TOPIC:

I used to buy bikes from insurance salvage auctions. Kawasaki frames in case of front impact were straight (forks/rims bent, ), Suzuki frames were bent.

Suzuki made a LOT of really crappy frames. They had to recall GSXR bikes and modify the frames because they were prone to break in half need the neck (see 1st image below). Talk about something that would make for a bad day! Of course their forks also have problems and are basically junk because they also tend to break. I'm always amazed to see folks put Suzuki forks on KZ's. I guess they work well until/unless they have a catastrophic failure (see 2nd & 3rd images below). Ed

Well, as far as KZ vs GS frames is concern, the GS's were the superior handling bikes for the most part through the early years. The KZ650, which morphed into the 750, was the exception, being that they handled on par with a GS. The large KZ's though couldn't compare up until the '81 model, and even at that, many people though the GS was still better.

That's frightening.
Steve

That stunter guy was a darwin award winner in training. You can not blame the OEM that speced the fork, doubly so if someone did a swap from one bike to the next.

Working on my neighbor's Aprilla I didn't like the way the forks were pressed into the axle bosses. Kinda flimsy to me. Also the fact the fork tubes are low to the ground where dirt and rocks can hit them. The wrap around fender is a turn off too. Bulbous and ugly. The forks look great and the brakes are state of the art. The weak link is at the axle.
Steve

Nessism wrote: Well, as far as KZ vs GS frames is concern, the GS's were the superior handling bikes for the most part through the early years. The KZ650, which morphed into the 750, was the exception, being that they handled on par with a GS. The large KZ's though couldn't compare up until the '81 model, and even at that, many people though the GS was still better.

Shhhhh; don't want to sound like an alarmist, but this guy knows what he is talking about. Just had an 81 gs1000, and previously owned an 81 kz1000J (not to mention the other kz1000s I've had/have) there's no comparison, even the gs750 frames are more substantial than the 1 liter kaw. Rock solid bikes too; with the Z1 copied/stolen/inspired engine design

That's back when they were still using good old steel tubing, I believe the frame problems started when they switched over to the alloy exoskeletal type frames. Ed

I plan on copying the Suzy frame bracing or do this
Steve

If we are talking about the late 70's Suzuki's then it is widely acknowledged that Suzuki were the first Japanese manufacturer to get the idea that the steering head and swingarm needed to be held together with some sort of rigidity. The GS750 was the bike that set things rolling and the GS1000 that came out later followed the trend. Kawasaki didn't get with the game until 1981 with the models that then gave them such success in superbike racing.

In the intervening 35 years or so there have no doubt been all sorts of ups and downs for most manufacturers at various times, so there's no way to generalize about manufacturer A, versus manufacturer B over that period of time.

Much is said about the handling of the older big Kawasaki's, but I think the negatives are greatly exaggerated, these bikes were not designed to be the R1 of their day, more for track days, than road use. Can you go too fast and fall off, or have a scare, you certainly can (that's true of any bike, if you don't know its or your limits), but when the bikes are used for their intended purpose, riding on the road at speeds that are sensible, given other traffic and respect for your own safety, they still ride very well. With modern tires, and everything set and maintained as it should be, I'm quite surprised how capable they still are. I still find my self passing plenty of other people on the road without pushing too hard and wanting to go faster, than most are travelling, on their cruiser style bikes. For a comparison find a 1970's model car and try and drive that in modern road conditions keeping pace with traffic etc. then in most cases, you will really find what bad handling and poor performance feels like.

British bikes were always lauded for their handling, compared to the Japanese impostors. My 73 Triumph Tiger has expensive Hagon rear shocks and does handle very nicely it almost steers just by you thinking where you want to go. It probably could go around a twisty track faster than my KZ1000 in the right hands, but again riding on the road with the amount in hand that I consider a safe balance between excitement and safety, I'm not sure I could say there's any major difference.

I'm with ya on the "handling of the time thing" the 68 camaro and my wife's galaxie are perfect examples of that. And those have had upgraded shocks, geometry etc and now are perfectly acceptable.

Exaggerated claims of ill handling kawasakis? absolutely considering I have seen some reviews of bikes (including the H2) applauding the handling and brakes. Even the H1/H2 laud the importance of tight swingarm bearings, good shocks and tires and properly setup forks being key to good handling. Unless you push hard in the corners (and I mean hard) you won't find the limits of the frame. Even with minimum bracing you should be fine dragging knees and all that crap

My 67 Pontiac Le Mans had wide track, 326 engine and super turbomatic 2 speed transmission. That car handled well, good pick up and hauled anything I wanted it to. I'd rather have it than my daughter's 04 Malibu. I should have kept that car too.
Steve