Kawasaki Vulcan Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is a repost from the new member section -

I currently have a C50T Suzuki (It is my 1st bike) owned for about 2 months have put 2500 miles on it so far. About 1000 of those have been riding 2 up. On Routes it is fine but on the highway the 800 engine just seems to work a little to hard to maintain - I know nature of the mid size bikes. I started looking at a couple of Vulcans and want some opinions.
I chose the Suzuki because it fit my height a little better (6'3") and the price I couldn't pass up.
07 Kaw Vulcan VN2000 - 5 speed - 10,000 miles mustang seats - pipes - air intake -- 8000$
09 Kaw Vulcan VN1700 - 6 speed - 1,200 miles - no extras - 9000$
Both are in excellent condition
.

One thought was for the value of the bike and the other is the amount of power is a 2000 too much for a newer rider?

Thanks for any thoughts
Len
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,219 Posts
1st off, their is no such thing as too much power. There is such a thing as not enough respect for a lot of power. What kind of 1700 are you looking at. A classic, nomad, voyager, vaquero? make a difference on price. I got my V2K earlier this year and yes it is big and yes it is powerful but its not riding a tank with a rocket strapped to its back. I have not had any problems out of mine but it only has 5400 miles. I am right at 6 foot and have plenty of room on it. I would not image 3 more inches would make much difference. I have not rode a 1700 so I can't tell you much about that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,219 Posts
oh also. I got my 08 V2K classic for 9K brand new. If you are going to pay that price you can get a new one but you will have to spend money on the extras.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
Stretch

IMO, the 1700s feel cramped once you have been on a V2K. I chose the V2K 8 years ago primarily because of power, but secondly, and maybe now more importantly, because of the allowable GVW. The V2K easily handles the nearly 700lb payload dropped on it when I am riding 2 up with my lady (and luggage).
Either way you choose though, you will have a fine ride for what seems to be a reasonable price. Ghost around on the forum for a bit to help you form an opinion. V2K owners are a rabid lot, extolling the virtues of torque and roll on power at every turn, but the bike is heavy handling at low speed and requires a firm hand. Any new 1700 I have test ridden was neutral handling and very accomodating. Shop around....:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,219 Posts
IMO, the 1700s feel cramped once you have been on a V2K. I chose the V2K 8 years ago primarily because of power, but secondly, and maybe now more importantly, because of the allowable GVW. The V2K easily handles the nearly 700lb payload dropped on it when I am riding 2 up with my lady (and luggage).
Either way you choose though, you will have a fine ride for what seems to be a reasonable price. Ghost around on the forum for a bit to help you form an opinion. V2K owners are a rabid lot, extolling the virtues of torque and roll on power at every turn, but the bike is heavy handling at low speed and requires a firm hand. Any new 1700 I have test ridden was neutral handling and very accomodating. Shop around....:D
So true, It's all in what is important to you. But the "Heaviness" of the V2K goes away if you can get used to it. And it dose suffer a little on lean angle if you ride it HARD. But I like the torque and power of the V2K. I have rode it 2 up with bags stuffed full and pack on luggage rack and it handles it great. Ride them both if you can and if you can't, at least sit on both. Start hitting up your buddies that may have those bikes or used bike lots that may let you test ride. I know its not nice to do people like that but hey its your money and spend with a little knowledge behind it.

Also an 09 with only 1,200. What's the story behind it. Was it purchased new in 09 and ran for 1200 miles and just sit the rest of the time? What is purchased as a left over?

The V2K, did the owner put the pipes and intake to make it more powerful and dog it to death or did he just do it for the sound and look.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
148 Posts
About 1000 of those have been riding 2 up.

One thought was for the value of the bike and the other is the amount of power is a 2000 too much for a newer rider?
In my not so humble opinion............

Riding 2-up with only 2 months, or less, of experinece (and training?) is probably NOT a good thing to be doing.

I think you should STOP doing that, especially on the freeway, for about 6 months, and THEN start considering a different bike.

Both those you have listed are a BIG jump from what you have now, both size and power wise.

Even a 900 Vulcan seems to have a lot more power than my S50 (800).

The next logical step after an 800 is something like 1100-1500......unless maybe you will be doing a LOT of long distance touring or pulling a trailer.

I personally don't think that 95% of the riders out there really need, or get any particular advantage from anything bigger than 1500 cc's.

Many will probably disagree. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,219 Posts
Riding 2-up with only 2 months, or less, of experinece (and training?) is probably NOT a good thing to be doing.
I did not pick up on that. Yeah, not a good idea. But each is to their own.

Both those you have listed are a BIG jump from what you have now, both size and power wise.
Even though I said "There is no such thing as too much power..." I did not mean it to sound like I thought it was a good idea, but just saying it is possible for a new rider. Looking back I jumped from a 650 nighthawk to a 1500 classic after about the same time period. Did I hurt myself or wipe it out? no I did not, BUT did it slow me down on learning to ride in general? YES.

Even a 900 Vulcan seems to have a lot more power than my S50 (800).

The next logical step after an 800 is something like 1100-1500......unless maybe you will be doing a LOT of long distance touring or pulling a trailer.

I personally don't think that 95% of the riders out there really need, or get any particular advantage from anything bigger than 1500 cc's.

Many will probably disagree. :D
Personally I feel you can skip those sized bike if you spend A LOT more time on the zook. Do I really benefit from having 2053 cc's. Yes in the level of bragging rights and "my bikes bigger than your bike" but as for riding, no. But that extra power and torque makes it fun. I went from the 1500 classic to a 1600 Meanie and not talking bad about the meanie but I wish I kept the 1500.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Thanks for the input -- this is exactly what I am looking for - honest opinions. I did take the safety course and have proceeded cautiously (at least I thought so) in expanding the distances I have ridden. It gives me more to ponder and consider -- again thanks for the input
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,029 Posts
The VN2K is a great two-up bike, especially if you and the SO are larger folk. The torque makes short work of any hills even fully laden.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
As you can see, I no longer ride a Kawasaki. But if I had the options you have, I'd be riding a V2K now, not a Vic. I love the Vic, but I lust after the V2K.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,670 Posts
lets be honest here, the HP ratings of any cruiser including the V2K, is dismal when compared to engine size, most 600cc sport bikes will out HP the largest cruiser, coupled with the heavy weight, the power to weight ratio in the cruiser genre sucks.

The question that should be posed is "rider experience", not engine size. Power is controlled by the twist of the wrist and the brains between the ears, regardless of the size of the bike.

Since the OP has already purchased a bigger bike, the point is now moot, but others who are considering upgrading generally have the same questions.

I have had much larger sport touring bikes (1250cc in-line 4's) than the ones i currently ride, and i can honestly say, there ain't nothing i can not do now, that i could do then except for top speed and sheer acceleration. I just get to do it now in more comfort.

There seems to be the thought that bigger is better, not always the case. Overweight larger bikes tend to have around the same "HP to weight ratio" as smaller V twins. Larger motors definitely have the advantage in the torque department granted, but for the most part it comes down to personal preference.

Its what ever floats your boat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,620 Posts
lets be honest here, the HP ratings of any cruiser including the V2K, is dismal when compared to engine size, most 600cc sport bikes will out HP the largest cruiser, coupled with the heavy weight, the power to weight ratio in the cruiser genre sucks.

The question that should be posed is "rider experience", not engine size. Power is controlled by the twist of the wrist and the brains between the ears, regardless of the size of the bike.

Since the OP has already purchased a bigger bike, the point is now mute, but others who are considering upgrading generally have the same questions.

I have had much larger sport touring bikes (1250cc in-line 4's) than the ones i currently ride, and i can honestly say, there ain't nothing i can not do now, that i could do then except for top speed and sheer acceleration. I just get to do it now in more comfort.

There seems to be the thought that bigger is better, not always the case. Overweight larger bikes tend to have around the same "HP to weight ratio" as smaller V twins. Larger motors definitely have the advantage in the torque department granted, but for the most part it comes down to personal preference.

Its what ever floats your boat.
You got it. In this day and age of technology, displacement doesn't tell much at all.

Ducatti also makes a 900 class bike (it's just shy of 1,000cc's). It's a V-Twin as well. Only it cranks out more horsepower than a V2K and makes about 70% as much torque. (That's MORE horsepower, and 70 percent as much torque, and less than 50% the displacement!) The Rotax motor in those Can Am spyders is also a V-Twin with triple digit horsepower and near-triple digit torque numbers.

Now that's not Kawasaki's 900 but you get the point, displacement doesn't say much anymore. In the 1960's when all engines were basically the same design with shared parts and the same technology? Yes, the more displacement, the more power. Today? Absolutely not.

The comfort and rideability factor is different too. There is so much more that makes a bike comfortable than it's displacement. The 900, for example, is a very big bike in terms of the actual bikes size, and it's fairly heavy, making it a really comfortable interstate bike. (If you can get past the high RPM's, but that's more of an 'in your head' issue than anything, it just sounds too fast and that bothers some people. There really isn't much vibration until 80 or so and many of us don't cruise at 80+ all the time.) It's engine is small, but that's about it.

It's not without it's downsides, but, it's downsides aren't there because it lacks displacement, it's just features it's missing and quirks it has. That's with every bike though.

My wife started on a 750cc Honda but there are camps out there that say that's too big. A former teacher of mine just got his very first bike... a Harley Davidson Ultra-Classic electra glide.

It's just a state of mind. If you can flat foot it, be confident, and be sensible (take it slow, stay off the throttle) you can start out on anything. A bike you have trouble getting off the sidestand, can't flat foot, or has a seating position that is a challenge for you is a poor choice for sure, but that again has nothing to do with the volume of the engines combustion chamber! I absolutely could not ride my friends 250cc Ninja. Even later, after riding a while, I couldn't ride it. I had to (barely able to) turn it around and take it back to the parking lot after getting it on a 25 mile per hour road. Too much for me. Why? I have super long legs and I was CRAMPED on this bike. I struggled the shift and the rear brake was unusable. I was so cramped in my arms and shoulders... I just couldn't ride it. But I've hopped right on 1700+cc motorcycles and ridden them. The difference is fit! That is SO much more important than engine size for a new rider!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
You got it. In this day and age of technology, displacement doesn't tell much at all.

Ducatti also makes a 900 class bike (it's just shy of 1,000cc's). It's a V-Twin as well. Only it cranks out more horsepower than a V2K and makes about 70% as much torque. (That's MORE horsepower, and 70 percent as much torque, and less than 50% the displacement!) The Rotax motor in those Can Am spyders is also a V-Twin with triple digit horsepower and near-triple digit torque numbers.

Now that's not Kawasaki's 900 but you get the point, displacement doesn't say much anymore. In the 1960's when all engines were basically the same design with shared parts and the same technology? Yes, the more displacement, the more power. Today? Absolutely not.

The comfort and rideability factor is different too. There is so much more that makes a bike comfortable than it's displacement. The 900, for example, is a very big bike in terms of the actual bikes size, and it's fairly heavy, making it a really comfortable interstate bike. (If you can get past the high RPM's, but that's more of an 'in your head' issue than anything, it just sounds too fast and that bothers some people. There really isn't much vibration until 80 or so and many of us don't cruise at 80+ all the time.) It's engine is small, but that's about it.

It's not without it's downsides, but, it's downsides aren't there because it lacks displacement, it's just features it's missing and quirks it has. That's with every bike though.

My wife started on a 750cc Honda but there are camps out there that say that's too big. A former teacher of mine just got his very first bike... a Harley Davidson Ultra-Classic electra glide.

It's just a state of mind. If you can flat foot it, be confident, and be sensible (take it slow, stay off the throttle) you can start out on anything. A bike you have trouble getting off the sidestand, can't flat foot, or has a seating position that is a challenge for you is a poor choice for sure, but that again has nothing to do with the volume of the engines combustion chamber! I absolutely could not ride my friends 250cc Ninja. Even later, after riding a while, I couldn't ride it. I had to (barely able to) turn it around and take it back to the parking lot after getting it on a 25 mile per hour road. Too much for me. Why? I have super long legs and I was CRAMPED on this bike. I struggled the shift and the rear brake was unusable. I was so cramped in my arms and shoulders... I just couldn't ride it. But I've hopped right on 1700+cc motorcycles and ridden them. The difference is fit! That is SO much more important than engine size for a new rider!
Romans thats what I have really like about my Vulcan 900 Classic. I can flat foot it easily with no problem. It's made the learning curve for me much easier. I don't know if I would have a problem with something like a Ninja 250. I had no problem at all with the Honda Nighthawk 250 I rode in the MSF Course. I dont have very long legs. Im kind of tall, 5'11". But with a short inseam, 30". I keep looking for a demo day somewhere so I can try out some more different kinds of bikes to get a feel for them. Sport, larger cruisers, all that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
483 Posts
I was intimidated by the size of the V2K from reading all the reviews before i purchased it but went ahead and did it anyway, the first time i rode it in the parking lot i was surprised at how easy she was to ride,within a month it didnt seem like a big bike at all (im 6-5 so needed the size), only time i was reminded it was a big big was when i came into a curve to fast, leaning to low and scraped the footrests, had to muscle it a bit to avoid going into a ditch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
483 Posts
You got it. In this day and age of technology, displacement doesn't tell much at all.

Ducatti also makes a 900 class bike (it's just shy of 1,000cc's). It's a V-Twin as well. Only it cranks out more horsepower than a V2K and makes about 70% as much torque. (That's MORE horsepower, and 70 percent as much torque, and less than 50% the displacement!) The Rotax motor in those Can Am spyders is also a V-Twin with triple digit horsepower and near-triple digit torque numbers.

Now that's not Kawasaki's 900 but you get the point, displacement doesn't say much anymore. In the 1960's when all engines were basically the same design with shared parts and the same technology? Yes, the more displacement, the more power. Today? Absolutely not.

The comfort and rideability factor is different too. There is so much more that makes a bike comfortable than it's displacement. The 900, for example, is a very big bike in terms of the actual bikes size, and it's fairly heavy, making it a really comfortable interstate bike. (If you can get past the high RPM's, but that's more of an 'in your head' issue than anything, it just sounds too fast and that bothers some people. There really isn't much vibration until 80 or so and many of us don't cruise at 80+ all the time.) It's engine is small, but that's about it.

It's not without it's downsides, but, it's downsides aren't there because it lacks displacement, it's just features it's missing and quirks it has. That's with every bike though.

My wife started on a 750cc Honda but there are camps out there that say that's too big. A former teacher of mine just got his very first bike... a Harley Davidson Ultra-Classic electra glide.

It's just a state of mind. If you can flat foot it, be confident, and be sensible (take it slow, stay off the throttle) you can start out on anything. A bike you have trouble getting off the sidestand, can't flat foot, or has a seating position that is a challenge for you is a poor choice for sure, but that again has nothing to do with the volume of the engines combustion chamber! I absolutely could not ride my friends 250cc Ninja. Even later, after riding a while, I couldn't ride it. I had to (barely able to) turn it around and take it back to the parking lot after getting it on a 25 mile per hour road. Too much for me. Why? I have super long legs and I was CRAMPED on this bike. I struggled the shift and the rear brake was unusable. I was so cramped in my arms and shoulders... I just couldn't ride it. But I've hopped right on 1700+cc motorcycles and ridden them. The difference is fit! That is SO much more important than engine size for a new rider!
Thats what I say, you can go down on a 250cc rebel just as easily as you can on a v2k, so why not bypass the little throwaway learner bikes that everyone puts on craigslist after a month of riding and get a full size bike. In not saying get a v2k or hayabusa but see nothing wrong with a begginer getting a 900 vulcan or 1200 vstar so they can grow into it. As for the OP, its awesome you gained the skill and confidence to ride a passenger but Ive been riding almost 20 years and just last summer started taking a passenger, so i admire your bravado and have fun with the new bike. Is it physcilly close in size to a v2k, im a tal guy too and need the legroom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Len, i jumped fron a 2004 800 Volusia to a 2008 1600 Nomad. Actually a dream to Ride, more balanced than my Volusia, creature comforts, the Ride is awesome. Be aware the C50(VOLUSIA) weighs right at 530Lbs. The Nomad is quoted at 830 to 870 lbs. I'll gaurantee you'll notice this little difference. At 6'3" the seat and leg height would be perfect. The 1700 line, will squash you and your Rider together, espically if you are large people. Get on the 1700, two up and try it. The VN2000 is a blowed up and powerful Ride everything about it is Kool, but big! Right at 1000 lbs or a little over. Hell I even pulled a Pod trailer with my Volusia, excellent two up and Towing, but it Rode like Crap. This 800 Volusia, was of the Intruder name, and it could run with the Big Dogs, but it was not as enjoyable, get out and go the distance Ride. Good Pickins!!!!!
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top