GStwin.com GS500 Message Forum

Suzuki SV650 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_SV650) or Suzuki GSR600 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_GSR600)?


(http://www.suzuki-bikes.com/images/2004SV650.jpg)


(http://www.crooks-suzuki.com/images/1221231486_GSR600_main.jpg)

Do you want a stupidly fast, fairly expensive, somewhat ugly (IMO) detuned GSXR, or an SV?

Personally I would go with the SV because I prefer the looks more.  I prefer the faired versions of both though (though the naked SV looks pretty good).  But go for whichever makes more sense for you (financially, riding style).   :cheers:

They don't sell the gsr600 in the US do they? If none of the rest of us can have one, I don't see why you should be allowed to have one! I don't really know what the better option is. The sv definitely has a reliable reputation and is a fun bike, but the gsr is probably faster. Which type of motor do you think sounds better? I imagine the handling and seating position are fairly similar.  

Oh, and for what it's worth to you, the sv looks a lot better.

Does the GSR have a credible race-tuned suspension?  If so, get it over the SV.  I've posted this about a million times on the forum already, but I'll say it again:

The only serious fault in the SV650 design is that pitiful, unadjustable, parts-bin, outdated (read: damper-rods) front suspension. 

If I had the time and the tools, I would get the SV, lift it right out of its shoes and drop it into a GSXR suspension.  It looks like maybe the GSR comes close to that (assuming they went with a reasonable suspension design).

never mind.  I just discovered that that GSR has what looks to be the same oil-damped suspension as the SV (I'm trusting Wikipedia here, so verify this for yourself).  In that case, get the SV.  The V-twin power is more fun and applicable at sane speeds around town, and after a while you will be doing a fork upgrade no matter which bike you buy!

Are you actually debating buying one of these bikes, or is this just for conversations sake? After initially reading this hours ago, I came back to out my vote on the SV. None of the current 600c inline 4 naked bikes really do anything for me. It doesn't even seem like manufactures try with them. The SV is one bike that I'd say is an exception to that, because it has a ton of character. If you want a 600 inline4, I say get the triumph, just don't tell anyone I told you to buy a european bike!

Seriously though, if you're leaning towards the gsr, the correct answer to this question is to buy a gsxr and trade in the fairings for a round headlight and some riser bars, and call it a day.

Quote from: tt_four on December 11, 2009, 12:58:08 PM
If you want a 600 inline4, I say get the triumph, just don't tell anyone I told you to buy a european bike!

Do they still make an inline 4?

Quote from: ineedanap on December 11, 2009, 03:31:35 PM


Do they still make an inline 4?

Oh, no they don't! You caught me not paying attention at all. It's a triple, but I think it probably still feels more like a 4 than the twin. You could still get a speed4 if you're not opposed to used bikes, because it would eat either of those suzukis alive, with everything aside from japanese reliability at least. It even had a fully adjustable suspension if I remember right, which I know was the topic of discussion a couple of posts back.

i voted sv, but only because we (US) don't get to try the gsr.

:)

We can get both but I cast my vote on the SV anyway. :icon_mrgreen:
Plus, chances are you could get (more) good deals on a new SV, now that the Gladys its taking its place.

Quote from: simon79 on December 12, 2009, 09:13:56 AM
We can get both but I cast my vote on the SV anyway. :icon_mrgreen:
Plus, chances are you could get (more) good deals on a new SV, now that the Gladys its taking its place.

I'm still confused about that whole situation. They said the gladius was supposed to be the SV replacement, but the SV is still on the website. Maybe they were being smart and thought they'd hold on to the SV until they knew how much people liked the gladius. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped selling the gladius before they stopped selling the SV.

They should've just dropped the SV engine into a steel trellis frame, slightly redesigned the tank, gave it a smaller tail and called it a day, but that's not what this thread is here for.

Now we are talking...  :icon_mrgreen:

SV all the way. With an SV the sky is the limit, really.

(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5382/dynorun.jpg)

That's on stock pistons, stock compression. And there are a gazillion ways to fix the so-so suspension.

SV is aluminum frame. I like that. Dont like V twin, but then again dont like the 4's either.
Whatever you do, dont get that POS gladius. It replaced the naked SV but its well acknowledged as garbage on most SV forums.
650 R ninja is parallel twin but steel frame.
SV1K ... much higher end than a 650 but not much better performance, and not made for many years. But I have a near new one for 5K.
Cool.
Buddha.

A 91 horsepower SV650 with stock pistons.  WOW.

Quote from: ineedanap on December 12, 2009, 01:25:52 PM
A 91 horsepower SV650 with stock pistons.  WOW.

Needs a little work. I am going to try to smooth out the dip in the middle with ignition timing and some more dyno time.

Wow dude ... and that is the carbed bike I presume. 185 mains ...
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on December 13, 2009, 09:36:07 AM
Wow dude ... and that is the carbed bike I presume. 185 mains ...
Cool.
Buddha.

It does have a little less power in stock form, but IMHO it is much easier to tune. I am hardly a tuning superstar, but I "get" jets and needles.

With just jets and filters and pipe you go 91 hp ... up from that 60 or so stock. That is huge. 10% is about the maximum. How did it go to 91.
Cool.
Buddha.

That does sound awesome. That speed four I had I think was listed at 97hp, but that was the manufactures number, so I'm sure the actual power to the wheel was right around your SV. That triumph was a fun bike too, I can't imagine how fun it would've been with the same peak HP out of a v-twin!

Mu haha haha haha haha ... I am building a V twin out of a parallel twin ...

I hope to eliminate the crappiness of both ...

XS650 is a 360 degree twin, not a 180 like the GS.

So the key it to make it a 270 twin ... whihc actually takes a lot of $$$ and 2 cranks and a weird ass pin etc etc ...

So I am doing a 277 twin.
Why 277 you ask ... OK Yamaha put a spline with 13 teeth in the crank. That actually holds the 2 halves together.
3 teeth shift on 13 teeth is 83 degrees. So its a 277 crank. If only the idiots at yamaha had put 12 teeth, we'd be sitting pretty wiht a 270 ...
Anyway crank looks like this ... when apart.

http://www.650motorcycles.com/XS277kit.html

Turns out the perfect spot where when 1 piston is stopped the other is flying at maximum speed for the rod length and the stroke of an XS occours at 285 degrees, so that 277 is a perfect average between 270 and 285.

Anyway, I pulled it apart with this technique

http://www.650motorcycles.com/CrankBoltNut.jpg

The thing is going to be refitted in a few days (weather permitting) and cam and ignition will be left for later, cos I am yet to invent the part that will be needed to ignite it.

Anyway I dunno if I'd like the way this "V twin" would feel, but I just wish more parallel twins would take the place of V twins ... cos with 2 heads and 2 cam shafts and 2 valve covers and 2 cam chains and what not they are just complicating things.

BTW I prefer a 180 crank like the GS has to most anythign else. Only my XS cant be a 180 without huge $$$ (100 for the pin and 50 for the second crank I have to sacrifice) but of course doing 180 may eliminate my ignition problems though.

Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on December 14, 2009, 08:31:59 AM
With just jets and filters and pipe you go 91 hp ... up from that 60 or so stock. That is huge. 10% is about the maximum. How did it go to 91.
Cool.
Buddha.

http://www.spearsenterprises.com/products.html

The man sold me a set of his cams and FCRs...  :icon_mrgreen:

Nuts, innit?

Cams, head work, FCRs w/pods, exhaust. That's it. Makes you wonder what it'll do with the 2 mm overbore pistons, which also push compression to 12.5:1, but then it'll need the bottom end strengthened. Spendy... maybe in 2011.

Nice ... $$$ is best spent on the head if you want performance ... 4 strokes ... head out weighs anything else 5 to 1.
Cool.
Buddha.

I haven't ridden an SV so can't comment on what they're like, but I quite like my GSR600.

The all black version (2008) looks horn, I don't particularly like the look of the mixed colour versions though.

Typically a GSR600 will dyno around 90hp at the wheel stock. Has enough torque at low rpm for around town for me - certainly plenty more than a GS500 at same rpm.

(http://www.drewbytes.com.au/images/gsr600/new2_640.jpg)

This GSR600 we dont get stateside I believe, of course we get the B-King which channels this bike, albeit in a much more garrish package.
Cool.
Buddha.

Actually this bike channels the B-King... and I think they both are pretty not-good looking - at least from the pics (and B-King in person).  Something about how bulky they look (especially in the front) irks me.  Maybe the GSR looks better in person... but as we don't get them here I doubt I'll ever know.  Also, anyone ever ridden the GSR 400?  Looks the same but the 400cc powerplant might be a interesting swap into a GSXR frame (for our CC restricted friends).

The Burger King looks like freaking garbage.
I actually have decided that 2008/9 was the year designers made garbage and blamed us for not buying it.

Seriously too many bikes miss the point IMHO ...

New Vmax, Bking, the fury (needs a wider rear tar), M109 - needs narrower front end, gladius ... that bike needs a crusher the versys and that other twin wiht that 650 - needs better headlight on both, and many more idiotic bikes.

In comparison the ninja 650 is really nice.

Cool.
Buddha.

While the whole thing is a bit awkward and ugly looking, the thing I really can't get are those giant exhausts sticking out the back. Some aftermarket exhausts are a bit shorter and don't look as bad, but it's still a weird concept, and I think they tried a little too hard to make it look like it had a jet engine sticking out of the back....
(http://images.passionperformance.ca/photos/0/0/4/004607_Suzuki_B-King_2008.jpg)

I'm also tired of all these naked bikes having these things sticking out of the sides of the tank and covering the frame. Whether they're actually functional as airscoops or if they're just decorative, they should stop. If they want ram air they should just put little ducts under the frame like previous generation buell XBs. You don't even know they're there unless you really look at it. Overall the hayabusa is a bit of an acquired taste, but still is designed to be functional. They should've just stuck more with that shape, even if naked bikes don't really need to be aerodynamic. It should've looked more like a naked busa with a gsxr tail. I'm not crazy about all these basketball shaped headlights they keep coming out with either.