than your son, I have trouble on the highway keeping it under 70 MPH. I am still breaking in the S40 so I am intentionally trying to keep the RPMs down. Other than lowering the handlebar risers, and jacking up the seat, and drilling out the infamous brass plug in the carburetor my S40 is stock. I find the handling to be excellent at low speeds and absolutely rock steady at highway speeds. The S40 is a great bike for a beginner because of it's light weight and easy handling characteristics. When your son moves on to something with more horsepower you will probably keep the S40 for yourself. LOL :) Kenny G |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Flint on 12/22/14 at 17:35:21 Thanks for the reply verslagen. I remember when they first came out with the Savage and at the time I thought they were a pretty cool looking bike. I like the idea of a thumper and the uncluttered look the bikes have. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Flint on 12/22/14 at 17:40:47 0E202B063724362D450 wrote:
Hi Kenny, After looking over the S40 and sitting on it I decided to buy one for myself after the Christmas holidays. :) |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/22/14 at 19:53:33 I rode with a guy who thought his v star was cool. He told me so,every time I slowed down enough for him to catch up. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by KennyG on 12/22/14 at 20:08:52 Flint, A very wise decision. Only one problem, what are you going to do when the kid wants to ride it? Justin, You are a real gentleman, slowing down for the cool guys to catch up. LOL :) Kenny G |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/22/14 at 20:16:56 My momma taught me to be considerate. I was smiling as I considered how small he was in the mirror. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Flint on 12/22/14 at 20:18:11 I am going to let him take my XT250 to do his motorcycle course with. He ended up not getting any bike. His older brother has an Army surplus Kawasaki 250 he can borrow as well |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by thumperclone on 12/22/14 at 21:03:42 v star you got to remove the exhaust to replace the oil filter??? |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by jcstokes on 12/22/14 at 21:15:48 How old are you Flint? I brought an S40 new some four years ago. I'm 65 and have loved every dry minute I've spent on it, I have a somewhat different attitude to wet minutes. An unofficial survey run on this site showed the bulk of Savage/S40 riders to be 40 to 74 year old males, there seems to be a good few ladies but they're probably a minority. As others have pointed out, these bikes are nimble and quick enough for those who don't demand 90 mph continuous performance. The stock rear tyres are a minor short coming, but you will be replacing the rear at 5 to 6 thousand miles anyway. Ive made only one three thousand odd mile trip and my bike kept comfortable pace with everyone else in the group, and everyone else had bigger more powerful bikes, ok we were only travelling in the 60 to 70 range most of the time. We did 75 occasionally and three of us , two on flash and much more expensive, larger Triumphs hit 80 or so one day, grossly illegal where I live. Critcsism they are a butt riveter on a long haul, but the short fuel range allows you to stretch your legs. Opinion on what you people call super slab performance is divided. We only have two to five lane blacktop so I can't comment. You will enjoy this machine and it's not compulsory to bob, chop, rat,brat or do anything else. The beautiful chrome head covers look sexy in the minds of many and are an enhancement to middle aged to elderly fantasies. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Serowbot on 12/22/14 at 22:03:37 My number mostest riding buddy is a V-Star nut... He's owned close to 50 of them... ;D... Every new bike,... we ride out to Pistol Hill and do a quasi drag race... I hold back up to 60 or 70,... then we even out... at top speed he will have a couple mph advantage... that's about it... Some go a little faster, some don't... A Savage seems to be a perfect first bike, and a perfect last bike... Our members tend to be young, or old... The in between, is the what-if, experimental phase... All the other bikes have more or less, and better or worse,... ...and the Savage doesn't... :-?... Works so well for those willing to try it... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Dave on 12/23/14 at 04:53:50 I have no idea how accurate this information is - but I found this chart that has information on a lot of bikes: http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/technical/200801perfindex.pdf It shows the following: LS650 V-Star HP 24.6 33.4 Torque 30.5 35.4 O-60 6.98 7.82 1/4 time 15.30 15.82 1/4 speed 81.1 82.1 Weight 390 535 pounds per hp 15.85 16.02 The chart shows the single is faster off the line - but the twin gains a bit of speed advantage at the end of the quarter mile (although the twin is still half a second behind the single). The twin is 37% heavier than the single.....and the chart really can't give you an idea how much more nimble the Savage is than the V-Star. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Flint on 12/23/14 at 06:37:19 I turned 60 and retired last summer. I have been riding since I was 14, and have had quite a few different bikes. I started out with an old 1942 Indian army Chief that I only managed to get running a few times. Then a Honda CB 350, Norton/Matchless scrambler P-11, 2 Ironhead Sportsters, a Harley dirtbike, a Triumph 500 an XT500 and right now a XT250. I put 10k on the little XT250 last summer. Great bike as long as you don't have to go much over 60 mph. Once I sat on the S40 I thought this would be the perfect bike for highway trips for me. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by KennyG on 12/23/14 at 06:38:37 Flint, I Rest My Case! Dave, Thank You! As a wise man once said, "The Proof Is In The Pudding". Kenny G :) |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by verslagen1 on 12/23/14 at 07:40:07 Looks like that was a stock savage. Here's what a little tuning will do... 4C41494547464C424145280 wrote:
Don't think it was a rev limiter. My guess is that the stock exhaust reached it's max flow, the operator felt the effects, saw that the bike reached it's limit and let off the throttle. I've hit that limit before when experimenting with different baffles and to a lesser extent different intakes. BTW, now I know for sure what 6K+ rpms on this motor sounds like. I can say with certainty that I've never hit 6500 rpms with my motor. Truly sounds like she's gonna blow up! Here's mine: [/quote] http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/dynorunS40dj.jpg Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/23/14 at 10:17:47 For getting across town or whoopin thru twisties, it's a fun and very effective and forgiving bike. I didn't enjoy the 40 mile straight shot runs,they were boring. The bike didn't like it at speeds that weren't boring.. I'd have another one, in a heartbeat. I would not even have a heavier,slower twin because it does the slab better.. the Savage does everything else much better,and ,everything else is what I usually do. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by 12Bravo on 12/24/14 at 09:06:26 6D716C74697C6B7A7576777C190 wrote:
You only have to do that on the V Star 1100. I never could understand why the 1100 was the only V Star that required the exhaust to be removed to change the filter. As far as the S40 vs the V Star 650, I'll choose the S40 every time. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by old_rider on 12/24/14 at 09:42:53 Flint, the age old question is "what type of riding will he need it for?" Long trips? Water cooled six speed Combination of Long trips and town... dual sports work best.. Just in town and few trips.... S40 (650 savage)... And that is the cruiser side... there are sport bikes that can do the same... If he is a first time rider.... don't go big.... go used and small.. (for the first riding season), you can always resell and go bigger next season. I have a LS 650 and a small 300 ninja.... love them both.... if he wants speed... tell him to wait.... He can bob or café the S40 with a few extra bucks.... if he wants a sporty looking bike, look at the smaller sport bikes, I talk up my 300 ninja because its fuel injected, water cooled and gets on the average of 65+ mpg (if I don't slam the throttle at every light) with a 4.5 gal tank. If he didn't get one right off the bat, means he is smart about his choices.... and your choice of the S40 as a "get back on it" bike... is good too... LOL... Good luck in your endeavors :) |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Flint on 12/24/14 at 10:16:37 Actually a 250 Ninja was one of the bikes I suggested to him along with the CBR 250. For some reason he was hung up on a cruiser style bike and the salesman convinced him a S40 was too small. He will be driving my XT250 once the snow is gone. Once he gets handy with that I will let him try the S40 I am planning on getting. Most of his driving will be city with some highway once he gets his own bike. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by zipidachimp on 12/24/14 at 12:20:06 With all the interest in this bike, and its staying power over 20 years, it is really unfortunate that no one at Suzuki has any imagination or 'smarts'. We could all be riding 'Tempter 650's and having a great time: https://www.google.ca/search?q=tempter+400&biw=1920&bih=858&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=KB6bVOKCN4rnoATliIHoDQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ :D :D :D :D just look at that gorgeous tank! |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Art Webb on 12/24/14 at 21:35:11 I would buy one as soon as funds allowed |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/25/14 at 00:29:27 Hmmm,Tempter, Good Name.. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by gizzo on 12/26/14 at 13:14:42 Flint, if you thought the XT500 was adequate on the highway, the Savage will certainly meet your needs. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Steve H on 12/27/14 at 05:48:33 Wonder if the 650 engine would drop in the Tempter frame? |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by smokin_blue on 12/27/14 at 07:24:14 Steve H, If you ever get serious about that question let me know. I have one of each sitting in the garage. I could eyeball it with a tape measure for you. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by smokin_blue on 12/27/14 at 07:31:42 My wife has a relatively stock S-40 and I rode home a 2009 or 2010 V-Star 650 for a friend of hers when she first bought it used from a local dealer. For me I would say it is no comparison. The S-40 would bury the V-star off the line and around town. I came home telling my wife that extra 150 lbs the V-star had (she had the bags and fairing etc) made it so it would barely get out of it's own way in town. I can't speak to how it would be on the highway as I didn't get over 45 mph. My guess is the V-star would be a little smoother maybe on the supper slab but for a beginner based on weight and usable torque the S-40 is the way to go. My wife put 6500 miles on her S-40 last year with most all being highway miles. Standard ride for her was 85-125 miles and the longest we did which was together was 245. Most riding was at 55-60mph with max at about 65-70. Not much pushing the 70-75. She just doesn't ride on the superslab, most all is highway or county roads. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Doug B on 12/30/14 at 06:52:47 Flint - I had an XT500(77 model) back in the day(1981-82). It was originally stock, and comparable in performance to a stock S40. In the off-season it was modified(White Brothers piston/cam/carb/exhaust) and turned into a screamer. After my 30-year hiatus I wanted another "enduro". The Suzuki DR650 would've been the one. Excessive seat height was the deal breaker. At 5'8"(29" inseam) I didn't want to carry a stepladder with me). I like the feel of a dirt bike on the street(not very much for highway riding, however). My choice was made for me when two 2011 S40's went on clearance in August 2012 for $3,999. Wouldn't it be nice if we could test ride new motorcycles before purchasing ? |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Flint on 12/30/14 at 07:25:02 Hi Doug, My XT500 was stock. I shaved the seat down, dropped the forks a bit in the triple tree and backed the shocks off to the lowest setting to get it a bit lower. I am the same height as you. I dropped one tooth in the front sprocket on the XT500 for in the dirt and the machine would wheelie without trying. I looked at the DR650 last year and found the same problem regarding seat height and ended up buying an XT250 instead. The 250 is a great little bike but does not like to go over 60. It will hit 75 with no wind but the little motor is screaming. Now I want a light little highway/backroad bike and the S40 looks perfect for me. I do wish they had a kick start on the S40 though, it seems every bike is electric start now for some reason. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Dave on 12/30/14 at 07:29:22 4F5153575552635E5049593C0 wrote:
I think you two are talking about different "Tempter" models. The US got a GR650 model in 1983 & 1984 that was a parallel twin. The Tempter model that looks like the LS650 is a 400 single that has never been sold in the US. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Doug B on 12/30/14 at 10:19:32 Flint - I wanted a city/backroad bike(for occasional jaunts on the highway). However, in my perception of things the S40 is only a great city/backroad bike. Some members of this forum speak of highway riding at 65-70 mph(or more). I feel like a windsail at such speeds getting shoved around like a rag doll(Annabelle don't come after me). If I had a windshield(I do have a National Cycle Flyscreen) things might be bearable. I want a kickstarter, too. I mentioned this once on this forum, and did not get a favorable response - like I was some dinosaur. To each his own(or her). |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Flint on 12/30/14 at 15:59:48 With the decompression lever installed the S40 would be a snap to kick start. I had a Norton/Matchless P-11 years ago that I hopped up with Dunstall pistons, Dunstall cam ect. The bike didn't even come with a key, just a mag kill button. The dreaded Lucas mag no less. No battery or turn signals. If you didn't follow the right sequence trying to start the beast when hot it would kick so hard it would almost sprain your ankle :-/ No fancy decompression lever in those days :) Cool bike, another one I let go. :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by fishinjim on 12/30/14 at 16:11:35 Here is the opinion of a 71 yo on the Savage. I love the weight and the fact that it is a thumper. I have wanted a large single since I was in high School riding a Cushman Eagle. The big boys had 500 cc Matchless or AJS. I have owned many rides since 1959. The truth is, side winds will eat you alive on the s40, At 70 mph, it is not comfortable to me. I think it needs one more gear to ride the freeways. I have tried both seats, the one that came on the 2003, and the newer 1 piece, and neither one are comfortable to me. I am 5'8" to give you an idea. I mostly run the crooked 2 lane back roads at somewhere around 45 to 50 mph, and consider myself lucky when I can make 50 miles on a ride with my bad back. I do like the bike even with all the short comings. It would climb a wall if not for the traction issue, and I can honestly say I have only had more fun on 1 bike. That was a TS 185 Suzuki, and they haven't built that one in 40 years. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Flint on 12/30/14 at 16:28:34 Hi Jim, You got me beat by 10 years! The old Matchless bikes were the super bikes in their day. My Dad was a Cycle Dispatch Rider in the Canadian Army. His favourite was the Matchless. He rode Harleys and Indians as well but the only thing that would get through the mud in Italy was the Matchless. Eventually they got rid of the bikes all together once the Americans started making the Jeep! |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by smokin_blue on 12/30/14 at 16:41:48 053E3324353922243F373A25560 wrote:
I think you two are talking about different "Tempter" models. The US got a GR650 model in 1983 & 1984 that was a parallel twin. The Tempter model that looks like the LS650 is a 400 single that has never been sold in the US.[/quote] Yes you are probably on to something! When I saw Tempter 650's I assumed we were talking about the GR650 as I always thought the non US Tempters (singles) were 400's as you stated. Oh well... the GR is another under appreciated model that has its loyal following. The one cool little known fact on the GR is that it has a clutch on the fly wheel. It holds an added mass locked in for low speed smoothness but then above 3,000 rpm the aux clutch unlocks the weight for a low mass flywheel that revs faster then. High weight for slow speed smoothness and low mass at higher revs for faster revving. Best of both worlds!!! |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/30/14 at 19:55:55 Kicking off a bike is dandy.. but. Retro fitting on this has been studied. So far,no one has been able to figure out how. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Doug B on 12/31/14 at 00:22:22 Flint - most(you would think all) of us would like a 6th gear on this bike - to which fishinjim alluded. Suzuki must not have felt it to be cost-effective. However, if they were going with 5 you would think that the gear spacing would be more. To me : 1st gear, and between 1st and 2nd is inadequate. Between 2nd and 3rd, and 3rd and 4th is fine. Between 4th and 5th once again seems insufficient. Suzuki must have their reasons for doing it this way. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by jcstokes on 12/31/14 at 00:48:34 Suzuki is looking at cost, from their perspective the Savage/S40 is an entry level loss leader. They want you to graduate to a more sophisticated Boulevard asap. Pity, and just as well, they don't seem to realise that the bike has a lot of following as a project platform or simply as a very pleasant stock ride for 45 to 75 year olds, unless you want 90 mph all day performance. Some of the techies and project people here will help you almost achieve 90 mph + performance if you want it. Don't know if it will last all day at that pace. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by oldNslow on 12/31/14 at 06:52:57 Quote:
Exactly. That's why they have never bothered to address the cam chain adjuster issue. They don't expect anyone to keep the bike long enough or put enough miles on it, for that to become a problem for the original owner. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/31/14 at 10:14:41 One day,the weather was juuust right, I was on I20, a cement section, smooooth,,and I know it made the 100 MPH mark.. never again did it break 95, but, even if it Could run 75 or 80 all day, I can't. No bike or car does it all. You can't get a family hauling sports car, or a limo you can whip through traffic with. So,the Savage has things it does well and things that aren't its strong suit. For me, runs into and through town were the normal task at hand,, and it does that beautifully. It CAN be ooozed across the country, we've seen it done. BeatDuck,wasn't it? Florida, to Nevada, to,Canada, to New York,to Florida.. I would rather compromise on the Long Ride capability,because it's the rare ride for me,and have the Quick blast into town on a bike with good acceleration and just good enough handling to keep me from pushing the envelope to the emergency room. It's the only bike I rode a lot I didn't crash.. I dropped it, but that is different.. I picked it up and rode away, no ambulance,no wrecker.oh,but I did have to pull my foot back,because the peg was hurting my ankle, and mashing the foot,leaned into a right turn.. it's a good enough design to allow a rider to improve their skills without them accidentally hitting a power band in a corner and highsiding into a ditch. It's light enough for aging bodies and I had women LOOK at it,,women whose MAN had a Harley and HE was going to have Her on one too... I saw faces that looked like Boy,that looks easy to ride....wish I had something like THAT, so I could ride and not always feel like I have more machine than I can Really handle. Or, maybe they thought What a wuss, I'm riding a bigger bike than that guy... In the FWIW department, I've forever claimed to be 5'6"... But,after realizing that I have been hugging people who say they are 5'7"AND I'm really reaching up,,I decided to check it out.. So,pencil in hand, marked the door frame,, best I can tell,I'm a little over 5'4and1/2,, and about 140 pounds, so,the bike suits me well. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Doug B on 12/31/14 at 11:19:17 Wow - JOG 140lbs I have you by more than 100lbs With a modified engine you must feel the "rush" that I haven't felt since my modified XT500(when I was 185-190lbs). My New Years resolution is to lose weight and modify my bike(still stock other than the brass plug removal). |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/31/14 at 15:39:39 With me on it,it was quick. I have no problem with the right wrist and changing gears without the clutch. Zero to 60 times were very good. |
|
Title: Re: Performance comparison of S40 Post by Art Webb on 01/01/15 at 18:21:37 my .02 even with a small windscreen i find 70 MPH on most any bike uncomfortable over distance, especially on the 'slab' though on a nice twisty road for some reason I don't seem to notice wind blast / vibration as much That includes my XS1100 but I'll ride literally for hours at 45 or so even with no screen comfortably that makes the S40 a good fit unless I'm in a hurry to get somewhere, in which case I can make better time in the truck, and not be tired from fighting wind and engine noise / vibration I ride for enjoyment |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |