SV vs CBR600F for starter rider

Hi, currently doing my DA and have been looking for a while at various bike options. Had decided on a newish SV but after chatting to a chap in my local bike shop whilst buying some kit the other day he kinda put me off the SV saying it wasnt really the best choice as a starter bike and the CBR600F would be a far better option.

His arguments were: poor reliability (said the engines fail), poor build quality and finish and he said the characteristics of the twin engine (immediate power) didnt make it newbie friendly as an accidental heavy throttle hand could easily have you on your @rse whereas the 4's are a bit smoother.

He said that he'd look at the CBR600F (not the sportier RR model) as a good starter so i was wondering whether anyone had any experience of riding both to comment on their pros/cons and also how they found the SV as a first bike? Also i've not seen the CBR really billed as a starter bike, would it be an easier or harder ride in the hands of a newb and how different would it be to the SV?

Still fancy the SV but if i'm shelling out a few grand want to make sure i'm going for the best option out of my 2 bike shortlist.

Ta

Lights blue touch paper and runs for cover...

I've had both...

SV cracking bike, sounds the business but let down by build and crap suspension. You *might* grow out of the SV and move on to an IL4

CBR - I've had two. Phenomenal bike and better than the SV in every way (IMO)

EDIT: The cbr in town is much easier to ride especially round about town as the power doesn't kick at you. The twin - yes I'd agree a bit lurchier in traffic. Lots of riding the clutch. Get it wrong and you'll end up in someones garden.

The CBR is much more work going through the twisties at high revs. You're more likely to be up and down a few gears and lots more braking whereas a twin you can get away with one gear (say 3rd) on certain roads and much less braking - relying on the twins far superior engine braking to slow you down.

Did this bike shop happen to have a CBR600F for sale

SV - definitely less smooth to ride until you're used to it, the IL4 will be easier to get to immediate grips with. Engine's don't fail very often, in fact the SV motor's pretty strong and bulletproof until tuned heavily. Finish is crap. Suspension's a bit crap. The power's there in a nice solid dollop without any threatening peaks, and isn't in massive quantities. SV will also cost less to put back together when you drop it. Which you will, without a doubt.

Don't know anything about the CBR to be honest, but I started out with an SV and enjoyed it without any issues, and plenty of others do too.

[Stu]

Can you get a test ride once you've passed? or is that difficult?

Sounds like the dealer's got an axe to grind slagging the SV so bad, I woundn't say they were that bad.
Would you not have to pay a lot more for the CBR of same age?
The CBR is a 160mph bike - you decide if that's suitable for a newbie?

He's not far off the truth, really best to get a try & see which you think you will enjoy most. (& check insurance quotes)

Eviltwin had a CBR600F as a first big bike had a couple of years break from biking and then got an SV650s. He'd probably be a good person to ask.

The only valid point the dealer has is the poor build quality....i.e. suzuki cheese bolts. If you dont look after it, winter can do alot of damage. That said if you clean/lube it properly it is fine.

SV's IMO are very reliable bikes....not much truth in what he has said on that score. Try something Italian if you want unreliable!

As for the "heavy throttle hand" argument...that is complete tosh as well. Yes it has lots of low down torque...but if you are hard on the throttle on a CBR, it is more powerful. I am too lazy to check the BHP of the respective bikes but the CBR will have comfortably more horses.

The SV is a great bike for its price and a good choice for a DAS rider. That said the 600F is a better bike pretty much across the board...suspension,handling,build quality etc.

The negatives of the F are the higher purchase/insurance costs and also that if you are a new rider its quite likely you will bin the bike....it will be worse to damage a F than an SV financially.

In summary SV= great bike for the money and certainly should not be discounted.

600F=better bike, but it costs more and some people might not like the riding position.

I would say if you really want a sports bike and have the £'s, then get one or you will only end up trading up in the near future.

Originally Posted by Stu

Sounds like the dealer's got an axe to grind slagging the SV so bad, I woundn't say they were that bad.

Seems to be a common trait amongst dealers Stu. When I was shopping around and mentiioned the SV they were all pretty much the same. Even the suzuki dealer said I'd get bored of it and move on after 6 months. And you're right they're great bikes - best in their class by far.

EDIT: Yeah...test ride both.

Originally Posted by stuartyboy

Seems to be a common trait amongst dealers Stu. When I was shopping around and mentiioned the SV they were all pretty much the same. Even the suzuki dealer said I'd get bored of it and move on after 6 months.

Most of the dealers i come across rate them....if Dave Wood likes them thats good enough for me.

I suppose there is less to be made from selling a SV in comparison to a sports bike though.

depends on the year of bike as well (IMO)

but you need to test them both, i would have said go for the SV a few months ago, but after riding a CBR (900) i wont

Originally Posted by ASM-Forever

As for the "heavy throttle hand" argument...that is complete tosh as well. Yes it has lots of low down torque...but if you are hard on the throttle on a CBR, it is more powerful.

Dont agree. I've owned both bikes side by side. In low speed situations like traffic you'd need to be very hard on the throttle on a cbr. Never had to ride the clutch on the cbr anywhere near as much on the SV. A heavy tweak of the throttle on the SV can get you into bother whereas you need to wring the cbrs neck to get the same response.