Sv old vs new

having ridden both (S versions), here's my 2 cents :

old :
- really crappy suspension
- loved the throttle response of the carbs
- a bit small for my 6'
- a bit crisper during turn in (loved it)
- good feedback from the chassis
- poor finish of some parts (e.g. rust on the forks)

new :
- without TRE and TPS mod, jerky throttle response
- less crappy suspension (but still crappy)
- better finish, less prone to rust
- NO MORE CARB ICING !!! important since i ride all year round. I found the new one in general more reliable.
- Why oh why did Suzuki dropped crappy OEM tyres (Mez 4's) for other crappy OEM tyres (Dunlop 220)
- The new chassis lets you ride it a bit harder, but gives you less warning when you're pushing it over the limits.

Originally Posted by flkovacs

so, i am considering a k3 650. i like the more upright sitting positionover the s.

it has plenty of pickup, and the clutch will take a bit getting used to, but the question i have is regarding tucking in my knees. on the k3, they're a bit cramped. is the 04 model better suited for slightly taller riders, or is it the same?

thanks,
ferenc

I'm probably not qualified to answer this question, but I will anyway.
I haven't ridden a K3 and have only sat on a naked K4 but I ride a faired K4 (just to qualify my answers a little)
The K4 is supposed to have a little bit less legroom than the K3.
It's comfortable enough for long rides, but once I've spent about 3 hours on the motorway (absolute max) I have to stop to stretch my knees and get the numbness out of my ****.
This is generally around the time I need petrol, anyway.

Stef, Dont see how you see the SV being too cramped for you.
Im Six foot one and have no problems whatsoever.

[pegasus]

hey buddy why dont you try a test ride on both see which one fits your build. i ride a k4 naked and love it....but i have to be honest the k1,2 does look (imho) more classier.

[northwind]

The only thing I'd add is that the paint on all the K3s and K4s I've seen has been far softer than that on my '00, which has been into swamps, up verges, slid along tracks and into gravel traps and still has only taken a couple of scratches that wouldn't polish out- the newer paint seems to be either softer or thinner, and soon picks up marks on the tail section in particular. Same seems to be true of the frame paint ot a lesser extent.

Other'n that... They're much the same. Personally I hate the look of the jaggy one, though I love the tail lights. One thing I'd say for sure is that for the price of a new or nearly new jaggy Sv, you could buy a curvy one and with the price difference, make it better than the jaggy one (if you have any mechanical competence that is). They're cheaper and easier to tune for power and there's more spares available through breakers etc, though naturally that'll change over time.

[splke]

Originally Posted by milaber

Thanks guys!
I didn't expect so many replys!

I think i'll go with the old one although i like the new one better (oops!).
It is cheaper and i think i will enjoy it better as my first bike!
And i looove carbs!

To keep it going what are the the improvements i should consider first?
I mean which are the points that the bike is not so good and should be fixed/ changed/ improved.

Well i have had both, and i prefered the older bike to ride, better handling, and i think i like carbs !!

I actually prefer the looks of the new one though

Originally Posted by coupt_ed

First, I'd say get one. either will be great. tell everybody here what you plan to do with the bike...tour, ride to work/play or race. lots of different uses out there. I ride for fun. no racing.

I suggest setting your budget, subtract money for good boots and jacket pants and gloves if you dont already have them for your 125cc....because youll get up to speed on any SV really fast.

Thanks for your reviews!

I plan to use the bike for almost everything!
Everyday ride to work, joyrides every sunday and small tours every now and then.

I allready save money for a new helmet and jacket and maybe pants.
But i'll buy them when i buy the Sv, i don't think i need this kind of protection to ride my 125.

What about the old Sv seat you are all talking about?
Is it comfortable enough?
I'm 1,86 m tall (i think this is 6.10 feet).
Will it suit me?

The problem is that the old Sv didn't have the succes the new one has here in Greece so there are are really few of them on the roads an even fewer available for a test ride...

Maybe its where I'm from, but man, I like the old body style, but think the new body style is much more odd...which I actually like. I like that it sticks out and not many bikes look like it. I prefer the New style myself...but apparently I am the minority on this site! thats ok though, opinions are just that, and thats what makes this site so great. If everyone thought the same way, life would be really boring.

maliber,
I re-read my post and see I didn't refer to the seat. But now that you mention it:

The 1st Gen stock seat is fine. many complain its not great for rides over 1 hour. my 99 actually came with a suzuki Gel seat and I didnt like it at all! I put the stock seat back on.

The 2nd Gen stock seat isn't as good as the older one. Mostly due to its contour. Someone posted that the seat height on the 2nd gen is higher (that is where the extra inch comes in (but they lowered it slightly in 04/05. I ended up putting a Sargent Seat on, which I like.

About you fitting: Hang out at a cycle shop/bar and see if someone will let you sit on their bike[buy em a drink]. At 6'1" you should be fine. I've seen over 6'2"s on SV's.

to Twnboarder on the style:
Style is subjective. I deal with it everyday: I am an Industrial Designer.

My STYLE Review:
As the SV was introduced in 1999, it was unique in style -it was not on par with comtemporary bikes. It would never win a design competition, it had/has its fans as an underdog. As well as a small group of retro style afficionados. Add that it has faux streetfighter potential [streetfighters should really be rebuilt junkers-whos plug was pulled-and resurected into a beast]. The SV's value factor leaves a little extra money for customization- which everyone loves. Personally, I like the uniqueness factor, especially of the naked. I will add that a 1st Gen with full fairing, kitted for race, and not bling, is sweet.

The 2nd Gen SV design is comtemporary. That's both good and bad. It's good for the Brand. It's bad because it doesn't separate it from the others in the crowd. Realize that I am American and in the US has fewer models than the rest of the world. So my last comment is relative. The SV's frame is the most identifiable element of its design. The frame on the older version is derivative of Duc. The newer frame resembles contemporary cycle and auto design- though has a bit of kids toy. Though overall, I think the 2nd Gen is more refined and cohesive than the 1st Gen [not counting the massive rear fender-marketing must have specified that!] and has an aggressive stance.

Like I said before the both have their niches. And neither is ugly. Many people on SV sites [UK and US] make extreme statements, likely driven by passion and pride. But who has a motorcycle, but doesn't possess one of these attributes?

off to a meet-up in SF. it's an English Pub - you guys will appreciate that!
later,
ed

Originally Posted by coupt_ed

maliber,
I re-read my post and see I didn't refer to the seat. But now that you mention it:

About you fitting: Hang out at a cycle shop/bar and see if someone will let you sit on their bike[buy em a drink]. At 6'1" you should be fine. I've seen over 6'2"s on SV's.

to Twnboarder on the style:
Style is subjective. I deal with it everyday: I am an Industrial Designer.
ed

You didn't refer to the seat my friend but others did.

Your suggestion is difficult for me to accomplish because (as i said before) there are extremely few before 02 Svs in my town.
I have only seen two on the road so far, not to mention that there is no dedicated cycle bar...

But i think i'll be fine!



Oh!
My nick is "milaber" not "maliber"!