SuzukiSavage.com - Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Norton?

Gort Ex Member	Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Norton? 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?
Back to top	IP Logged

KwakNut

Senior Member

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 332
Sheffield, England, mostly.
Gender: male

Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #1 - 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.

Back to top

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
--General George S. Patton

IP Logged

T Mack 1 - FSO

Serious Thumper
Alliance Member

Offline

sold 2001 LS650 for
a 1986 XLH1100

Posts: 2919
Emmaus,Pa
Gender: male

Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #2 - 02/02/08 at 13:14:10

KwakNut wrote on 02/02/08 at 12:43:51:

Compared to most other modern Japanese bikes the LS is flawed - it's unbelievably slow, handles like a croc, doesn't stop,

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 Grin

)

Back to top

Engineers design things, Technicians make them work.
---
30% of being mechanical is confidence/30% is knowing to go slow when needed/30% is looking repeatedly at what you have/10% is dumb luck Wink

IP Logged

SavageDude

Serious Thumper
Alliance Member

Offline

Posts: 561
OC_California
Gender: male

Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #3 - 02/02/08 at 17:24:18

KwakNut wrote on 02/02/08 at 12:43:51:

Anybody who wants performance, handling, brakes or power and buys a Savage has the wrong bike.

It's no brainer here Roll Eyes

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.

Back to top

2005 S40, debadged, Tkat FB, saddle bags, sissy bar, HD Sporter muff, Fly screen, white spacer mod, 150 main jet.....and sssslowly upgrading

IP Logged

Polar_Pilot

Junior Member

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 64

Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #4 - 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

Back to top

IP Logged

Gort

Ex Member

Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #5 - 02/02/08 at 18:37:13

KwakNut wrote 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.

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!

Back to top

IP Logged

Polar_Pilot

Junior Member

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 64

Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #6 - 02/02/08 at 18:53:48

Quote:

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!

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Holodeck

Full Member

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 144
Seattle

Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #7 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

verslagen1

YaBB Moderator
ModSquad

Offline

Where there's a
will, I want to be
in it.

Posts: 28884
L.A. California
Gender: male

Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #8 - 02/02/08 at 21:20:04

Arthur wrote on 02/02/08 at 18:37:13:

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!

I guess you'd perfer a guarranteed failure against a maybe?

Sure, solder joints will fail... after 20 to 30 years.

Back to top

Versey's Place
Tech Section Index

IP Logged

Paladin.

Serious Thumper

Offline

Hamster

Posts: 4929
Sunny Southern California
Gender: male

Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #9 - 02/02/08 at 21:48:50

KwakNut wrote on 02/02/08 at 12:43:51:

Compared to most other modern Japanese bikes the LS is flawed - it's unbelievably slow, handles like a croc, doesn't stop

The Savage may be flawed in your opinion -- in my opinion it is nealy a perfect bike. Market forces agree with me. As previously noted -- two decades plus, virtually unchanged. If the Savage is flawed, how is it that it remains marketable?

Quote:

....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.

Again, your opinion. I did not buy the Savage because it was a "quiky single cylinder custon bike" -- that's a rather insulting accusation.

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:

Anybody who wants performance, handling, brakes or power and buys a Savage has the wrong bike....

Your opinion, in my opinion, blows. I want performance, I want handling. The Savage gives me the performance and handling I want. What I want obviously is not what you want.

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!

Back to top

IP Logged

PerrydaSavage Serious Thumper Alliance Member Offline Riding "The Rock"! Posts: 3522 Republic of Newfoundland Gender:	Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor Reply #10 - 02/03/08 at 03:19:17 Well said Paladin!
Back to top	Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by arseholes! IP Logged

KwakNut

Senior Member

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 332
Sheffield, England, mostly.
Gender: male

Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #11 - 02/03/08 at 03:30:56

Arthur wrote on 02/02/08 at 18:37:13:

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!

I've had maybe 60 bikes over the years, mostly Japanese, also a few Brits and even a Harley 1200 Sportster.
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.

Back to top

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
--General George S. Patton

IP Logged

KwakNut

Senior Member

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 332
Sheffield, England, mostly.
Gender: male

Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #12 - 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.

Back to top

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
--General George S. Patton

IP Logged

Onederer

Ex Member

Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #13 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Paladin.

Serious Thumper

Offline

Hamster

Posts: 4929
Sunny Southern California
Gender: male

Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #14 - 02/03/08 at 10:49:57

KwakNut wrote on 02/03/08 at 07:21:14:

Jees Paladin, I expressed an opinion on the bike.... at what point did I direct insult at you?....

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:

If people want ... 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.

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?

Back to top

IP Logged