Kawasaki Vulcan Forum banner

Looking to buy Vulcan 2000

2K views 8 replies 5 participants last post by  patrickguido 
#1 ·
Currently comparing bikes, looking at the Vulcan 2000 Voyager vs the 1700 model. Not sure of differences, advantages, disadvantages, etc. Any remarks or suggestions greatly appreciated. Looking for a long haul, comfortable but NOT too heavy tourer for my 5'8" frame.
 
#2 ·
I think you meant "Vulcan 2000" without the "Voyager" qualifier, right? The Voyager is one of the 1700 models Kawasaki currently manufacturers. Also, when you say 1700, you need to distinguish between the Classic, Nomad (both discontinued), and the Voyager and Vaquero, which are still made. All are different versions of the 1700.

I have about 10 days on a 2011 Nomad, which is a 1700 that Kawasaki stopped making in 2014. It has hard bags and a windshield. By comparison, the Vaquero (still made) has hard bags and a fairing, and the Voyager (still made) has hard bags, a fairing, and a trunk. New leftover Nomads are still around. I am really happy with mine.

Everything I've read suggests that the 1700 series bikes are a bit more comfortable than the 2000, as they have dual shocks, while the 2000 has a monoshock. I also have a 900, which is essentially the same frame as the 2000 but with a smaller engine. My Nomad was quite a bit more comfortable than my 900 on the two longish rides I've done (150 and 250 miles). I'd almost go as far as to call the 1700 ride "plush." I've never ridden a 2000, but I would assume it rides more like the 900. You might want that stiffer ride for local riding, but perhaps not for touring. So far I'm amazed by how well my Nomad handles while providing such comfortable ride.

People rave about the 2000 engine --- big, powerful, lotsa grunt. While the 1700 is a bit smaller, it's a lot more powerful than my 900, especially at higher speeds. It's also geared for touring, with a 6th gear overdrive that is really nice above 60 or so. I think the 2000 is a five speed.

Others with experience with the 2000 will chime in and correct any mis-representations I might have made. My sense is that the 1700 series is probably better for touring, but I'll let the 2000 owners speak to that.

Good luck with your search.
 
#3 ·
A couple months ago I purchased a 2006 VN2000, and am in the process of setting it up with a trunk / large hardbags. I do find it reasonably comfortable, and know it will be even more so after I add a mustang seat.

Even though it is a 5 speed, it seems that 65 - 75 (depending on if I'm on flat or uphill / downhill) is when I'm finally going from 4th to 5th.
 
#6 ·
Let me say that although my Nomad is more comfortable than my 9, I do not find the 9 uncomfortable. The seat isn't so hot, but until I rode the Nomad, I wondered why someone might criticize the suspension. It's really not bad, and I've gone all day on it. It wouldn't surprise me if the 2000 is even better---its much heavier and probably more stable at speed. Combine that with a good seat, and ...

Ride both (a 2000 and 1700) and see what you think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patrickguido
#7 ·
I have the monoshock on my current bike and have never had a harder ride with 2 up. My 1982 GS1100E provides a much comfier ride. Wouldn't expect that in a 700-lb dry bike. But lumbar & cervical fusions require the "kinder" and softer suspension. That damn Voyager just looks comfy, and I'd like to ride a little more than 2 hours from home (sarcasm). I just thought the 2000 was also available in Voyager model. Love the linked brakes (KAT) as well as the KAMS (huge problem on hot days in the city). You can easily cook eggs off my leg. Very disappointed with that. Think I'm gonna go 1700 Voyager, even though I'd love the 2000's power, that monoshock more or less sealed the deal. I will try to find a dealer near Chicago and ride them both. Can't thank you enough. It's a pleasure to read educated responses. Be safe & Merry Christmas Dan!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top