Congrats!!! 

Pics or shens!


Also, don't put a Vance pipe on it...


Inspect the belt inside and out.  They don't require regular maintenance and last a long time, but they also can break without warning.
Many a Bueller has had to make a road-side belt swap.  If it looks dry rot, has cracks, or the "teeth" are chewed up a bit, play it safe and replace it.

Mine is as far as I can tell factory and with 26k or so on a 10 year old bike it looks fine.  It looks like its well used, but there's no real signs of damage.  I expect it to go at least another 10k.

How many miles on that Blast?  What year?

@Watcher: Belt looked fine, I inspected it for excessive wear/dry rot before i took it out for the test ride. So hopefully that wont be an issue. Also, no plans for an exhaust upgrade lol. Only thing that I'm planning on is upgrading the spark plugs for better combustion. Anything beyond that will have to be my girlfriend's decision.

Bike is an 06. has about 10.5K miles. Less miles than my GS, and one year newer lol.

Pic of the bike:

I'd treat that header ASAP, it looks rusted as hell.

The rest looks great!  Good deal.

Quote from: Watcher on November 19, 2016, 11:37:35 AM
I'd treat that header ASAP, it looks rusted as hell.

The rest looks great!  Good deal.

It looks worse in the picture than it actually is lol. I might sand it down and paint the exhaust at some point though, just to spruce it up.

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention about the Buell: The shifter is positioned much too high. Like, my foot would need to be like 3 times as thick to be able to shift this thing normally. Currently, I have to lift my foot off the peg and kick upward to move the shifter. Easy fix (take off shifter, reposition, tighten back up) , but a strange thing nonetheless.

Wonder if a Harleyphile previous owner (or the dealer!) didn't adjust it that way to fit those super fat H-D riding boots under it.

My thoughts exactly.

Or they don't know to point their toe down to "pick up" the shifter...

Quote from: Watcher on November 21, 2016, 12:07:27 PM
My thoughts exactly.

Or they don't know to point their toe down to "pick up" the shifter...

All of which indicative of attitudes at H-D that led to the demise of Buell.

H-D really had no idea how to market an additional brand in an adjacent vertical to their successful lineup. But we see this all the time with American companies, especially in the automotive industry. They seem to never get this right. Ever.

Quote from: mr72 on November 21, 2016, 12:24:38 PM

Quote from: Watcher on November 21, 2016, 12:07:27 PM
My thoughts exactly.

Or they don't know to point their toe down to "pick up" the shifter...

All of which indicative of attitudes at H-D that led to the demise of Buell.

H-D really had no idea how to market an additional brand in an adjacent vertical to their successful lineup. But we see this all the time with American companies, especially in the automotive industry. They seem to never get this right. Ever.

It seems to me that H-D is more of a lifestyle brand than they really are a motorcycle company. Generally, they sell big, heavy cruisers to middle aged guys who want to feel like a badass. I feel like they're selling the idea of their product moreso than the product itself. H-D is a "form over function" kind of company. A lot of H-D riders don't care if their bike handles well or has a smooth ride, or anything like that. By and large they care about how cool their bike makes them feel. There's nothing really wrong with that, I guess. They genuinely love riding their bikes and that's really what's most important I think. But, it isn't shocking to me that H-D would fail to effectively manage a brand like Buell. Buell's background is racing, where function is much more important than form. Just my take.

That said, I don't know that this phenomenon is unique to american companies. Toyota did the same thing to Scion.

Quote from: qcbaker on November 21, 2016, 12:51:19 PM
It seems to me that H-D is more of a lifestyle brand than they really are a motorcycle company. Generally, they sell big, heavy cruisers to middle aged guys who want to feel like a badass.

I think you are absolutely right in a lot of cases. But I wonder of the following is really that true:

QuoteA lot of H-D riders don't care if their bike handles well or has a smooth ride, or anything like that. By and large they care about how cool their bike makes them feel.

I actually don't find this to be the case with the H-D owners I have talked to. This may very well be true with H-D owners who don't really ride (like my next-door neighbor). My own anecdotal experience talking to and reading about the dedicated H-D riders, they do seem to truly appreciate the functionality and quality of Harleys. There certainly are plenty of the tall-handlebar chopper guys who clearly are much more into image than performance, but for a lot of the guys I have talked to, they just say nothing is as comfortable, natural and simple for them to ride, and easy to fit into a daily riding lifestyle. Some are even converts from higher-tech/more-functional standard street bikes and adventure type bikes.

I think it's quite similar to the Jeep thing. I have a Jeep Wrangler and I've found the Jeep community has a similar dichotomy. Maddening sometimes.

Quote
That said, I don't know that this phenomenon is unique to american companies. Toyota did the same thing to Scion.

Hmm. I'm not sure it was really the same thing. Scion just didn't sell as well as they needed it to. There was not enough differentiation from Toyota's core product. But Toyota succeeded wildly with Lexus. It just needs a bigger brand differentiation to make it work.

I think the whole Harley lifestyle sans performance is 100% true.  To the point where their ECMs are programmed to misfire to keep that HD sound.
To the point they REMOVED balancing shafts from upcoming engine designs because customers complained it was too smooth.
Why does my XB12SS have essentially the same engine as a Harley Sportster but it's smoother, makes about 30 more horses, and has about twice the torque?
Why did it take them this damn long to hop on the bandwagon and make a 750/500cc bike to fit the learner crowd (but they're still $8000 bikes)?
It IS a lifestyle.
With the resurgence of Indian and Victory stealing customers they need to up their game if they want to stay competitive.  Victory is making nicer machines for the same money, and Indian is a classic name and iconic style reborn and is taking many HD riders over.  It's probably the only reason we saw small bikes from HD.  Get them started young and keep them...

And if you need ANY proof that it was HD that killed off Buell, Buell had already developed the Rotax 1125 engine and was moving away from HD supply lines when they got hung, despite claims from HD that Buell wouldn't have been able to be independent because of how reliant they were on HD for parts, Buell was dissolved only 2 years after HD purchased all the assets (2 years is a short time to decide it's a financial draw rather than a profit.  What, they couldn't see the recession this whole time they were still purchasing the company?  How short-sighted are they?  I hope the economic projections guy also got fired), and HD also owned MVAgusta at the time and decided to SELL them.

HD didn't even try to sell Buell and instead just destroyed them, they barely marketed Buell while owning them, they basically thought Buells were toy bikes and that when the riders "grew up" they'd get a Harley anyway, so why would they waste the money on all these trade-ins?

HD killed Buell.  Bottom line.

Sorry for the double post but I wanted some separation.

I went on a 9/11 memorial ride with a local VFW, 97% HD.
One of the creased, white haired, grizzley lead riders was on a Yamaha Star650.
I went up to him and joked, said I was glad I wasn't alone in not riding a Harley.
His response as best as I can remember?

"Military families are very deep rooted in tradition, many of these kids ride HD because that's what their daddy rode.  A lot of people here even have heirloom bikes.
When I got out everyone was buying Harley's without even looking at anything else, that's just what you did."

I don't remember the details of what got him on a Yamaha but he did comment on it being cheaper, lighter, smoother, and he didn't think a huge engine was necessary and liked his little 650 just fine for hopping from place to place in town.

Harley has the corner on a market that's quickly fading.  If they can't attract new riders they are going to bite the bullet.
Even in cruisers, kids ride little 250s and Honda Rebels as first bikes and form relationships.  The Honda Rebel turns into a Honda Shadow, guys that age out of an R6 get a Star, GSXR>Boulevard.

If HD can at least cut the cost they'll stir the pot.  I can't believe how much money they charge for some of the bikes they offer, especially compared to imports, and it's not like their quality levels are through the roof.
Parts are expensive, service is expensive, the bikes are EXPENSIVE!
HD is a proud American company, but they're pig headed in a lot of ways.  They've become so huge they refused to innovate.
I'm glad to see them moving along with the Street series. Maybe if they can lower the price in ways other than cutting cost, for example how they put shaZam! brakes on them, they can start selling decent machines for decent money.
As is for a bike that size you're better off with a Star or the new Rebel...

Quote from: mr72 on November 21, 2016, 01:05:49 PM
I actually don't find this to be the case with the H-D owners I have talked to. This may very well be true with H-D owners who don't really ride (like my next-door neighbor). My own anecdotal experience talking to and reading about the dedicated H-D riders, they do seem to truly appreciate the functionality and quality of Harleys. There certainly are plenty of the tall-handlebar chopper guys who clearly are much more into image than performance, but for a lot of the guys I have talked to, they just say nothing is as comfortable, natural and simple for them to ride, and easy to fit into a daily riding lifestyle. Some are even converts from higher-tech/more-functional standard street bikes and adventure type bikes.

I think it's quite similar to the Jeep thing. I have a Jeep Wrangler and I've found the Jeep community has a similar dichotomy. Maddening sometimes.

They might say that, but its definitely not the truth. H-D intentionally introduces imperfections into their bikes because that's what their customers (diehard harley guys included) want. H-D does this becayse their customers don't "the best bike for their money", they want a "Harley-Davidson". Watcher explained this pretty well (emphasis mine):

Quote from: Watcher on November 21, 2016, 01:15:14 PM
I think the whole Harley lifestyle sans performance is 100% true.  To the point where their ECMs are programmed to misfire to keep that HD sound.
To the point they REMOVED balancing shafts from upcoming engine designs because customers complained it was too smooth.
Why does my XB12SS have essentially the same engine as a Harley Sportster but it's smoother, makes about 30 more horses, and has about twice the torque?
Why did it take them this damn long to hop on the bandwagon and make a 750/500cc bike to fit the learner crowd (but they're still $8000 bikes)?
It IS a lifestyle.

Quote

Quote
That said, I don't know that this phenomenon is unique to american companies. Toyota did the same thing to Scion.

Hmm. I'm not sure it was really the same thing. Scion just didn't sell as well as they needed it to. There was not enough differentiation from Toyota's core product. But Toyota succeeded wildly with Lexus. It just needs a bigger brand differentiation to make it work.

Scions didn't sell as well because Toyota failed to manage the brand well. It wasn't really the same thing but its similar enough to be relevant, I think.

Quote from: qcbaker on November 21, 2016, 02:13:35 PM
They might say that, but its definitely not the truth. H-D intentionally introduces imperfections into their bikes because that's what their customers (diehard harley guys included) want. H-D does this becayse their customers don't "the best bike for their money", they want a "Harley-Davidson". Watcher explained this pretty well (emphasis mine):

Well, whether H-D is introducing "imperfections" is a matter of opinion. It's "features" to satisfy the demands of the market. Indeed, new buyers will be attracted to these old-school behaviors to make them feel like they are riding a Harley, but I think die-hard Harley riders will also like those things because it feels comfortable and familiar.

Just like I don't want an electric motorcycle. I don't care how much more torque it makes or how reliable it is or any of that. I prefer the imperfections of my 25-year-old gasoline bike. And if I buy a new one, I'll be more likely to buy one that feels familiar, like another sub-400lb twin-cylinder air-cooled standard bike.

Truthfully I think other cruiser manufacturers are doing the same thing, aping Harley-Davidson to make a bike that has a tactile feel similar to a H-D to attract buyers who would otherwise choose a Harley. It should be no surprise that many Japanese cruisers are narrow-angle V-twins in the 600-1200cc range. My dad's Honda makes power very much like a Harley, sounds like a Harley, vibrates like a Harley...

Quote
Scions didn't sell as well because Toyota failed to manage the brand well. It wasn't really the same thing but its similar enough to be relevant, I think.

Well, I disagree. And it's hardly similar. Toyota didn't have an institutional bias against the style of cars with the Scion brand.

Quote from: mr72 on November 21, 2016, 03:21:10 PM
Well, whether H-D is introducing "imperfections" is a matter of opinion. It's "features" to satisfy the demands of the market. Indeed, new buyers will be attracted to these old-school behaviors to make them feel like they are riding a Harley, but I think die-hard Harley riders will also like those things because it feels comfortable and familiar.

Whether or not these imperfections make the bike attractive is a matter of opinion. I have no doubt that a lot of riders love that their bike shakes a bunch and has that misfiring rumble in the exhaust. Whether or not they are actually imperfections is not a matter of option. A misfiring, unbalanced engine is not a perfect engine.

Quote
Just like I don't want an electric motorcycle. I don't care how much more torque it makes or how reliable it is or any of that. I prefer the imperfections of my 25-year-old gasoline bike. And if I buy a new one, I'll be more likely to buy one that feels familiar, like another sub-400lb twin-cylinder air-cooled standard bike.

I'm not trying to imply that its wrong for riders to like an imperfect bike. Stuff like that is the "soul" of the bike, if that's how you like to think of things. Those things are so subjective. All I'm saying is that by intentionally introducing such imperfections, H-D is showing that making the "best" bike they can is taking a backseat to making the bike their customers actually want to buy. There's nothing really wrong with that, I would expect a company to do what makes them the most money.

Quote
Truthfully I think other cruiser manufacturers are doing the same thing, aping Harley-Davidson to make a bike that has a tactile feel similar to a H-D to attract buyers who would otherwise choose a Harley. It should be no surprise that many Japanese cruisers are narrow-angle V-twins in the 600-1200cc range. My dad's Honda makes power very much like a Harley, sounds like a Harley, vibrates like a Harley...

I don't doubt that other manufacturers are trying to make bikes similar to Harleys in order to get Harley customers in their corner, but I haven't heard of them intentionally introducing imperfections to do so. It's possible that they're doing it too, but I haven't heard of it.

Quote
Well, I disagree. And it's hardly similar. Toyota didn't have an institutional bias against the style of cars with the Scion brand.

Toyota's brand image is unobtrusive, reliable, appliance cars. Scion's brand image is sporty/quirky "anything but boring" cars (xB, FR-S, iQ, etc). You can make an argument that Scion's products were in opposition of Toyota's main brand image. Its not as harsh of a difference as Harley/Buell but I think its similar enough to at least be able to draw a legitimate comparison. Then again, like you said, Toyota doesn't seem to have this problem with Lexus, so who knows.



Boy this thread has drifted pretty far from the original topic lol.

double post.

Quote from: mr72 on November 22, 2016, 09:11:23 AM
potayto, potahto.

Making the thing do what customers want to buy is not the same as intentionally introducing "imperfections". A Ducati 90-degree V-twin in a Harley would miss the mark, violate the formula they need, etc. As would an electric Harley. Just because you don't prefer these particular "imperfections" doesn't mean they are worse than what you do prefer. You prefer other imperfections, I am sure. I mean, a motorcycle is a very imperfect vehicle to begin with. Those scooters with two wheels in the front, or even a Can-Am Spyder, are probably much better "motorcycles" but wouldn't they also be more perfect if they were, you know, a car?

I think intentionally making an engine misfire and intentionally unbalancing it because your customers like it is the right decision financially. I'm not faulting H-D for making the bikes their customers want. Doesn't mean misfires and shaking at idle aren't imperfections. A "perfect" cruiser is as comfortable as possible. Shaking all the time and being ridiculously (and in my opinion obnoxiously) loud isn't comfortable, so its an imperfection. But bikes are allowed to be imperfect. Liking those imperfections is fine, I'm not faulting H-D for making the bikes their customers want to buy, or faulting their customers for liking those bikes. My point was that by catering to customers who want an imperfect bike, they are showing that they are more concerned with preserving the image of what a Harley is, which is what their customers care about, rather than the bike itself.

As for my preferences? If I could buy a electric motorcycle that has perfectly linear power delivery, is as comfortable to sit on as a a Goldwing, has the acceleration, handling, and aesthetics of a sportbike, and has amazing off-road capabilities, I totally would. But wanting a bike that is perfect in all ways is ridiculous. This is a game of compromise.

Quote
The point is, there is intentional boundaries on any design for any product no matter what it is, and to market the product you have to conform it to the buyer's expectation even if it doesn't result in a better product.

That is exactly my point.

Quote
I owned a Miata for 15 years, and that's a great example where Mazda deviated very slightly from the formula for a few years and sales dropped and the traditional Miata fans complained and kept their old cars. I currently own a 2015 Jeep Wrangler, which is another prime example of an automaker doing a good job of knowing what customers truly want and sticking to it even when better technology is available... I mean, the suspension design of my Jeep was originally perfected on horse-drawn wagons.

I don't know enough about Jeeps to really comment on the suspension, but ff Jeep is intentionally compromising the off-road capabilities of the Wrangler to keep their customers happy, I don't fault them. But it's the same thing as Harley intentionally making their engines produce less power in the name of exhaust notes. Introducing an imperfection because the image of the vehicle is more important than the vehicle itself.

Quote
That's the definition of the "best" bike they can make. It would be pointless to make one different ("better") if nobody wants to buy it.

I don't mean to suggest Harley should go "Screw our customers, lets make a better bike even if they hate it." They should totally keep making the bikes their customers want, that's how they make their money.

Quote
Buyers already have the alternative to go buy more refined, modern, sporty, better performing, etc. etc. motorcycles from Japanese and European manufacturers. It would be a fool's errand for Harley-Davidson to go outside their core competency and build something that attempts to compete with Honda/Kawasaki/Suzuki/Yamaha or Ducati or BMW or KTM... wait a minute, that's exactly what they did with Buell! No wonder it didn't work. This is kind of business, marketing and product management 101. By the way this is what I do for a living. It doesn't help that Harley-Davidson didn't only not have the competency or understanding of the market to produce a competitive sports bike, but also company officials openly disdain the entire market segment.

No argument there.

Quote
They are intentionally introducing features that appeal to the Harley Davidson buyer, which you interpret as "imperfections". The signature vibration of a single-pin crank, 45-degree V-twin is part of the appeal.

If you can find some record of a different manufacturer removing balancing shafts to intentionally make their engine shake more, I'll totally agree with you. Like I said, its totally possible other companies are doing this to compete with H-D. I just haven't heard of it.

Quote
Again I would disagree with this and I guarantee you Toyota's product managers would be upset to hear that this is what buyers think.

There's a reason the "beige camry" is the go-to "boring car" when making a joke. If Toyota isn't aware that the population at large sees Toyotas as reliable appliance cars, then they're seriously out of touch. I own/love a corolla, but I am under no illusions that it is anything but a "get me from point A to point B with no complaints" machine. I have my bike as my "fun" vehicle. Although, I plan on upgrading to a 2015+ WRX at some point. And then my DD will also be a fun vehicle lol.

Quote
But what actually happened is that Scions were regarded as "cheap" cars, and they kind of had no choice. The problem is Toyota's demographic are generally older than they would like, and they were having a hard time attracting new/young car buyers to the brand. Two or three decades ago Toyota was comparably much less expensive than it is today, which easily attracted younger buyers. Now those young buyers are old, and they are buying their second, third, etc. Toyotas and they can spend a lot more on them so Toyota has packed in features and comfort and performance and all that and made the vehicles much more expensive so young buyers were buying Kias and Hyundais and Mazdas instead.

Scion was their effort at creating a car aimed at these younger buyers but they wound up necessarily being much cheaper and it turns out two things happened: one, they didn't compete well with other cheaper cars and two, they didn't successfully target younger buyers. They wound up just targeting the less-expensive-car buyer. But the reality is they need to sell hundreds of thousands a year of any car they make to keep it in production, and Scion was not doing it. So they rebranded the models they wanted to keep back to Toyota and killed the rest, essentially ceding the younger market to the likes of Kia and Fiat.

You're spot on about Toyota buyers being older on average. But that's precisely my point. Those people buy Toyotas because they believe Toyotas are fuel efficient, reliable cars that will get you to work every day. Not because they remember how fun the AE86 Corolla was to drive. There's a reason they stopped making the Supra and the Celica. There's a reason the Corolla XRS sold terribly. Not because they're bad cars. But because Toyota buyers on average don't a fun, sporty car. They want a boring car that will get them where they need to go and not break the bank on gas and maintenance.

You should re-watch ads for the Scion xB if you think Toyota marketed Scion as a "cheap alternative" type of brand. They were targeting younger buyers for sure, but not by advertising that the cars were inexpensive. They highlighted that the cars were quirky and different.

Quote
Yep! Fun times!

But actually scooters are an appropriate comparison. Many motorcycle companies also make scooters and I suspect the same dynamic is at play as the Toyota/Scion thing.

But the Harley/Buell thing is just about getting too far afield of your core competency as a company. Buells may be decent sport bikes, I don't know. But it'd be a serious uphill battle for them to really compete under H-D ownership. They'd be way better off on their own, but I am guessing they lacked the sales volume or dealer network to handle it financially. It's just really tough to start a new company in the midst of mature competition especially when it's something so complicated as a motor vehicle. It's easiest if you pick a really narrow niche (Royal Enfield, etc.).

I dont think motos vs scooters is really the same as the Toyota/Scion thing. I think the venn diagram of scooter buyers vs traditional motorcycle buyers has a pretty small amount of overlap. They're different demographics entirely I think.

You're spot on about Buell there though.

Quote
BTW this brand dilution thing is why Ducati has created "Scrambler by Ducati", but it's a super narrow niche so it may do well without causing people to think Ducs are cheap.

Anyway, all of this to say, these factors depressed the value of used Buell Blasts and likely resulted in you getting what is probably a very good motorcycle for a screamin' bargain.

Well, other manufacturers are also now trying to make scramblers so we'll have to wait and see how well Ducati does in that segment.

But yes, whatever the reasons, I did get the Blast for a good deal lol. KBB on that year is ~$1850 (I got mine for $1650). Comparable bikes (other 500cc sport-standards) are easily a couple hundred dollars more. 2006 versions of the GS500F and Ninja EX500 both easily can fetch above $2K.

Quote from: mr72 on November 22, 2016, 09:11:23 AM
But the Harley/Buell thing is just about getting too far afield of your core competency as a company. Buells may be decent sport bikes, I don't know. But it'd be a serious uphill battle for them to really compete under H-D ownership. They'd be way better off on their own, but I am guessing they lacked the sales volume or dealer network to handle it financially. It's just really tough to start a new company in the midst of mature competition especially when it's something so complicated as a motor vehicle. It's easiest if you pick a really narrow niche (Royal Enfield, etc.).

EBR (Erik Buell Racing) started up in 2009, shortly after the demise of Buell at the hands of HD.  First he was making race only bikes with backing from privateers, but in 2015 went public with street legal versions of their race bikes.  They just revealed their 2017 concept for a naked, and they're on a rise.
It took him a few years but they are climbing up.  Right now EBR dealers are piggybacking on the Euro dealerships (KTM, Duc, Aprillia, etc), but who's to say how it'll be in 10 years from now?

While HD dealerships maybe wasn't the best place to be to compete with the sportbike market, a good marketing strategy was never really applied.  There's still people who've never even heard of Buell, but he's been making his own bikes since the 80s.
Even the more obscure manufacturers like KTM, MVAgusta, and RoyalEnfield are getting to be pretty well known these days.  While I'm sure you'd attract attention from everyone riding a Brutale or Duke around I think the people that also ride would at least recognize the name.  Riding my Buell around "everyone" flags me down and asks "What the hell is that?"
"It's a Buell"
"A what?"
"A Buell.  Basically it's a Harley engine in a sport-bike."
"Is it fast?"
"Hell yes!"

Every so often you get someone that recognizes it, or at least recognizes the name, but it seems like 9/10 of those people either know someone with one, owned one, or were going to buy one at some point.


If your name is all but fallen into obscurity it wasn't marketed sufficiently.  Erik handled the R&D, HD was supposed to handle the marketing.  HD dropped the line to "focus on the Harley Davidson name".  Enough said.

Quote from: qcbaker on November 22, 2016, 10:35:00 AM

You're spot on about Toyota buyers being older on average. But that's precisely my point. Those people buy Toyotas because they believe Toyotas are fuel efficient, reliable cars that will get you to work every day.

Nope. It's because they bought a Toyota a decade ago because it was cheap, and it worked great and lasted forever and ran perfectly from day #1 etc. and they are so impressed with the quality and reliability that they are now loyal Toyota buyers. By the time anyone is 35-40 years old in the USA, they have likely already developed a brand loyalty to a particular car brand or a small number of car brands. The problem is Toyota has a limited way to connect with a first-time car buyer because their cars currently are too expensive. The 18-25 year old car buyer, in as much as they can buy a new car, are buying Fiats and Kias. And sometimes Ford Fiestas or Mazda2s. Bully for Ford and Mazda, they have beat Toyota at reaching out to younger buyers who will likely develop new brand loyalties and later on buy a more expensive Ford or Mazda.

Quote
Not because they remember how fun the AE86 Corolla was to drive.

That's because they don't. Nobody noticed an AE86 was fun to drive until they were already 20 years old and Toyota had long since abandoned RWD cars or anything that would rev to 8K rpms. That was an experiment Toyota did at the heyday of the economy-car boom that, from a marketing perspective, flopped. They also had an MR2 at the time, if you recall, and it was a seriously wicked little car to drive. But that also went the way of the dodo for the same reason. These cars were market flops in Toyota terms.

Quote
There's a reason they stopped making the Supra and the Celica. There's a reason the Corolla XRS sold terribly. Not because they're bad cars. But because Toyota buyers on average don't a fun, sporty car. They want a boring car that will get them where they need to go and not break the bank on gas and maintenance.

That's again totally untrue. It has nothing to do with "Toyota buyers". It's because the size of the market for these types of cars in total dollars (and therefore total number of cars) is too small for Toyota to be successful. If Toyota had a business structure that could support keeping a model in the market that only sold 5-20K units a year then we'd still have Supras, MR2s, AE86-derivatives... but they can't. If the car sells only 20,000 units, they kill it. OTOH Mazda has had the MX-5/Miata in the lineup now for 27 years and they have had sales dip into the sub 10K range some years and as high as 50K other years, and they have the stomach for that kind of market. It's because the Miata is largely Mazda's branding icon, and the Camry is Toyota's branding icon. Mazda would not sell 3s and 6s if they killed the Miata because the allure of a company who is dedicated to fun cars would go away. And if Toyota killed the Camry it would kill Toyota because it's the gold standard of reliability, quality and longevity.

Toyota is simply not tooled as a company to build any model of car that cannot sell 100Ks a year globally. Mazda, Fiat, most European companies, etc., do not have the same economies of scale that dictate a minimum demand to make it worth it.

Quote
You should re-watch ads for the Scion xB if you think Toyota marketed Scion as a "cheap alternative" type of brand. They were targeting younger buyers for sure, but not by advertising that the cars were inexpensive. They highlighted that the cars were quirky and different.

Oh, I didn't say they MARKETED the cars as cheap alternatives. They were just PERCEIVED as a cheap alternative mostly because they were actually cheaper.

This is just like how Honda marketed the Element as this go-anywhere adventure type vehicle compatible with young, active lifestyles, with every ad featuring twentysomething rock climbers, mountain bikers and hikers, parked near a lake or a mountain doing things we think are cool and adventuresome. But who actually bought them more frequently were middle-aged dog owners who loved the tough interiors and didn't have a need for back seat passengers to be able to actually let themselves out of the car. And they sold in about 20% the target numbers for Honda so they killed it. Great cars! I owned one! But it's just a mismatch between the product's intended market and who actually winds up buying it.

Alas I think this is related to the Buell Blast thing. Basically Buell didn't like beginners buying Buells, and Harley-Davidson didn't like anyone buying sport bikes. So the Blast was killed because they didn't want Buell to become associated with beginner motorcycles, and Harley killed Buell because they didn't want to participate in that market segment which is seen as competing with cruisers rather than expanding their audience.

Quote
Well, other manufacturers are also now trying to make scramblers so we'll have to wait and see how well Ducati does in that segment.

My point is Ducati created a whole new BRAND for that style of motorcycle in order to avoid the brand association of Ducati = $8K scramblers in the mind of buyers. Kind of like Yamaha and "Bolt". Or Toyota and Lexus.

Quote
But yes, whatever the reasons, I did get the Blast for a good deal lol. KBB on that year is ~$1850 (I got mine for $1650). Comparable bikes (other 500cc sport-standards) are easily a couple hundred dollars more. 2006 versions of the GS500F and Ninja EX500 both easily can fetch above $2K.

Man. Must be a strange market there. A Buell Blast around here is a $1200 bike if it's solid and usable, and I see them all the time for $500-800. If one was listed at $1850 then it'd be on Craigslist for months until someone finally talked them down to below $1500, even if it was dead mint.

And GS500s that are complete, clean and working will get $2K here no matter the year model. Same for EX500s.