Donate!
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register :: View Members
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Send Topic Print
Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Norton? (Read 1467 times)
Gort
Ex Member




Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #60 - 02/04/08 at 17:33:49
 
justin_o_guy2 wrote 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.




I will wrap them in tin foil, just like the tin foil cap I wear under my helmet to protect me against aliens.
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 #61 - 02/04/08 at 18:45:51
 
KwakNut wrote on 02/04/08 at 13:39:53:
....the only people who would have a 30hp bike would be learners or little old ladies...
Stop with the insults, not a very nice person.  I'll not be wasting any more time on a bigot such as you.
Back to top
 
 
WWW   IP Logged
Paladin.
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

Hamster

Posts: 4929
Sunny Southern California
Gender: male
Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #62 - 02/04/08 at 19:04:45
 
Oldfeller--FSO wrote on 02/04/08 at 17:32:23:
....Truth, a real world kawa ninja 250 4 stroke legal sold pollution certified scoot can do what he said -- 100 mph....
Lotsa bikes are more powerful, faster, better braking and handling than the Savage.  That is not what this idiot is claiming.  HE says the Savage is slow, underpowered, underbraked, and wobbles all over the road.  He is full of crap and refuses to admit it.
Back to top
 
 
WWW   IP Logged
jjn
Junior Member
**
Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 61
Keaau, Hi. USA
Gender: male
Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #63 - 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
Back to top
 
 

Jon in Puyallup, Wa. USA
  IP Logged
Oldfeller--FSO
Serious Thumper
ModSquad
*****
Offline

Hobby is now
"concentrated
neuropany"

Posts: 12671
Fayetteville, NC
Gender: male
Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #64 - 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.....
Back to top
 
 

Former Savage Owner
  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 #65 - 02/05/08 at 03:30:04
 
bill67 wrote 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?
Well, I maybe wouldn't feel the need to uprate the motor and have to spend money on it, and I'd be willing to take it on longer journeys and on faster roads.

But - that's not what I bought the Savage for.
Back to top
 
 

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
--General George S. Patton
  IP Logged
Oldfeller--FSO
Serious Thumper
ModSquad
*****
Offline

Hobby is now
"concentrated
neuropany"

Posts: 12671
Fayetteville, NC
Gender: male
Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #66 - 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.

Back to top
 
 

Former Savage Owner
  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 #67 - 02/05/08 at 03:46:13
 
Oldfeller--FSO wrote 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.
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.    
(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.
Well, it’s nice to read something that’s been posted from a balanced viewpoint.

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.
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 #68 - 02/05/08 at 04:22:00
 
Paladin. wrote on 02/04/08 at 18:45:51:
KwakNut wrote on 02/04/08 at 13:39:53:
....the only people who would have a 30hp bike would be learners or little old ladies...
Stop with the insults, not a very nice person.  I'll not be wasting any more time on a bigot such as you.

Paladin, did you master in hypocrisy?

Paladin. wrote on 02/04/08 at 19:04:45:
. . . what this idiot is claiming . .
He is full of crap and refuses to admit it.
Your opinion, in my opinion, blows.
You claim to be incompentent.  Fine
. . the only crock around here is the crock you are dipping out of.
. . the misinformed opinion of a biased nut
. .  your limited view of what a motorcycle should be
. . you are posting a deep pile of manure. .
. . we have to correct your nonsense.  

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.  
Back to top
 
 

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
--General George S. Patton
  IP Logged
Trippah
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

I ride, therefore I
am.

Posts: 2517
central Mass
Gender: male
Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #69 - 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. Cheesy   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. Shocked
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Dark Savage
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline



Posts: 41
Austin, TX
Gender: male
Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #70 - 02/05/08 at 07:18:28
 
KwakNut wrote on 02/05/08 at 03:46:13:
Well, it’s nice to read something that’s been posted from a balanced viewpoint.

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.


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.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
mornhm - FSO
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

HMMM

Posts: 1105

Gender: male
Re: Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Nor
Reply #71 - 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.
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 #72 - 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.
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 #73 - 02/05/08 at 09:54:20
 
Dark Savage wrote on 02/05/08 at 07:18:28:
Instead, you posted an exaggerated view without any kind of perspective for people to know you were exaggerating.  . . . . . .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.
I didn’t exaggerate, my opinions were entirely fact-based and the product of experience of an awful lot of different bikes that I can compare with.  I’ll add to your comments:

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.
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 #74 - 02/05/08 at 09:58:37
 
Holodeck wrote 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.
You're right - I'll leave the mob to light the kindling and burn me now for my heresy.

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.
Back to top
 
 

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
--General George S. Patton
  IP Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Send Topic Print


« Home

 
« Home
SuzukiSavage.com
09/23/24 at 12:18:20



General CategoryRubber Side Down! › Savage reliability compared to Triunph/BSA/Norton?


SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2!
YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.